Democrats Change 181 Year-Old Rule To Allow Ilhan Omar To Wear Hijab In The House

[Cecilie1200]

It is asshole Republicans whining about a head scarf

Nothing to do with the head scarf. It’s changing rules to accommodate people of other cultures. No other country does it except us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You say that as though it's a bad thing that we're doing something other countries don't, rather than a point of pride that we are more respectful of personal freedom than anyone else.

For someone who apparently spends a lot of time spouting about aggressive national pride, you don't seem to value the most important aspect of America.

Well maybe when you moron liberals stop attacking some of what you say American greatnesses. You guys talk out of the back of your heads. Leave the second amendment alone


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ass kitten, I'm not a liberal. Disabuse yourself of the notion that you are a conservative, or that any of the shit spewing from your facehole is conservative, and that people telling you that you're an ignorant, bigoted, meddling, nosy dimwit are doing so because they're liberals. I am so conservative I make you look like a third-grader who just saw the word in the dictionary for the first time. That's why I am espousing conservative principles like freedom of religion, minding your own business, and leaving other people the hell alone if they're not doing anything to you, and YOU are sounding like one of the idiot leftists who want to outlaw Big Gulps because they're bad for you.

I defend the Second Amendment all the time, newbie shitforbrains Klan boy. Too bad you can't say the same in regards to the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Wow. Big mouth for a little boy spewing shot out of his mouth. Come talk to this third grader to see where it gets you. Another ***** with a big mouth and no balls, and definitely no brains. You couldn’t walk a day in my shoes *****. You would piss yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I expect leftists not to be able to tell boys from girls, but I hold alleged right-wingers to a higher standard. Know a lot of guys named Cecilie, do you, Oh Great White Hope?

As for your aggression and hints at violence, I'm very sorry to hear about your tiny penis. And my balls may only be metaphorical, but they're still bigger than yours, twinkie.

 

[Faun]

Name a compelling interest for disallowing religious head ware in the House....

We live in a secular nation, not an Islamic one, and I don't understand why a member of the House, who hasn't even sat in her place for a single day yet, takes precedence over one hundred and eighty-one years of House rules.
Actually, I do....female, democrat, Muslim. Why shouldn't the system yield to this one person?

I don’t see that as a compelling interest to deny a U.S. citizen their Constitutional right to observe their religion. And it’s nothing but a rule. A rule which remains in place for all non-religious head coverings.

Are you pissed because MAGA hats will still be banned?

Recognizing for a moment that agreeing with you on something makes me throw up a little in my mouth, you're correct. When this rule was made 181 years ago, it was 1837. The Civil War hadn't happened yet, every single member of the House of Representatives was a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant male, hats were considered just a fashion accessory, and it was the height of bad manners and disrespect for a man to wear one in a building at all, let alone on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Trust me, the feeling is mutual. Regardless, I couldn't help but agree with you and even tossed you some gratitude, as painful as that was.

 

[Montrovant]

Name a compelling interest for disallowing religious head ware in the House....

We live in a secular nation, not an Islamic one, and I don't understand why a member of the House, who hasn't even sat in her place for a single day yet, takes precedence over one hundred and eighty-one years of House rules.
Actually, I do....female, democrat, Muslim. Why shouldn't the system yield to this one person?

I don’t see that as a compelling interest to deny a U.S. citizen their Constitutional right to observe their religion. And it’s nothing but a rule. A rule which remains in place for all non-religious head coverings.

Are you pissed because MAGA hats will still be banned?

Recognizing for a moment that agreeing with you on something makes me throw up a little in my mouth, you're correct. When this rule was made 181 years ago, it was 1837. The Civil War hadn't happened yet, every single member of the House of Representatives was a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant male, hats were considered just a fashion accessory, and it was the height of bad manners and disrespect for a man to wear one in a building at all, let alone on the floor of the House of Representatives.

And even there, I believe at least one of the articles on this thread's subject mentioned that the rule was controversial when passed.

 

[RealDave]

How many wear a cross lapel pin?

Covering their entire head?

Right off hand I would say none.

Religious symbols are ok on the lapel but not on the head.

What a stupid rule.

 

[elongobardi]

Nothing to do with the head scarf. It’s changing rules to accommodate people of other cultures. No other country does it except us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You say that as though it's a bad thing that we're doing something other countries don't, rather than a point of pride that we are more respectful of personal freedom than anyone else.

For someone who apparently spends a lot of time spouting about aggressive national pride, you don't seem to value the most important aspect of America.

Well maybe when you moron liberals stop attacking some of what you say American greatnesses. You guys talk out of the back of your heads. Leave the second amendment alone


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ass kitten, I'm not a liberal. Disabuse yourself of the notion that you are a conservative, or that any of the shit spewing from your facehole is conservative, and that people telling you that you're an ignorant, bigoted, meddling, nosy dimwit are doing so because they're liberals. I am so conservative I make you look like a third-grader who just saw the word in the dictionary for the first time. That's why I am espousing conservative principles like freedom of religion, minding your own business, and leaving other people the hell alone if they're not doing anything to you, and YOU are sounding like one of the idiot leftists who want to outlaw Big Gulps because they're bad for you.

I defend the Second Amendment all the time, newbie shitforbrains Klan boy. Too bad you can't say the same in regards to the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Wow. Big mouth for a little boy spewing shot out of his mouth. Come talk to this third grader to see where it gets you. Another ***** with a big mouth and no balls, and definitely no brains. You couldn’t walk a day in my shoes *****. You would piss yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But...wouldn't the gun freak be the real "*****"? So scared, has to carry a penis extension cannon on his hip...

Gun no. I use my hands. Much more fun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elongobardi]

It is asshole Republicans whining about a head scarf

Nothing to do with the head scarf. It’s changing rules to accommodate people of other cultures. No other country does it except us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You say that as though it's a bad thing that we're doing something other countries don't, rather than a point of pride that we are more respectful of personal freedom than anyone else.

For someone who apparently spends a lot of time spouting about aggressive national pride, you don't seem to value the most important aspect of America.

Well maybe when you moron liberals stop attacking some of what you say American greatnesses. You guys talk out of the back of your heads. Leave the second amendment alone


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cecilie a liberal?

This board often leaves me wondering what it's like to view the world through a prism of conservative vs liberal, in which anyone who disagrees with you on any subject must be from the 'other side'.

Thank you.

And I would like to point out, for the sake of future conversations where some leftist tries to tell me that it's okay for him to be a hypocritical partisan douche weasel because "the right doesn't call its people out, either", that I am just as happy to beat nominal right-wingers like pinatas when I think they're wrong.

I would love to see that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Well, that sure is a bit hyperbolic. I don't think it goes that far.

I haven't stated false information.

No, you made statements based on your own hallucinations.

There have already been cases where the Constition bitchslapped Sharia law. It’s not creeping in, I don’t care how delusional your paranoia makes you.

The good news is that FINALLY we are starting to *****-slap christian sharia law too.

Huh?

You were doing so well and then you went off the rails!

What does THAT mean?

 

[Correll]

As I already said this isn't a problem we need to worry about today. But in time, as Muslims gain more political power
in areas like Michigan and Minnesota, it may become a problem.
That's how the slippery slope is....incremental change until eventually you started with a chihuahua and wind up with a German Shepard.

The Constitution protects us from the nonsense you’re afraid of.

The Constitution you lefties consider an "living document". ie toilet paper.

What a pity you think the Constitution is toilet paper.

And now we have a leftie pretending to be too stupid to understand the meaning of the word "you".


ON some level, doesn't it bother you to be so pathetic?

You don’t speak for lefties, you speak only for yourself. And you called the Constitution, “toilet paper.” I always knew you hate America.

It is one thing to disagree with what I say, as I spoke for lefties.


It is another to take in another step and pretend that thought I was speaking for myself.


Specifically it is the act of lying. YOu are a liar. Nothing you say, should ever be trusted or given any credibility other than it's own internal logic. Which it generally has none.

I repeat my question. Doesn't it bother you to be so pathetic?

 

[Correll]

This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. ******* ABNORMALS and worthless, spineless Repukes are taking us down the path of destruction!....Wherr are the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE scumbags when they should be up in arms....but dont let a 66 year old cross stand on public property to memorialize our fallen war heros!

For 181 years, the U.S. House of Representatives has imposed a ban on its members wearing head coverings. With Ilhan Omar, one of the first Muslim women to be elected to Congress, set to take her oath of office in January, that rule—which would have prohibited her wearing her customary headscarves or the hijab—is slated to change.

The change was proposed jointly by Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Incoming Rules Chairman Jim McGovern and member-elect Ilhan Omar as part of a larger overhaul package.

When Omar is sworn in next year, she will become the first federal legislator to wear a religious headscarf. Her arrival will mark a number of other “firsts” as well. The Minnesota Democrat will be the first Somali-American in Congress and the first woman of color to represent her state in Washington. She’ll be joined by fellow Midwestern Democrat, Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib, as the first two Muslim women in Congress.

Hats of any kind have been banned from the House floor since 1837.

Read more at citizenfreepress.com ...

I have to say, I don't actually have a problem with it. If an Orthodox Jew were to be elected to the House, I wouldn't expect him to remove his yarmulke. There's a difference between a fashion statement and a religious requirement.

A yarmulke is religious headwear.

Allowing it would violate the rule.

Hence, the rule change.

Except it was not changed for a Jew with generations of American-ness behind him, but for a newcomer.

Dumbfuck, with the lone exception of running for president of the United States of America, a citizen with “generations of American-ness” behind them are entitled to ALL the same rights and privileges as a citizen who was naturalized.

Just admit it, you hate Muslims and it’s driving you apeshit that a Muslim is going to get to wear a hijab in Congress.

Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have. If it was, we basically wouldn't have any rules.

And good choice of the word "Privilege", because that is what we are seeing in the quest for "diversity" and "tolerance".


Some people get special treatment, with the rules being changed or just ignored for their convenience or benefit.

 

[Correll]

A yarmulke is religious headwear.

Allowing it would violate the rule.

Hence, the rule change.

Except it was not changed for a Jew with generations of American-ness behind him, but for a newcomer.

Dumbfuck, with the lone exception of running for president of the United States of America, a citizen with “generations of American-ness” behind them are entitled to ALL the same rights and privileges as a citizen who was naturalized.

Just admit it, you hate Muslims and it’s driving you apeshit that a Muslim is going to get to wear a hijab in Congress.

Still all confused about that separation of church and state thing?

Well it's obvious to us your a dot head.

Poor confused trumpanzee....

He made a point, and all you had was name calling.


That's what I'm talking about, loser.

 

[Correll]

It wasn't considered reasonable for 181 years, but now suddenly a newcomer asks and we change the rules for her.


LIke I said. We don't get to define our community anymore.


That's the point.

You know why it wasn't "considered reasonable" for 181 years? Because we didn't elect anyone who had religious requirements involving headwear in 181 years.

Like I said, WE are not part of THAT community. THEY are.

That's the point.

Haven't got a clue why you feel so threatened by this. The chambers of Congress change their operational rules all the time, on a variety of things, as it suits them. What is your major investment in "No one should ever wear a hat in the House! NEVER! Aaaaagh!!"?

Newcomers should expect to have to conform to the standards of the community they are joining.


THe other way around, is going to cause US great harm. Is already causing US great harm.

They DO have to conform to standards of the community they are joining. However, there is no world in which I would consider it reasonable to be expected to conform to the point of violating my religious beliefs, so I do not expect that from others.

And I'm sorry, but a frigging hat is doing no one any harm. You need to take a freaking breath and get a sense of perspective. The United States has always been about accommodating the personal freedoms of a variety of individuals, so long as it doesn't conflict with the rights of others. I'd be interested to have you tell me what conflict with the rights of others is involved regarded a woman's headwear. It's HER head, after all. What's it to you?

It's amusing to watch deplorable trumpanzees lose their minds over this.

It's amusing to watch you try to put on airs, when your primary debating tactic is to call people you don't like, monkeys.

"try to put on airs" Oh? And I call no one a monkey. Why do you lie so glibly?

Your sophist word games are noted and dismissed.

Sophist word games? You mean, using words according to their actual meaning in order to communicate ideas? Would those be the games you mean?

If you don't like being told that what you said is a load of shit, maybe you should put more thought into what you say.

Bodecea's style of debate IS to call people names. It seems to be all she has. What are you talking about?

 

[Correll]

This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. ******* ABNORMALS and worthless, spineless Repukes are taking us down the path of destruction!....Wherr are the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE scumbags when they should be up in arms....but dont let a 66 year old cross stand on public property to memorialize our fallen war heros!

For 181 years, the U.S. House of Representatives has imposed a ban on its members wearing head coverings. With Ilhan Omar, one of the first Muslim women to be elected to Congress, set to take her oath of office in January, that rule—which would have prohibited her wearing her customary headscarves or the hijab—is slated to change.

The change was proposed jointly by Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Incoming Rules Chairman Jim McGovern and member-elect Ilhan Omar as part of a larger overhaul package.

When Omar is sworn in next year, she will become the first federal legislator to wear a religious headscarf. Her arrival will mark a number of other “firsts” as well. The Minnesota Democrat will be the first Somali-American in Congress and the first woman of color to represent her state in Washington. She’ll be joined by fellow Midwestern Democrat, Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib, as the first two Muslim women in Congress.

Hats of any kind have been banned from the House floor since 1837.

Read more at citizenfreepress.com ...

I have to say, I don't actually have a problem with it. If an Orthodox Jew were to be elected to the House, I wouldn't expect him to remove his yarmulke. There's a difference between a fashion statement and a religious requirement.

A yarmulke is religious headwear.

Allowing it would violate the rule.

Hence, the rule change.

Except it was not changed for a Jew with generations of American-ness behind him, but for a newcomer.

Well, at least you're honest that your objection is hypocritical.

HOw it is it hypocritical to want newcomers to adopt to our ways, instead of the other way around?

 

[Montrovant]

I have to say, I don't actually have a problem with it. If an Orthodox Jew were to be elected to the House, I wouldn't expect him to remove his yarmulke. There's a difference between a fashion statement and a religious requirement.

A yarmulke is religious headwear.

Allowing it would violate the rule.

Hence, the rule change.

Except it was not changed for a Jew with generations of American-ness behind him, but for a newcomer.

Dumbfuck, with the lone exception of running for president of the United States of America, a citizen with “generations of American-ness” behind them are entitled to ALL the same rights and privileges as a citizen who was naturalized.

Just admit it, you hate Muslims and it’s driving you apeshit that a Muslim is going to get to wear a hijab in Congress.

Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have. If it was, we basically wouldn't have any rules.

And good choice of the word "Privilege", because that is what we are seeing in the quest for "diversity" and "tolerance".


Some people get special treatment, with the rules being changed or just ignored for their convenience or benefit.

I'm curious, are you also as upset or offended by the fact that the Senate changed their rules about family members on the floor to accommodate a representative (Tammy Duckworth) with a newborn she needed to breast feed?

Sen. Tammy Duckworth Can Now Breastfeed on Senate Floor Due to Rule Change

 

[OldLady]

It's amusing to watch deplorable trumpanzees lose their minds over this.

I can't believe this is still going on. I wonder if hijabs will be the next "trannies in the bathroom" topic that USMB will never tire of.

 

[Montrovant]

I have to say, I don't actually have a problem with it. If an Orthodox Jew were to be elected to the House, I wouldn't expect him to remove his yarmulke. There's a difference between a fashion statement and a religious requirement.

A yarmulke is religious headwear.

Allowing it would violate the rule.

Hence, the rule change.

Except it was not changed for a Jew with generations of American-ness behind him, but for a newcomer.

Well, at least you're honest that your objection is hypocritical.

HOw it is it hypocritical to want newcomers to adopt to our ways, instead of the other way around?

Omar has lived in the US for more than 20 years and been a citizen for 18 years. I don't know that "newcomer" is really an apt term.

 

[bodecea]

I have to say, I don't actually have a problem with it. If an Orthodox Jew were to be elected to the House, I wouldn't expect him to remove his yarmulke. There's a difference between a fashion statement and a religious requirement.

A yarmulke is religious headwear.

Allowing it would violate the rule.

Hence, the rule change.

Except it was not changed for a Jew with generations of American-ness behind him, but for a newcomer.

Well, at least you're honest that your objection is hypocritical.

HOw it is it hypocritical to want newcomers to adopt to our ways, instead of the other way around?

Newcomers? Damn those Germans who came here and brought those stupid trees for Christmas time! Why didn't they adapt to our non-christmas celebrating ways? If it was good enough for the Puritans, why wasn't it good enough for them?

 

[RealDave]

I have to say, I don't actually have a problem with it. If an Orthodox Jew were to be elected to the House, I wouldn't expect him to remove his yarmulke. There's a difference between a fashion statement and a religious requirement.

A yarmulke is religious headwear.

Allowing it would violate the rule.

Hence, the rule change.

Except it was not changed for a Jew with generations of American-ness behind him, but for a newcomer.

Dumbfuck, with the lone exception of running for president of the United States of America, a citizen with “generations of American-ness” behind them are entitled to ALL the same rights and privileges as a citizen who was naturalized.

Just admit it, you hate Muslims and it’s driving you apeshit that a Muslim is going to get to wear a hijab in Congress.

Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have. If it was, we basically wouldn't have any rules.

And good choice of the word "Privilege", because that is what we are seeing in the quest for "diversity" and "tolerance".


Some people get special treatment, with the rules being changed or just ignored for their convenience or benefit.

So we should just allow old rules to stay in effect forever. Great thinking. Sometimes it is one case that pushes reform.

 

[danielpalos]

Wearing religious garb to Congress is not about religious freedom. Nobody takes the alleged conservatives or the right wing seriously about morals.

Women should be consistent about equality; not just in the non-porn sector when heavy work is involved.

 

[Faun]

The Constitution protects us from the nonsense you’re afraid of.

The Constitution you lefties consider an "living document". ie toilet paper.

What a pity you think the Constitution is toilet paper.

And now we have a leftie pretending to be too stupid to understand the meaning of the word "you".


ON some level, doesn't it bother you to be so pathetic?

You don’t speak for lefties, you speak only for yourself. And you called the Constitution, “toilet paper.” I always knew you hate America.

It is one thing to disagree with what I say, as I spoke for lefties.


It is another to take in another step and pretend that thought I was speaking for myself.


Specifically it is the act of lying. YOu are a liar. Nothing you say, should ever be trusted or given any credibility other than it's own internal logic. Which it generally has none.

I repeat my question. Doesn't it bother you to be so pathetic?

Of course you were speaking for yourself, you don’t speak for lefties.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Name a compelling interest for disallowing religious head ware in the House....

We live in a secular nation, not an Islamic one, and I don't understand why a member of the House, who hasn't even sat in her place for a single day yet, takes precedence over one hundred and eighty-one years of House rules.
Actually, I do....female, democrat, Muslim. Why shouldn't the system yield to this one person?

I don’t see that as a compelling interest to deny a U.S. citizen their Constitutional right to observe their religion. And it’s nothing but a rule. A rule which remains in place for all non-religious head coverings.

Are you pissed because MAGA hats will still be banned?

Recognizing for a moment that agreeing with you on something makes me throw up a little in my mouth, you're correct. When this rule was made 181 years ago, it was 1837. The Civil War hadn't happened yet, every single member of the House of Representatives was a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant male, hats were considered just a fashion accessory, and it was the height of bad manners and disrespect for a man to wear one in a building at all, let alone on the floor of the House of Representatives.

And even there, I believe at least one of the articles on this thread's subject mentioned that the rule was controversial when passed.

This I don't know. But apparently, it was originally passed with the intention of differentiating our legislature from that of Great Britain's, where they apparently wear some sort of uniform that involves a hat. Not really clear on that.

Regardless, it's an insignificant rule that appears not to have mattered all that much at the time, and matters not at all now. I doubt any of the people screeching that it's "the coming end of the Republic!" even knew this rule existed five minutes before they heard that it was going to be changed.