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

[Eric Arthur Blair]

"So it wasn't comparable to a hijab....so what?" - Eric the Idiot

Roy Moore - irrelevant to this thread. Period.

More angry name calling and unsupported claims. I'd almost forgotten how absurd your posts were.

 

[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.

So you are for discriminating against certain religions?

How, precisely, did you draw that conclusion from her post? What part of "embracing all religions - no religion gets top billing" sounded like "for discriminating against certain religions" to you?

Honestly, first I'm agreeing with Faun, now I'm defending OldLady. I can't decide if it's the Christmas spirit, or if I just dropped through the looking glass.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I can at least answer your confusion at the end: he's suffering from an excess of in-breeding in his family.

Ouch! More childish name calling. It makes your posts look so good.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You know...if Roy Moore had wanted to dress like Moses and carry around his own copy of the 10 Suggestions, that would have been ok. If he had any kind of clothing with the 10 Suggestions on it, that would have been fine.

But no.

Roy Moore have a very heavy stone monument SNUCK into the State Courthouse and BOLTED to the floor in the dead of night. You find that acceptable?

Frankly no, but that's not the issue (assuming you are correctly characterizing things, which may be a stretch).
Ilhan Omar's green light to go ahead and espouse and proselytize for her religion by dint of her hijab, when no one
else could similarly do so, for 181 years, and cannot do so now, is the issue.

It amounts to a de facto federal endorsement of Islam. Another long held liberal belief, this one in our secular government, goes down the drain. The hypocrisy of the left is stunning and completely unsurprising.

Now she's "proselytizing for her religion" simply by observing its requirements? How many times were you dropped on your head as a baby, and from how high up?

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the "no hat" rule had something to do with "preventing proselytization by being seen to have beliefs", instead of just, "Hey, let's be different from those Brits". Or that the suspension for religious headwear from which she is now benefiting somehow does not also apply to anyone and everyone else who might need it.

It amounts to a recognition that there are a lot of different types of citizens in this country besides WASPs. Your insane overreaction to it amounts to bigotry. And don't even get me started on your asinine belief that dress codes and individual clothing choices have ****-all to do with government, secular or otherwise. "Secular government", pinhead, means that the laws and official policies will be separate from religion, not that the officeholders are required to.

Hypocrisy STILL doesn't mean "Doing the opposite of what I IMAGINE you think".

 

[Cecilie1200]

You know that just because they are both animals does not mean using a monkey and a giraffe in a comparison is always valid, don't you?

No. What makes you think you do?
The comparison is very valid in the context I compared the two: two things that are not similar in appearance yet very similar in another sense.

It would be like someone deciding that a monkey exhibit at the zoo should be closed because of a Yellow Fever outbreak, and you arguing that that's unfair because the giraffe exhibit isn't also being closed. Sure, giraffes don't contract or carry Yellow Fever, but giraffes and monkeys are both animals!

That's incredibly obtuse and absurd.
I think you have baffled yourself.

Made perfect sense to me. Of course, I don't have a two-digit IQ, the way you do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"So it wasn't comparable to a hijab....so what?" - Eric the Idiot

Roy Moore - irrelevant to this thread. Period.

More angry name calling and unsupported claims. I'd almost forgotten how absurd your posts were.

Really? You forgot your lame attempts to assume superiority in the space of a couple of hours?

I guess the brain damage extended to your memory.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I can at least answer your confusion at the end: he's suffering from an excess of in-breeding in his family.

Ouch! More childish name calling. It makes your posts look so good.

My indifference to your opinion could not be greater without rewriting the laws of physics.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Made perfect sense to me. Of course, I don't have a two-digit IQ, the way you do.

When I see you make a point that isn't just insulting or is perceptive I'll let you know. Otherwise I wouldn't expect
me to take your poisoned bait. I could put you on ignore but that would be letting a nasty tampered ass win.
And you don't have nearly the grasp on the issue it takes to win anything.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Made perfect sense to me. Of course, I don't have a two-digit IQ, the way you do.

LOL. Of course it makes sense.... to you.
(sorry, this was so stupid I couldn't resist responding...carry on)

 

[Cecilie1200]

Made perfect sense to me. Of course, I don't have a two-digit IQ, the way you do.

When I see you make a point that isn't just insulting or is perceptive I'll let you know. Otherwise I wouldn't expect
me to take your poisoned bait. I could put you on ignore but that would be letting a nasty tampered ass win.
And you don't have nearly the grasp on the issue it takes to win anything.

When you see anything but what you want to see, it'll probably be a miracle right up there with parting the Red Sea.

And honey, the only people here who don't think I stomped you like a vat of grapes are you and your long-lost twin, Dandy.

We're done here. The debate is over, and if my arguments didn't convince everyone that only three-toothed sheet-wearing bigots object to a simple change in the House dress code, your display of BEING a three-toothed sheet-wearing bigot finished the job.

 

[Montrovant]

You know that just because they are both animals does not mean using a monkey and a giraffe in a comparison is always valid, don't you?

No. What makes you think you do?
The comparison is very valid in the context I compared the two: two things that are not similar in appearance yet very similar in another sense.

It would be like someone deciding that a monkey exhibit at the zoo should be closed because of a Yellow Fever outbreak, and you arguing that that's unfair because the giraffe exhibit isn't also being closed. Sure, giraffes don't contract or carry Yellow Fever, but giraffes and monkeys are both animals!

That's incredibly obtuse and absurd.
I think you have baffled yourself.

The comparison is not valid for a number of reasons, most of which have been pointed out to you. One instance is a matter of religious garb, the other was a large monument displayed in a government building. One instance is being put forth in the proscribed manner to be voted on, the other involved an individual defying a federal judge's order. One instance involves one of the chambers of Congress adopting the same rule that is already in effect in the other chamber of Congress; the other involved a man going against the rulings of the courts.

You can repeat your claim that, because both the hijab and the Ten Commandments monument are religious displays, both of these incidents are the same, but that does not make it true. Being similar in one way does not make them similar in all ways, nor does being similar in one way mean the two incidents should be treated or viewed the same.

Let me put it another way: If Roy Moore had commissioned a 1:1 replica of the Christ the Redeemer statue from Rio de Janeiro and had it built on the courthouse lawn, would you consider that the same kind of situation as Ms. Omar wearing a hijab?

Personal display =/= public display.

 

[Montrovant]

You know...if Roy Moore had wanted to dress like Moses and carry around his own copy of the 10 Suggestions, that would have been ok. If he had any kind of clothing with the 10 Suggestions on it, that would have been fine.

But no.

Roy Moore have a very heavy stone monument SNUCK into the State Courthouse and BOLTED to the floor in the dead of night. You find that acceptable?

Frankly no, but that's not the issue (assuming you are correctly characterizing things, which may be a stretch).
Ilhan Omar's green light to go ahead and espouse and proselytize for her religion by dint of her hijab, when no one
else could similarly do so, for 181 years, and cannot do so now, is the issue.

It amounts to a de facto federal endorsement of Islam. Another long held liberal belief, this one in our secular government, goes down the drain. The hypocrisy of the left is stunning and completely unsurprising.

Who says no one else can wear a hijab now? First of all, I don't believe the new rule is actually in effect yet. Second, not only would the rule almost certainly allow others to wear a hijab, it would probably allow yarmulkes, turbans, or other religious headwear. So, no, it certainly does not amount "to a de facto federal endorsement of Islam." You might have a point if the rule were limited to Muslims.

Besides, when the rule was made 181 years ago, there were no women representatives, and so far as I know no Muslim representatives. Having a female Muslim in the House is a new thing, and one almost certainly not contemplated by the men who made the rule.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

When you see anything but what you want to see, it'll probably be a miracle right up there with parting the Red Sea.

And honey, the only people here who don't think I stomped you like a vat of grapes are you and your long-lost twin, Dandy.

Oh, you declared yourself the "winner". That's the mark of debate masters alright!
If sheer unsupported denial and gutter level name calling is the standard you judge yourself on I agree with you.

We're done here. The debate is over, and if my arguments didn't convince everyone that only three-toothed sheet-wearing bigots object to a simple change in the House dress code, your display of BEING a three-toothed sheet-wearing bigot finished the job.

There is no debate. A debate is an exchange of ideas and rationales supporting a point of view. There was none of that from you.

 

[bodecea]

You know...if Roy Moore had wanted to dress like Moses and carry around his own copy of the 10 Suggestions, that would have been ok. If he had any kind of clothing with the 10 Suggestions on it, that would have been fine.

But no.

Roy Moore have a very heavy stone monument SNUCK into the State Courthouse and BOLTED to the floor in the dead of night. You find that acceptable?

Frankly no, but that's not the issue (assuming you are correctly characterizing things, which may be a stretch).
Ilhan Omar's green light to go ahead and espouse and proselytize for her religion by dint of her hijab, when no one
else could similarly do so, for 181 years, and cannot do so now, is the issue.

It amounts to a de facto federal endorsement of Islam. Another long held liberal belief, this one in our secular government, goes down the drain. The hypocrisy of the left is stunning and completely unsurprising.

Who says no one else can wear a hijab now? First of all, I don't believe the new rule is actually in effect yet. Second, not only would the rule almost certainly allow others to wear a hijab, it would probably allow yarmulkes, turbans, or other religious headwear. So, no, it certainly does not amount "to a de facto federal endorsement of Islam." You might have a point if the rule were limited to Muslims.

Besides, when the rule was made 181 years ago, there were no women representatives, and so far as I know no Muslim representatives. Having a female Muslim in the House is a new thing, and one almost certainly not contemplated by the men who made the rule.

Hell, they would have had coronaries over most of these Democrat people being in the House:

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The comparison is not valid for a number of reasons, which have been pointed out to you. One instance is a matter of religious garb, the other was a large monument displayed in a government building. One instance is being put forth in the proscribed manner to be voted on, the other involved an individual defying a federal judge's order. One instance involves one of the chambers of Congress adopting the same rule that is already in effect in the other chamber of Congress; the other involved a man going against the rulings of the courts.

The rulings of the courts that found posting of the Ten Commandments to be contrary to our secular system of government? And what is the hijab if not an anti secular symbol of Islam...oh, but that's different.

No one denies Roy Moore was told not to do something and he did it anyway but that's beside the point. In fact it makes the point for me: Hijab good.....ten commandments bad.

You can repeat your claim that, because both the hijab and the Ten Commandments monument are religious displays, both of these incidents are the same, but that does not make it true. Being similar in one way does not make them similar in all ways, nor does being similar in one way mean the two incidents should be treated or viewed the same.

The ten commandments is not the same as the hijab except in the way that is relevant: Both are religious expressions
of public servants yet one is okay and one is not. Pure hypocrisy.

Let me put it another way: If Roy Moore had commissioned a 1:1 replica of the Christ the Redeemer statue from Rio de Janeiro and had it built on the courthouse lawn, would you consider that the same kind of situation as Ms. Omar wearing a hijab?

Personal display =/= public display.

No. Not at all except in the relevant way that they would both be expressions of religious beliefs of Omar and Moore. Muslin hijab is cool....the Judeo-Christian expressions of Roy Moore are not. It's a double standard.

 

[RealDave]

The comparison is not valid for a number of reasons, which have been pointed out to you. One instance is a matter of religious garb, the other was a large monument displayed in a government building. One instance is being put forth in the proscribed manner to be voted on, the other involved an individual defying a federal judge's order. One instance involves one of the chambers of Congress adopting the same rule that is already in effect in the other chamber of Congress; the other involved a man going against the rulings of the courts.

The rulings of the courts that found posting of the Ten Commandments to be contrary to our secular system of government? And what is the hijab if not an anti secular symbol of Islam...oh, but that's different.

No one denies Roy Moore was told not to do something and he did it anyway but that's beside the point. In fact it makes the point for me: Hijab good.....ten commandments bad.

You can repeat your claim that, because both the hijab and the Ten Commandments monument are religious displays, both of these incidents are the same, but that does not make it true. Being similar in one way does not make them similar in all ways, nor does being similar in one way mean the two incidents should be treated or viewed the same.

The ten commandments is not the same as the hijab except in the way that is relevant: Both are religious expressions
of public servants yet one is okay and one is not. Pure hypocrisy.

Let me put it another way: If Roy Moore had commissioned a 1:1 replica of the Christ the Redeemer statue from Rio de Janeiro and had it built on the courthouse lawn, would you consider that the same kind of situation as Ms. Omar wearing a hijab?

Personal display =/= public display.

No. Not at all except in the relevant way that they would both be expressions of religious beliefs of Omar and Moore. Muslin hijab is cool....the Judeo-Christian expressions of Roy Moore are not. It's a double standard.

Roy Moore only used it because it didn't say Thou Shalt Not Lust after Little Girls.

 

[Faun]

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.

You throw around the word "racist" here as if it has any meaning when you use it. It does not.
Let me repeat for the hard of hearing (looking back at you) that, yes, the rule changed was insignificant. But no, as long as Roy Moore (someone I have no investment in outside of this principled issue) gets removed from office for expression of his religious conviction but Ihhan Omar has doors opened for and is able to ignore long standing rules (the rules must change for her...she doesn't have to yield to them) so she can express her religious convictions, you'll remain as ignorant and biased as any back woods red neck.
And of course massively hypocritical, but that's a given for your type.

The issue over the Ten Commandments was that displaying such a monument was a display of religion — it wasn’t exercising anyone’s religion. And displaying it on public grounds promoted religion.

Whereas an individual wearing something on their head in accordance with their faith IS exercising their religion, which is Constitutionally protected.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

The comparison is not valid for a number of reasons, which have been pointed out to you. One instance is a matter of religious garb, the other was a large monument displayed in a government building. One instance is being put forth in the proscribed manner to be voted on, the other involved an individual defying a federal judge's order. One instance involves one of the chambers of Congress adopting the same rule that is already in effect in the other chamber of Congress; the other involved a man going against the rulings of the courts.

The rulings of the courts that found posting of the Ten Commandments to be contrary to our secular system of government? And what is the hijab if not an anti secular symbol of Islam...oh, but that's different.

No one denies Roy Moore was told not to do something and he did it anyway but that's beside the point. In fact it makes the point for me: Hijab good.....ten commandments bad.

You can repeat your claim that, because both the hijab and the Ten Commandments monument are religious displays, both of these incidents are the same, but that does not make it true. Being similar in one way does not make them similar in all ways, nor does being similar in one way mean the two incidents should be treated or viewed the same.

The ten commandments is not the same as the hijab except in the way that is relevant: Both are religious expressions
of public servants yet one is okay and one is not. Pure hypocrisy.

Let me put it another way: If Roy Moore had commissioned a 1:1 replica of the Christ the Redeemer statue from Rio de Janeiro and had it built on the courthouse lawn, would you consider that the same kind of situation as Ms. Omar wearing a hijab?

Personal display =/= public display.

No. Not at all except in the relevant way that they would both be expressions of religious beliefs of Omar and Moore. Muslin hijab is cool....the Judeo-Christian expressions of Roy Moore are not. It's a double standard.

Roy Moore only used it because it didn't say Thou Shalt Not Lust after Little Girls.

And you guys cry every time anyone still brings up the hag Hillary.

 

[Faun]

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.

But all religions are NOT embraced and Roy Moore was removed from office for daring to express his Christian beliefs.
So for you say that yielding to this one Muslim member of congress, when Moore is kicked to the curb, is not giving one protected religion top billing is simply idiotic babble. It's bullshit. It's nonsense.
It's stupefying in it's ignorance.

There’s your problem. You don’t know the difference between express and exercise.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You know...if Roy Moore had wanted to dress like Moses and carry around his own copy of the 10 Suggestions, that would have been ok. If he had any kind of clothing with the 10 Suggestions on it, that would have been fine.

But no.

Roy Moore have a very heavy stone monument SNUCK into the State Courthouse and BOLTED to the floor in the dead of night. You find that acceptable?

Frankly no, but that's not the issue (assuming you are correctly characterizing things, which may be a stretch).
Ilhan Omar's green light to go ahead and espouse and proselytize for her religion by dint of her hijab, when no one
else could similarly do so, for 181 years, and cannot do so now, is the issue.

It amounts to a de facto federal endorsement of Islam. Another long held liberal belief, this one in our secular government, goes down the drain. The hypocrisy of the left is stunning and completely unsurprising.

Who says no one else can wear a hijab now? First of all, I don't believe the new rule is actually in effect yet. Second, not only would the rule almost certainly allow others to wear a hijab, it would probably allow yarmulkes, turbans, or other religious headwear. So, no, it certainly does not amount "to a de facto federal endorsement of Islam." You might have a point if the rule were limited to Muslims.

Besides, when the rule was made 181 years ago, there were no women representatives, and so far as I know no Muslim representatives. Having a female Muslim in the House is a new thing, and one almost certainly not contemplated by the men who made the rule.

I believe I mentioned before that the entire House was WASP men 181 years ago, so . . .