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

[Coyote]

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.

Wearing something is not the same as posting something in a building.

 

[Faun]

No, ass hat, I don't "throw around" the word. I apply it as I apply all words: specifically, concisely, and correctly. It not only has a meaning, I am using it competely accurately when I say that the ONLY real reason you are shitting your frillies over Ms. Omar's hijab is because she is a Muslim, and you hate Muslims, and you are determined that we will by God make those damned Muslims knuckle under and be exactly like us, OR ELSE.

The religion of Islam is not a race, ass hat! It's a religion and talking about racism in that context lets me know right off the bat that your low powered intellect is as defective as hell.

Let me repeat for the hard-of-thinking (and EVERYONE is looking at you now): the moment you bring up Roy Moore, you have lost the argument, and everyone has stopped reading because they're too busy laughing at your lame-ass reaching for a justification.

A big-ass multi-ton monument in a public building is not at all comparable to a headscarf. Not the first time you strained for the comparison, not now, not ever.

I'm sorry but once more your low powered brain has let you down. The issue is religious expression while working on the public's behalf. Not whether a hijab is like a stone monument or not but as predicted you are too much a light weight to
compare concepts and thoughts and someone as dumb as you are in over your head so you can't get over how a hijab is not like a monument (totally ignoring what those two things have in common). You are dumber than a box of rocks.

And while we're on the subject of words being used correctly according to their meaning, the word "hypocrite" is not defined as "someone who says something I disagree with", nor does it mean "someone who mocks me for sounding like an ass napkin", nor does it have anything to do with what you "just know" I think on an issue, despite the fact that you just showed up here five minutes ago. If you want to make judgements about my actions, make them based on MY ACTUAL ACTIONS, not your asinine assumptions about what my actions would be.

You mean your actual actions like finding no problems with Ilhan Omar's hijab (because she must be free and empowered to express her religion) but Roy Moore doesn't get the same permission from
hypocrites like you? You are the very embodiment of a brain dead smug hypocrite!
And of course you are too dumb to see.

Where does the Bible state, though shalt erect a monument of the Ten Commandments?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Wearing something is not the same as posting something in a building.

That's right.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Where does the Bible state, though shalt erect a monument of the Ten Commandments?

Where does the Koran state thou shalt wear a hijab?

 

[Coyote]

Where does the Bible state, though shalt erect a monument of the Ten Commandments?

Where does the Koran state thou shalt wear a hijab?

Does it need to?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

Document that. A Ten Commandments display is not an exercise of religion? What is it then? A Sesame Street exercise in counting objects?
And exercising your religion is constitutionally protected....unless it is done in a public manner or place that can be construed as a government endorsement of a particular religion....like say, oh, Islam for instance!

Truly an LOL...the ACLU will sue your ass off if they discover a tiny popsickle stick cross
in an ad hoc memorial on a distant mountain side.
How is Ilhan Omar going about her business as a member of Congress in her religiously
prescribed hijab any less a public statement of religion in a secular institution?
Let's see if the ACLU files suit now (they won't, of course...they are ******* hypocrites and cowards).

 

[Faun]

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.

Maybe you’ll understand this....

While Roy Moore was not allowed to display a monument of the Ten Commandments on public grounds, had he been Jewish, he would have been allowed to wear a yarmulke on public grounds.

Savvy?

 

[Coyote]

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.

Document that. A Ten Commandments display is not an exercise of religion? What is it then? A Sesame Street exercise in counting objects?
And exercising your religion is constitutionally protected....unless it is done in a public manner or place that can be construed as a government endorsement of a particular religion....like say, oh, Islam for instance!

A public building is not a private person or private space. The Constitutional protection of religious rights applies to people's rights and personal space. I have no right to exercise my religious "rights" by planting a giant statue of Herne the Hunter in the middle of the Court House.

 

[Faun]

Where does the Bible state, though shalt erect a monument of the Ten Commandments?

Where does the Koran state thou shalt wear a hijab?

Say to the believing men to lower their gazes and guard their chastity… (An-Nur: 30) And tell the believing women to lower their eyes, and guard their modesty, and that they display not their ornaments except what appears of them.(An-Nur: 31)

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Say to the believing men to lower their gazes and guard their chastity… (An-Nur: 30) And tell the believing women to lower their eyes, and guard their modesty, and that they display not their ornaments except what appears of them.(An-Nur: 31)

And where is a hijab specifically mentioned? I don't see it.

 

[Faun]

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.

Document that. A Ten Commandments display is not an exercise of religion? What is it then? A Sesame Street exercise in counting objects?
And exercising your religion is constitutionally protected....unless it is done in a public manner or place that can be construed as a government endorsement of a particular religion....like say, oh, Islam for instance!

Truly an LOL...the ACLU will sue your ass off if they discover a tiny popsickle stick cross
in an ad hoc memorial on a distant mountain side.
How is Ilhan Omar going about her business as a member of Congress in her religiously
prescribed hijab any less a public statement of religion in a secular institution?
Let's see if the ACLU files suit now (they won't, of course...they are ******* hypocrites and cowards).

Displaying it is an expression of faith. It’s not exercising one’s faith.

 

[Faun]

Say to the believing men to lower their gazes and guard their chastity… (An-Nur: 30) And tell the believing women to lower their eyes, and guard their modesty, and that they display not their ornaments except what appears of them.(An-Nur: 31)

And where is a hijab specifically mentioned? I don't see it.

Of course you don’t. You’re blind.

A hijab conceals their “ornaments,” as instructed by the Qur’an

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

A public building is not a private person or private space. The Constitutional protection of religious rights applies to people's rights and personal space. I have no right to exercise my religious "rights" by planting a giant statue of Herne the Hunter in the middle of the Court House.

Nor by wearing a Muslim prescribed head covering on the floor of Congress. Wearing robes of the Pope and his mitre
would be just as inappropriate and illegal according to the Supreme Court.
Or has the democrat controlled House now invalidated Supreme Court rulings on separation of church and state?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Of course you don’t. You’re blind.

A hijab conceals their “ornaments,” as instructed by the Qur’an

So does a burka. I don't see the Koran specifically commanding that either.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Displaying it is an expression of faith. It’s not exercising one’s faith.

That's pathetic parsing of words. The two are one in the same. Give me a fuckin' break.

 

[Faun]

Of course you don’t. You’re blind.

A hijab conceals their “ornaments,” as instructed by the Qur’an

So does a burka. I don't see the Koran specifically commanding that either.

LOLOL

So your beef is with what they cover their hair, and not the fact that they cover it according to their faith.

They can wear a scarf, if they choose, as long as they cover their hair.

 

[Faun]

Displaying it is an expression of faith. It’s not exercising one’s faith.

That's pathetic parsing of words. The two are one in the same. Give me a fuckin' break.

LOLOL

Idiot.

 

[Coyote]

A public building is not a private person or private space. The Constitutional protection of religious rights applies to people's rights and personal space. I have no right to exercise my religious "rights" by planting a giant statue of Herne the Hunter in the middle of the Court House.

Nor by wearing a Muslim prescribed head covering on the floor of Congress. Wearing robes of the Pope and his mitre
would be just as inappropriate and illegal according to the Supreme Court.
Or has the democrat controlled House now invalidated Supreme Court rulings on separation of church and state?

I seriously doubt that. The Supreme Court and our laws have always allowed for a reasonable accommodation for religious rights. This has been upheld many times.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

LOLOL

Idiot.

Great comeback. You really taught me something (you are an obnoxious know nothing).

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I seriously doubt that. The Supreme Court and our laws have always allowed for a reasonable accommodation for religious rights. This has been upheld many times.

Then let the Supreme Court decide if separation of church and state allows for someone to wear their religious vestments on the floor of Congress. And if so, how that's not tacit
endorsement of that religion.