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

[Coyote]

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.

Does it have to?

 

[Coyote]

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.

What one wears on their person is not a legislative endorsement of a religion. I can't think of any cases where that alone made a case for endorsement in a court of law. On the other hand I can think of many cases where the legal right to wear articles of clothing as a requirement of their faith have been won.

 

[bodecea]

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.

"Reasonable accommodation"...when the deplorables are losing their minds over this?

 

[Coyote]

Why is it so important that a person not be allowed to where any emblems or requirements of their faith on their person's? We are a diverse society, with a variety of faith's - why is it such a big deal?

So some want to change a century old law initiated when men wore hats. Suddenly that law has become sacred to some. How dare it be changed?

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Does that mean you believe that religious jewelry should be banned in Congress?

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

Idiot.

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

If you didn’t learn something from that, it’s because you’re an idiot.

express to show, manifest, or reveal

exercise something done or performed as a means of practice
​

The two words have different meanings, even if you are too dumb to comprehend the distinction.

 

[Faun]

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.

If this were an issue for the Supreme Court, they would have reviewed years ago since the Senate has the same rule the House is about to make.

 

[Olde Europe]

Why is it so important that a person not be allowed to where any emblems or requirements of their faith on their person's? We are a diverse society, with a variety of faith's - why is it such a big deal?

So some want to change a century old law initiated when men wore hats. Suddenly that law has become sacred to some. How dare it be changed?

It's not a law, just a Congressional rule.

Why that rule became "sacred" is a good question. I'd try my answer with alt-right, White-identity politics: insecure, disempowered, on-the-decline Whites (and White males in particular), have invested their self-esteem, their very identity in the symbols and procedures of White rule. Whatever changes are being made to accommodate "them", undermines that identification, and thus threatens their personality, their position in the world, their self-worth. Hence they fight tooth and nail to prevent it.

Another theory is one of "shared psychosis", briefly explained here. It explains that those closely associated with a mentally sick person, suffering from manifest personality disorders (think Trump), adopt the symptoms of the sick person. Hence Trump's raging xenophobia (as a symptom of an insecure personality) is being transferred to his most ardent acolytes.

Or some such. No matter what, it's manifestly unhealthy. Just look at how they are making of this rule-change a slippery slope which leads right into a U.S. of A. under sharia despotism.

 

[Faun]

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?

The current rules have been in place in the House for the last 181 years. The current rules allow a Muslim Congresswoman to wear a hijab on public grounds. She can wear it in the Oval Office if she were to visit. Anywhere in the White House. She can wear it in the Capitol building in meeting rooms, the rotunda, pretty much everywhere except for the House Gallery.

And those are the rules that have been in place for the last 181 years. So how the **** is that considered proselytizing when she will soon be allowed to wear it in the one room previously forbidden when she could wear it anywhere else on any public grounds??

 

[Faun]

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.

"Reasonable accommodation"...when the deplorables are losing their minds over this?

Now, now. That presumes they have a mind to begin with. You offer them more credit than they demonstrate.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

If you didn’t learn something from that, it’s because you’re an idiot.

express to show, manifest, or reveal

exercise something done or performed as a means of practice
The two words have different meanings, even if you are too dumb to comprehend the distinction.

Right. Two different words that fit well together. Like when I express my religious views through my hijab, I am exercising
my freedom of religion. Capiche?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

If this were an issue for the Supreme Court, they would have reviewed years ago since the Senate has the same rule the House is about to make.

First someone has to wear a hijab while performing their duties and then someone has to raise the issue for the court to rule on. But nice try.

 

[Faun]

If you didn’t learn something from that, it’s because you’re an idiot.

express to show, manifest, or reveal

exercise something done or performed as a means of practice
The two words have different meanings, even if you are too dumb to comprehend the distinction.

Right. Two different words that fit well together. Like when I express my religious views through my hijab, I am exercising
my freedom of religion. Capiche?

Great, then explain how Roy Moore was exercising his religion by displaying a monument of the 10 Commandments when there’s nothing in the Bible that says you need to display the 10 Commandments

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Great, then explain how Roy Moore was exercising his religion by displaying a monument of the 10 Commandments when there’s nothing in the Bible that says you need to display the 10 Commandments

Seriously? I mean, really? What's more religious than the Ten Commandments?
How can you LOL anyone else when you post something so epically dumb?

 

[Faun]

If this were an issue for the Supreme Court, they would have reviewed years ago since the Senate has the same rule the House is about to make.

First someone has to wear a hijab while performing their duties and then someone has to raise the issue for the court to rule on. But nice try.

LOLOL

Putz, it’s not just hijabs. Yarmulkes too. And the Supreme Court has never been called on to review it.

 

[Faun]

Great, then explain how Roy Moore was exercising his religion by displaying a monument of the 10 Commandments when there’s nothing in the Bible that says you need to display the 10 Commandments

Seriously? I mean, really? What's more religious than the Ten Commandments?
How can you LOL anyone else when you post something so epically dumb?

LOLOL

Good boy, avoiding the question was obviously your only way out.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Apparently, his beef is that it's only an exercise of religion if they justify it in his eyes. For some odd reason, we're all supposed to vet our obedience to our gods through him, and if he says it meets his approval, THEN it's covered by the First Amendment.

You know why Muslim women wear hijabs? Because THEY believe Allah wants them to. It's between them and Allah, and anyone who isn't one of those two people doesn't get a vote.

I say it all the time about Christianity, and now I'm saying it about Islam: no one has to explain, justify, or defend their beliefs to anyone else. If you're asking, "Prove to me . . ." then the correct answer is always, "It's none of your business."

It drives me nuts that everyone in this country appears to have turned into Gladys Kravitz, the nosy neighbor from Bewitched, peering in windows and thinking they have to have opinions on everything.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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 ...

They should stay banned. Your in the US deal with it. If you don’t like it move back to your shit hole countries


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sorry, what the hell is that supposed to mean, "Your [sic] in the US deal with it"? Did the US stop being a country that respects freedom of religious expression? Because I feel sure someone would have sent me a memo.

This is more than respecting religious expression. This is giving way to a the newcomer. We don't get to define our community anymore.

This is NOT more than respecting religious expression. The House of Representatives is a specific community. You and I actually are not part of that community, but these two new Representatives are. They have every right to request a reasonable accommodation for their First Amendment rights, just as you and I would in communities of which we are a part.

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.

When you get elected to the House, you can vote to change the rules.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Where is the religious rule that a Jewish female must cover her hair at all times?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

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

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

Have you not yet figured out why your use of the term "dot head" is misusing a slur because it has nothing to do with Muslims?