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

[Cecilie1200]

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

You're not bright enough to recognize it if it fell on you, let alone just when you see it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Deciding which rules we want to change and who we want to accommodate and why IS a privilege that Americans have. And the Americans whose rule this is and who are actually affected by it have exercised this privilege. The only people pissed off about it are people who, noticeably, are butting into something that really doesn't concern them.

Remember what you were saying earlier about "defining our community"? The fact still applies that the two Muslim women in question are actually members of the community in question, having been duly elected to Congress, and you and I are NOT members of that community, having not even run for office. Which means THEY have far more legitimate right to have input into the rules of that community than either of us do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Ah, didn't see her post in the thread. I have her on ignore. I only saw my post and your response, and didn't realize she had also said something.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Pretty damned hypocritical, when there's not a chance in Hell we would make a similar adoption if the roles were reversed.

Also, insignificant conduct rules that affect nothing of importance to most people and are based on fashion styles and etiquette that fell out of fashion over fifty years ago are hardly "our ways" that we need to demand conformity to.

Please remember that we're talking about an article of personal dress, not animal sacrifice on the steps of the Capitol.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

I suspect that would depend on whether or not she's a Democrat.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Well, my family has been in this country since before this rule was put in place. And I still think it's ridiculous to get all worked up about this. So there's that.

 

[irosie91]

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.

Well, my family has been in this country since before this rule was put in place. And I still think it's ridiculous to get all worked up about this. So there's that.

sorta true-------but not. None of those rules should have
been changed----even the breast feeding. There are
a myriad of ways to "cover" one's head without announcing
one's religious proclivities. There are a myriad of ways to
deal with breast feeding without the distraction of having
a baby in arms. ------- "there's that...." ?? do you have
background in India? Idiom in the USA would be a resounding
SO THERE!!!!!!

 

[bodecea]

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?

Oh? And what name have I called YOU?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Excuse me, but "secular government" does not mean "require the individual people who work there to pretend to be secular". At no place in the First Amendment does it say, "Free exercise thereof in the places Eric considers appropriate". At the point that assholes like you get to tell people when, where, and how they may follow their religious beliefs, it stops being freedom of religion entirely.

No one is asking Ilhan Omar to "pretend" to be secular, so only an asshole like you would claim that. Are all her beliefs and religious ideals contained in her magic hijab? Don't be an idiot!
She is just as free as Roy Moore is to be what she wants to be...but Roy Moore doesn't have the right to display
his faith in public but now Ilhan Omar does, thanks to ******* clowns like you (not that I care particularly about Roy Moore). It's creeping shariah.

And this isn't about what I consider appropriate, since I wasn't around 181 years ago to help the House draft their rule about head covering in the House. Stop being a moron.
It's about bending rules and eliminating them in order to appease a religious minority the left is sponsoring and backing.
You claim you know what secularism is yet you are too stupid or deluded to see this point.

If you can't tell the difference between wearing a hijab on one's own person and putting up a big-ass monument in a public building, then I really don't know if I can dumb my posts down far enough for you to understand them.

Can you dumb them down enough so YOU can understand them?
There actually is NO difference in principal, but of course a smug ass like yourself can't figure that out. They are both
religious symbols but only one of them, the hijab, is deemed somehow not a problem while the ten commandments plaque is deemed an anathema to our secular nation. Exceptions for Islamic head wear (a symbol of their treatment of women as possessions okay...exceptions for statements of Christian-Judeo ethics strictly verboten!).
The old duplicitous, hypocritical leftist double standard strikes again. **** off!

She doesn't have to "conform to your principles" at all, asshat. See above re: freedom of religion. That's what it MEANS. It means she doesn't get to tell you who to be, and you don't get to tell her. To put it bluntly, mind your own damned business. You're not "yielding" to ****-all by doing so. If it's really such a damned hardship for you to allow other people to choose their own damned clothing, then I respectfully suggest that you get yourself a life.

The slippery slope is my business, moron! And if tomorrow some super Catholic wanted to wear a Pope hat and robes in the House of Representatives I don't believe for a nano second that dopes like you wouldn't have a cow over that show of public religious display in a nation where the ACLU practically parachutes in teams of lawyers to remote mountain tops to tear down small crosses that are put up in memorials.
Take your repugnant hypocrisy and shove it!

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

But you did...right?
What matters is not the rule itself, which was instituted to prevent people from wearing wigs and hats in Congress which were considered an English custom showing allegiance to the crown (US House Reverses 181-Year-Old-Rule To Appease Newly Elected Muslim) but how democrats are eager to yield and serve Muslim interests wherever possible.

No, this single incident of collusion will not cause the union to collapse but it is illustrative of how someone like Roy Moore lost his office over his religious identification while Ilhan Omar is being catered to, praised and has idiots defending her "rights" while denying and vilifying Moore for his very same wish to keep his religious identity.

We should come out and declare Islam a protected class. And by "we" I mean the leftist dolts who bow and scrape to serve them.

 

[irosie91]

Excuse me, but "secular government" does not mean "require the individual people who work there to pretend to be secular". At no place in the First Amendment does it say, "Free exercise thereof in the places Eric considers appropriate". At the point that assholes like you get to tell people when, where, and how they may follow their religious beliefs, it stops being freedom of religion entirely.

No one is asking Ilhan Omar to "pretend" to be secular, so only an asshole like you would claim that. Are all her beliefs and religious ideals contained in her magic hijab? Don't be an idiot!
She is just as free as Roy Moore is to be what she wants to be...but Roy Moore doesn't have the right to display
his faith in public but now Ilhan Omar does, thanks to ******* clowns like you (not that I care particularly about Roy Moore). It's creeping shariah.

And this isn't about what I consider appropriate, since I wasn't around 181 years ago to help the House draft their rule about head covering in the House. Stop being a moron.
It's about bending rules and eliminating them in order to appease a religious minority the left is sponsoring and backing.
You claim you know what secularism is yet you are too stupid or deluded to see this point.

If you can't tell the difference between wearing a hijab on one's own person and putting up a big-ass monument in a public building, then I really don't know if I can dumb my posts down far enough for you to understand them.

Can you dumb them down enough so YOU can understand them?
There actually is NO difference in principal, but of course a smug ass like yourself can't figure that out. They are both
religious symbols but only one of them, the hijab, is deemed somehow not a problem while the ten commandments plaque is deemed an anathema to our secular nation. Exceptions for Islamic head wear (a symbol of their treatment of women as possessions okay...exceptions for statements of Christian-Judeo ethics strictly verboten!).
The old duplicitous, hypocritical leftist double standard strikes again. **** off!

She doesn't have to "conform to your principles" at all, asshat. See above re: freedom of religion. That's what it MEANS. It means she doesn't get to tell you who to be, and you don't get to tell her. To put it bluntly, mind your own damned business. You're not "yielding" to ****-all by doing so. If it's really such a damned hardship for you to allow other people to choose their own damned clothing, then I respectfully suggest that you get yourself a life.

The slippery slope is my business, moron! And if tomorrow some super Catholic wanted to wear a Pope hat and robes in the House of Representatives I don't believe for a nano second that dopes like you wouldn't have a cow over that show of public religious display in a nation where the ACLU practically parachutes in teams of lawyers to remote mountain tops to tear down small crosses that are put up in memorials.
Take your repugnant hypocrisy and shove it!

sheeeesh -----a little too flamboyant-----but I AGREE IN
PRINCIPLE. ------a congressman should not WEAR HIS
RELIGION ON HIS HEAD-----whilst acting as a congressman
(in English that includes women) Even Sikhs can get around
their turbans when it is seemly to do so

 

[Cecilie1200]

Excuse me, but "secular government" does not mean "require the individual people who work there to pretend to be secular". At no place in the First Amendment does it say, "Free exercise thereof in the places Eric considers appropriate". At the point that assholes like you get to tell people when, where, and how they may follow their religious beliefs, it stops being freedom of religion entirely.

No one is asking Ilhan Omar to "pretend" to be secular, so only an asshole like you would claim that. Are all her beliefs and religious ideals contained in her magic hijab? Don't be an idiot!
She is just as free as Roy Moore is to be what she wants to be...but Roy Moore doesn't have the right to display
his faith in public but now Ilhan Omar does, thanks to ******* clowns like you (not that I care particularly about Roy Moore). It's creeping shariah.

No, you're asking something worse than "pretending to be secular". You're asking her to directly violate her religious practices. And for what? To conform to an utterly unimportant, obscure, and outdated rule for no reason other than to satisfy YOUR personal whims?

Here's a newsflash, Sparky. Ms. Omar is under no more obligation to explain or justify her religious beliefs and practices for your approval than anyone else is. Despite your erroneous belief that America is about being a an insular, xenophobic, sheet-wearing, redneck cousin-dater like yourself, it is ACTUALLY about individuals being able to live their own lives and follow the dictates of their own beliefs and consiences in peace, even if they have the unspeakably bad manners to be different from you.

In other words, it's none of your frigging business what the hijab means to her, because whether or not she wears doesn't affect you and is therefore NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Roy Moore has exactly the same right to display his beliefs in public that she does, which means that he can wear any religious clothing that strikes his fancy and she can't erect monuments in public buildings. I can see where the complicated difference between articles of clothing and large freestanding art constructions is still giving you some trouble.

You can whine to me about "creeping shariah" when we're talking about something you're being forced to do beyond minding your own business.

And this isn't about what I consider appropriate, since I wasn't around 181 years ago to help the House draft their rule about head covering in the House. Stop being a moron.
It's about bending rules and eliminating them in order to appease a religious minority the left is sponsoring and backing.
You claim you know what secularism is yet you are too stupid or deluded to see this point.

This is about what you consider appropriate because you're around NOW when the House is drafting a change to the rules, and you're pissing and moaning about the deep importance of maintaining a rule that affects nothing and the existence of which you weren't even aware of until five minutes ago.

I'd tell you to stop being a moron, but demanding the impossible from you would just be cruel.

It's about changing rules to accommodate the needs of the members, which is something every organization does on a regular basis, INCLUDING the House. Also, I really doubt this whole "Minority groups should be utterly ignored and forced to conform! Majority or silence!" attitude ever crosses your mind when YOU are a member of the minority group in question.

You claim you know what making a point is, yet you are too stupid and deluded to actually make one./QUOTE]

If you can't tell the difference between wearing a hijab on one's own person and putting up a big-ass monument in a public building, then I really don't know if I can dumb my posts down far enough for you to understand them.

Can you dumb them down enough so YOU can understand them?
There actually is NO difference in principal, but of course a smug ass like yourself can't figure that out. They are both
religious symbols but only one of them, the hijab, is deemed somehow not a problem while the ten commandments plaque is deemed an anathema to our secular nation. Exceptions for Islamic head wear (a symbol of their treatment of women as possessions okay...exceptions for statements of Christian-Judeo ethics strictly verboten!).
The old duplicitous, hypocritical leftist double standard strikes again. **** off!/QUOTE]

There's a huge difference in principle (amazing how Mr. American Pride can't even use his own language correctly) and in fact between a piece of clothing worn on an individual's body and a monument permanently standing in and changing a public building. There is no number of times that you are going to insist that they're exactly the same that is going to make you sound any less like a mouthbreathing dumbass. One is a small, completely personal choice affecting only the wearer; the other is A BIG ******* STATUE AFFECTING A PUBLIC BUILDING. Individual body - building. Ponder the difference.

Once again, your ignorant, redneck bigotry is not conservatism, and I'm not a leftist for recognizing that you're a three-toothed moronic hick who tries to cloak his racism is the flag. I remain far more conservative than you are by the same margin I remain vastly more intelligent than you are.

She doesn't have to "conform to your principles" at all, asshat. See above re: freedom of religion. That's what it MEANS. It means she doesn't get to tell you who to be, and you don't get to tell her. To put it bluntly, mind your own damned business. You're not "yielding" to ****-all by doing so. If it's really such a damned hardship for you to allow other people to choose their own damned clothing, then I respectfully suggest that you get yourself a life.

The slippery slope is my business, moron! And if tomorrow some super Catholic wanted to wear a Pope hat and robes in the House of Representatives I don't believe for a nano second that dopes like you wouldn't have a cow over that show of public religious display in a nation where the ACLU practically parachutes in teams of lawyers to remote mountain tops to tear down small crosses that are put up in memorials.
Take your repugnant hypocrisy and shove it!

There's no slippery slope here, Jethro. She's a duly-elected member of the House of Representatives; you aren't. She actually has a say in the rules of conduct of the House; you don't. Her wardrobe is her business, not yours.

Also, if your goal here is to convince someone other than yourself that you have enough brain wattage to power a light bulb, you might consider crafting analogies that actually make some sort of sense. "OMG, we can't change the rules because some Catholic might decide to dress like the Pope!" I mean, really? Do I actually need to dignify this as if it were a serious argument by pointing out the difference between the common religious observance of wearing a hijab and the not-even-remotely-ever-required-in-the-history-of-mankind "religious observance" of dressing like the Pope when you aren't the Pope?

Well, yeah, I probably do. A backwoods cousin-dater who can't tell the difference between personal clothing and monuments probably isn't going to be able the tell the difference between real religious behavior and wild hypotheticals.

Take your condemnations of hypocrisy based on my imagined reaction to a "religious observance" you made up which would actually be sacrilegious and blasphemous to anyone who is actually Catholic and **** off yourself, Jethro . . . instead of ******* your cousin, as backwater hick redneck Klan jackwads like yourself are wont to do.

 

[OldLady]

Excuse me, but "secular government" does not mean "require the individual people who work there to pretend to be secular". At no place in the First Amendment does it say, "Free exercise thereof in the places Eric considers appropriate". At the point that assholes like you get to tell people when, where, and how they may follow their religious beliefs, it stops being freedom of religion entirely.

No one is asking Ilhan Omar to "pretend" to be secular, so only an asshole like you would claim that. Are all her beliefs and religious ideals contained in her magic hijab? Don't be an idiot!
She is just as free as Roy Moore is to be what she wants to be...but Roy Moore doesn't have the right to display
his faith in public but now Ilhan Omar does, thanks to ******* clowns like you (not that I care particularly about Roy Moore). It's creeping shariah.

And this isn't about what I consider appropriate, since I wasn't around 181 years ago to help the House draft their rule about head covering in the House. Stop being a moron.
It's about bending rules and eliminating them in order to appease a religious minority the left is sponsoring and backing.
You claim you know what secularism is yet you are too stupid or deluded to see this point.

If you can't tell the difference between wearing a hijab on one's own person and putting up a big-ass monument in a public building, then I really don't know if I can dumb my posts down far enough for you to understand them.

Can you dumb them down enough so YOU can understand them?
There actually is NO difference in principal, but of course a smug ass like yourself can't figure that out. They are both
religious symbols but only one of them, the hijab, is deemed somehow not a problem while the ten commandments plaque is deemed an anathema to our secular nation. Exceptions for Islamic head wear (a symbol of their treatment of women as possessions okay...exceptions for statements of Christian-Judeo ethics strictly verboten!).
The old duplicitous, hypocritical leftist double standard strikes again. **** off!

She doesn't have to "conform to your principles" at all, asshat. See above re: freedom of religion. That's what it MEANS. It means she doesn't get to tell you who to be, and you don't get to tell her. To put it bluntly, mind your own damned business. You're not "yielding" to ****-all by doing so. If it's really such a damned hardship for you to allow other people to choose their own damned clothing, then I respectfully suggest that you get yourself a life.

The slippery slope is my business, moron! And if tomorrow some super Catholic wanted to wear a Pope hat and robes in the House of Representatives I don't believe for a nano second that dopes like you wouldn't have a cow over that show of public religious display in a nation where the ACLU practically parachutes in teams of lawyers to remote mountain tops to tear down small crosses that are put up in memorials.
Take your repugnant hypocrisy and shove it!

It's about bending rules and eliminating them in order to appease a religious minority the left is sponsoring and backing.
I think it's more about embracing all religions instead of just one. That's the point--no religion gets top billing. Allowing the hijab simply allows a Muslim woman to comfortably perform her job in public, in the halls of Congress the way she would anywhere else.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

But you did...right?
What matters is not the rule itself, which was instituted to prevent people from wearing wigs and hats in Congress which were considered an English custom showing allegiance to the crown (US House Reverses 181-Year-Old-Rule To Appease Newly Elected Muslim) but how democrats are eager to yield and serve Muslim interests wherever possible.

No, this single incident of collusion will not cause the union to collapse but it is illustrative of how someone like Roy Moore lost his office over his religious identification while Ilhan Omar is being catered to, praised and has idiots defending her "rights" while denying and vilifying Moore for his very same wish to keep his religious identity.

We should come out and declare Islam a protected class. And by "we" I mean the leftist dolts who bow and scrape to serve them.

No, like everyone else, I had no clue there was ever any such conduct rule. Unlike the blindly racist doofuses here (and I AM looking at you), I can see how that indicates the complete insignificance of the rule and whether or not it's changed.

I realize that you can't look past "Muslim!!! Aaaaahhh!! Must attack!!!" but the Democrats for once are not doing anything particularly out-of-the-ordinary. Rules change packages when a new majority party takes power are not at all uncommon, nor are they common to just Democrats. If I remember correctly, when the Republicans took control of the House under Newt Gingrich in the 90s, they proposed a rules change package that included abolishing three committees and 25 sub-committees and cutting the number of committee staffers. The Democrats are proposing changes to the dress code and allowing a new mother to nurse her infant.

I'm not saying Gingrich was wrong; I'm saying that, by comparison, this isn't exactly radical, let alone a threat to the future of the Republic.

Furthermore, the Republican Party elected the first woman to the House of Representatives in 1917. Do you suppose they might have proposed a few rules changes to accommodate HER into a place that had always previously been occupied by males?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Excuse me, but "secular government" does not mean "require the individual people who work there to pretend to be secular". At no place in the First Amendment does it say, "Free exercise thereof in the places Eric considers appropriate". At the point that assholes like you get to tell people when, where, and how they may follow their religious beliefs, it stops being freedom of religion entirely.

No one is asking Ilhan Omar to "pretend" to be secular, so only an asshole like you would claim that. Are all her beliefs and religious ideals contained in her magic hijab? Don't be an idiot!
She is just as free as Roy Moore is to be what she wants to be...but Roy Moore doesn't have the right to display
his faith in public but now Ilhan Omar does, thanks to ******* clowns like you (not that I care particularly about Roy Moore). It's creeping shariah.

And this isn't about what I consider appropriate, since I wasn't around 181 years ago to help the House draft their rule about head covering in the House. Stop being a moron.
It's about bending rules and eliminating them in order to appease a religious minority the left is sponsoring and backing.
You claim you know what secularism is yet you are too stupid or deluded to see this point.

If you can't tell the difference between wearing a hijab on one's own person and putting up a big-ass monument in a public building, then I really don't know if I can dumb my posts down far enough for you to understand them.

Can you dumb them down enough so YOU can understand them?
There actually is NO difference in principal, but of course a smug ass like yourself can't figure that out. They are both
religious symbols but only one of them, the hijab, is deemed somehow not a problem while the ten commandments plaque is deemed an anathema to our secular nation. Exceptions for Islamic head wear (a symbol of their treatment of women as possessions okay...exceptions for statements of Christian-Judeo ethics strictly verboten!).
The old duplicitous, hypocritical leftist double standard strikes again. **** off!

She doesn't have to "conform to your principles" at all, asshat. See above re: freedom of religion. That's what it MEANS. It means she doesn't get to tell you who to be, and you don't get to tell her. To put it bluntly, mind your own damned business. You're not "yielding" to ****-all by doing so. If it's really such a damned hardship for you to allow other people to choose their own damned clothing, then I respectfully suggest that you get yourself a life.

The slippery slope is my business, moron! And if tomorrow some super Catholic wanted to wear a Pope hat and robes in the House of Representatives I don't believe for a nano second that dopes like you wouldn't have a cow over that show of public religious display in a nation where the ACLU practically parachutes in teams of lawyers to remote mountain tops to tear down small crosses that are put up in memorials.
Take your repugnant hypocrisy and shove it!

It's about bending rules and eliminating them in order to appease a religious minority the left is sponsoring and backing.
I think it's more about embracing all religions instead of just one. That's the point--no religion gets top billing. Allowing the hijab simply allows a Muslim woman to comfortably perform her job in public, in the halls of Congress the way she would anywhere else.

I wouldn't have put it as "embracing", so much as "letting people peacefully live their lives without interfering".

For the life of me, I will never understand the compulsion so many people feel today to get emotionally invested and outraged about things that have nothing to do with them.

 

[DandyDonovan]

But I thought you dumb liberals wanted a separation of Church and State?

This is the sort of trap you find yourself in when you are a mindless idiot who supports stupidity.

Who gives a shit if this woman wears a hijjab or not?

 

[Cecilie1200]

But I thought you dumb liberals wanted a separation of Church and State?

This is the sort of trap you find yourself in when you are a mindless idiot who supports stupidity.

Who gives a shit if this woman wears a hijjab or not?

Yeah, uh, I have no idea who and what you're responding to. That's why the message board has a "Quote" and a "Reply" function.

Also, the people objecting to her wearing the hijab on the House floor aren't liberals. They aren't especially conservative, but they're at least nominally right-wing.

 

[DandyDonovan]

But I thought you dumb liberals wanted a separation of Church and State?

This is the sort of trap you find yourself in when you are a mindless idiot who supports stupidity.

Who gives a shit if this woman wears a hijjab or not?

Yeah, uh, I have no idea who and what you're responding to. That's why the message board has a "Quote" and a "Reply" function.

Also, the people objecting to her wearing the hijab on the House floor aren't liberals. They aren't especially conservative, but they're at least nominally right-wing.

I was speaking to liberals in general, hence not quoting anyone in particular. But now I'm talking to you specifically.

You're obviously an idiot. My point was simple , if you ACTUALLY believed in a separation of church and state you would tell this woman "I"m sorry, but you must keep your religion out of Congress, PERIOD" but liberals never actually believe in anything, that's why they get caught by their own lack of principles so often.

Myself, I don't care if a Christian prays in his Congressional office, so having principles I also can't care if a Muslim wears a hijjab.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But I thought you dumb liberals wanted a separation of Church and State?

This is the sort of trap you find yourself in when you are a mindless idiot who supports stupidity.

Who gives a shit if this woman wears a hijjab or not?

Yeah, uh, I have no idea who and what you're responding to. That's why the message board has a "Quote" and a "Reply" function.

Also, the people objecting to her wearing the hijab on the House floor aren't liberals. They aren't especially conservative, but they're at least nominally right-wing.

I was speaking to liberals in general, hence not quoting anyone in particular. But now I'm talking to you specifically.

You're obviously an idiot. My point was simple , if you ACTUALLY believed in a separation of church and state you would tell this woman "I"m sorry, but you must keep your religion out of Congress, PERIOD" but liberals never actually believe in anything, that's why they get caught by their own lack of principles so often.

Myself, I don't care if a Christian prays in his Congressional office, so having principles I also can't care if a Muslim wears a hijjab.

You were speaking to liberals in general about something they aren't actually espousing. Now you're speaking to me specifically about something I haven't, and don't, espouse.

All things considered, noob, I don't think you're qualified to be calling anyone else an idiot.

Myself, I actually read threads and take the time to figure out who's who and what they're saying before I barge in and start arrogantly making pronouncements and criticizing total strangers for things I ASSUME they say and believe.

I guess that's why you're an asshole and I'm not.

 

[DandyDonovan]

But I thought you dumb liberals wanted a separation of Church and State?

This is the sort of trap you find yourself in when you are a mindless idiot who supports stupidity.

Who gives a shit if this woman wears a hijjab or not?

Yeah, uh, I have no idea who and what you're responding to. That's why the message board has a "Quote" and a "Reply" function.

Also, the people objecting to her wearing the hijab on the House floor aren't liberals. They aren't especially conservative, but they're at least nominally right-wing.

I was speaking to liberals in general, hence not quoting anyone in particular. But now I'm talking to you specifically.

You're obviously an idiot. My point was simple , if you ACTUALLY believed in a separation of church and state you would tell this woman "I"m sorry, but you must keep your religion out of Congress, PERIOD" but liberals never actually believe in anything, that's why they get caught by their own lack of principles so often.

Myself, I don't care if a Christian prays in his Congressional office, so having principles I also can't care if a Muslim wears a hijjab.

You were speaking to liberals in general about something they aren't actually espousing. Now you're speaking to me specifically about something I haven't, and don't, espouse.

All things considered, noob, I don't think you're qualified to be calling anyone else an idiot.

Myself, I actually read threads and take the time to figure out who's who and what they're saying before I barge in and start arrogantly making pronouncements and criticizing total strangers for things I ASSUME they say and believe.

I guess that's why you're an asshole and I'm not.

I AM an asshole, but this doesn't change the fact that you are apparently not literate enough to understand my posts.

Do liberals scream "separation of church and state" at every occasion?" Yes, well apparently unless it's a Muslim who wants to wear her hijjab while doing her government job, then suddenly she has that right..........