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

[Cecilie1200]

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.

You put forth a scenario where the community was able to discuss this rule and have input freely and seriously and honestly.


I doubt that.


I don't know it the dems held a vote or not, but any input opposing this would have been demagogued to the Nth degree, thus your claim of "input" is, imo, NOT TRUE.


These changes are not something we as a community are choosing to do, it is being forced on us.

I have no reason to believe that the proposed rules change package didn't get every bit as much discussion as any rules change package does when the majority changes hands. If you can show me otherwise, go ahead.

I suspect you know even less about how rules changes are put in place than I do, and you're just running off half-cocked to pitch a fit over something you just noticed for the first time.

These changes are not something that has anything to do with any community WE are a part of, so not one damned thing is being "forced" on YOU at all.

 

[OldLady]

Congress opens with a prayer by a Congressional Chaplain. No one is being ignored. Roy Moore was removed from office for directly defying a Court Order.

Indeed, but why is Moore forbidden to express his religious faith but Ilhan Omar is not only not stopped from expressing hers, but she has democrats backing her and helping by getting rid of a 181 year old rule.
Double standard at work and Congress is backing one religion while another is forbidden to show it's face, so to speak.
In what way is this secular?

How is an opening prayer by a Chaplain "forbidding" your religion "to show its face?" I am not getting this. Stop ignoring that.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

There are actually not a lot of religions that still require a head covering in public, but if someone is a member of such a religion, it would give them the choice of either not participating in Congress or not complying with their religious tenets. Not a very "fair" position to be in, is it? I see the rule change (which already exists in the Senate, btw) as simply accommodating another religion that had never been represented in the House before.

The new House rule is at the bottom of page 11. It doesn't give the specific language. There is a WaPo article on it, too, but there's a paywall, so I can't get into it.
House Democrats hope to change 181-year-old rule barring hats to include exemption for religious headwear

Rashida Tlaib is also entering Congress as a Muslim woman along with Omar. She doesn't bother wearing a hijab.
Is she somehow less Muslim than Omar?

It's comical that you speak of "fairness" knowing that Roy Moore was removed from his position on the bench because he could not express the same religious convictions you insist Ilhan Omar is owed. Well, not comical exactly. It's actually sick!

 

[bodecea]

They've been up in arms over it in Europe for ages. In France, the hijab is not allowed in schools. The full-face veil is outlawed in several countries. It is definitely seen as a symbol of Islam, which is exactly why it causes such an uproar. Kinda sad.

Why is it sad?

I don't believe we should be in an uproar over people peacefully practicing their religion. Not even Islam.

So that judge who was ordered to remove the ten commandments from his court room wasn't peacefully practicing his religion?

See , this is what happens when people pick and choose which liberties they will defend rather than defending ALL liberty.

Hanging up a plaque advertising your religion in a government space is not the same as abiding by a rule of your religion. There is no rule saying that every Christian will hang a religious plaque in their home or place of business. Pretty sure about that.

wearing the clothing of Medieval days in Arabia is not a religious
requirement of any religion. That clothing is a COSTUME

And who is it who gets to make that determination? Would you think having a Scot wearing a kilt is a costume?

 

[Montrovant]

Hence, the rule change.

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

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

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

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

Cultural diffusion is fine. That is not what we are seeing here, today. We are changing too much, too fast and for the worse.

Allowing religious headwear on the floor of the House, something which is already allowed in the Senate, is "changing too much, too fast and for the worse"?

 

[OldLady]

They've been up in arms over it in Europe for ages. In France, the hijab is not allowed in schools. The full-face veil is outlawed in several countries. It is definitely seen as a symbol of Islam, which is exactly why it causes such an uproar. Kinda sad.

Why is it sad?

I don't believe we should be in an uproar over people peacefully practicing their religion. Not even Islam.

So that judge who was ordered to remove the ten commandments from his court room wasn't peacefully practicing his religion?

See , this is what happens when people pick and choose which liberties they will defend rather than defending ALL liberty.

Hanging up a plaque advertising your religion in a government space is not the same as abiding by a rule of your religion. There is no rule saying that every Christian will hang a religious plaque in their home or place of business. Pretty sure about that.

wearing the clothing of Medieval days in Arabia is not a religious
requirement of any religion. That clothing is a COSTUME

Isn't Sharia Law part of the Muslim faith? Why is it that in Muslim countries that are not secular, women are REQUIRED to wear a headscarf?
Are you SURE it is not a rule of the religion? Or at least some branches of it?

 

[Faun]

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.

Great, let me know when you can come up with a compelling reason to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment rights.

No hats during sessions is completely reasonable. If she can't accept that, doesn't have to attend.

LOL

She will miss no sessions because of her hijab. Your rules are meaningless. She abides by House rules, not yours and House rules will allow her to wear it.

And I note again, you still haven’t found any compelling reasons for why House members should be denied their First Amendment rights. “She wasn’t born here” is not a compelling reason.

 

[Montrovant]

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

Well, as a native born American, she is not an immigrant demanding that we adapt to her, so not really relevant to the point I made.


But well I am not "upset" about it, I do disagree with it. Hand the kid off to someone for Christ's sake.

How is whether or not someone is native born relevant to the idea that "Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have"?

 

[bodecea]

There are actually not a lot of religions that still require a head covering in public, but if someone is a member of such a religion, it would give them the choice of either not participating in Congress or not complying with their religious tenets. Not a very "fair" position to be in, is it? I see the rule change (which already exists in the Senate, btw) as simply accommodating another religion that had never been represented in the House before.

The new House rule is at the bottom of page 11. It doesn't give the specific language. There is a WaPo article on it, too, but there's a paywall, so I can't get into it.
House Democrats hope to change 181-year-old rule barring hats to include exemption for religious headwear

Rashida Tlaib is also entering Congress as a Muslim woman along with Omar. She doesn't bother wearing a hijab.
Is she somehow less Muslim than Omar?

It's comical that you speak of "fairness" knowing that Roy Moore was removed from his position on the bench because he could not express the same religious convictions you insist Ilhan Omar is owed. Well, not comical exactly. It's actually sick!

There are different sects of Islam just like Christianity and Judaism....the more orthodox Jewish men wear a yalmuke.....not all do. Are you going after them next?

 

[irosie91]

Why is it sad?

I don't believe we should be in an uproar over people peacefully practicing their religion. Not even Islam.

So that judge who was ordered to remove the ten commandments from his court room wasn't peacefully practicing his religion?

See , this is what happens when people pick and choose which liberties they will defend rather than defending ALL liberty.

Hanging up a plaque advertising your religion in a government space is not the same as abiding by a rule of your religion. There is no rule saying that every Christian will hang a religious plaque in their home or place of business. Pretty sure about that.

wearing the clothing of Medieval days in Arabia is not a religious
requirement of any religion. That clothing is a COSTUME

And who is it who gets to make that determination? Would you think having a Scot wearing a kilt is a costume?

In the USA it is a costume. It would not have been tolerated
as regular dress in my public High School for either students or
teachers. It might be considered a problem in Ireland for teachers
or students of policemen

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

How is an opening prayer by a Chaplain "forbidding" your religion "to show its face?" I am not getting this. Stop ignoring that.

Opening prayers in Congress have been made by all sorts of faiths. These prayers are non denominational and in order to remain secular are not an endorsement or statement of faith for any singular specific religion, unlike the hijab which is a Muslim device that reminds us all of how women in that religion wear a hijab to show they are deferential to men and Allah.
It's a great message for little girls to get from Omar and the DNC.

The ball is back in your court.

 

[bodecea]

I don't believe we should be in an uproar over people peacefully practicing their religion. Not even Islam.

So that judge who was ordered to remove the ten commandments from his court room wasn't peacefully practicing his religion?

See , this is what happens when people pick and choose which liberties they will defend rather than defending ALL liberty.

Hanging up a plaque advertising your religion in a government space is not the same as abiding by a rule of your religion. There is no rule saying that every Christian will hang a religious plaque in their home or place of business. Pretty sure about that.

wearing the clothing of Medieval days in Arabia is not a religious
requirement of any religion. That clothing is a COSTUME

And who is it who gets to make that determination? Would you think having a Scot wearing a kilt is a costume?

In the USA it is a costume. It would not have been tolerated
as regular dress in my public High School for either students or
teachers. It might be considered a problem in Ireland for teachers
or students of policemen

That is incorrect. It is not a costume, it is cultural dress and MOST schools (those who don't have issues with different people) allow it. In fact, a male in a full dress kilt is awesome looking. Those schools that don't allow it are bit by bit being sued for discrimination based on cultural identity as they should be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

If I joined a group that had a rule that all members had to wear hats, during meetings, I would buy a hat and freaking wear it at meetings.


I might grumble about the expense, complain about how stupid it is, or ***** about it.


But I would not expect an institution and people who have been doing things one way for generations to change for me, just because I don't normally wear a hat.

Yeah, this isn't "joining a group" like signing up for the Kiwanis. This is the federal legislature, which makes laws for the entire country. And you're suggesting that it is reasonable to expect citizens of the United States to forego their Constitutional right to run for elected office and participate in political policy-making because of an obscure, obsolete dress code rule? It is so damned important that no one ever wear a hat in the House chamber that it should supersede multiple Constitutional rights? That is actually the position you want to stake out here?!

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

There are different sects of Islam just like Christianity and Judaism....the more orthodox Jewish men wear a yalmuke.....not all do. Are you going after them next?

That's an asinine question. Jews have served in Congress without feeling the need to wear their yarmulke or change
long standing House rules. You can do better than that...or perhaps not.

 

[Montrovant]

I mean the obvious solution here is House Republicans should all get MAGA hats if they wish to protest this.

Trumpism has become a religion now? I read that only religious headgear is allowed.

Oh, I hadn't read that. Only religious headgear? That seems a weird rule to have in Congress. What happened to separation of church and state?

All rules are out the window, when dems are in charge and the person is question checks off enough diversity boxes.


A female black muslim? Rules? What rules? lol. If she was gay or trans, they would make of her a GOD.

Here's the problem with your point: Assuming this change passes, it will have gone through the process already in place for changing rules. In effect, those proposing it will be following the rules for making changes. If rules truly were meaningless, the Reps pushing this wouldn't have bothered and Omar would simply have worn her hijab without worrying about any rule that said otherwise.

 

[Montrovant]

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?

What do you mean, “our ways?” They’re not “our ways,” they’re House ways and we are not members of the House. They make up their own rules and it’s customary for the House to change some rules at the start of a new session.

This one has stood for 181 years.


Till the black muslim female had a problem with it. Then everyone else has to change to accommodate her.

The point though is they didn't have to change, they chose to. Just like IF the Republicans win the House back they can choose to change the rule again and if they do, this woman will have to comply. Seriously this isn't that big of a deal.

The republicans won't dare. They would be vilified by the Media and Pop Culture as Evul and Racist.


We are NOT free to make changes. Some changes are forced down our throats and any resistance or attempt to change them back is met with massive resistance.

Unless you are/were a member of the House of Representatives, every one of their rules has been "forced down our throats." Of course, that's not exactly true, because unless you are/were a member of the House, those rules don't actually affect you.

 

[irosie91]

Why is it sad?

I don't believe we should be in an uproar over people peacefully practicing their religion. Not even Islam.

So that judge who was ordered to remove the ten commandments from his court room wasn't peacefully practicing his religion?

See , this is what happens when people pick and choose which liberties they will defend rather than defending ALL liberty.

Hanging up a plaque advertising your religion in a government space is not the same as abiding by a rule of your religion. There is no rule saying that every Christian will hang a religious plaque in their home or place of business. Pretty sure about that.

wearing the clothing of Medieval days in Arabia is not a religious
requirement of any religion. That clothing is a COSTUME

Isn't Sharia Law part of the Muslim faith? Why is it that in Muslim countries that are not secular, women are REQUIRED to wear a headscarf?
Are you SURE it is not a rule of the religion? Or at least some branches of it?

I happen to know the shariah rules. Women must cover their hair if they are muslim. These rules are more or less enforced in different
places. I have also CORRECTLY stated that covering ones hair does not NECESSITATE "in the style of seventh century Arabia" Did you know that there are interpretations of Shariah law that render it a CRIME for non muslim women to use the same style of head covering used by muslim women? You want that one too in order to fulfill the NEEDS of muslim women----and men? There are muslim lands in which non muslims -----for the sake of ISLAM----cannot walk on the steps of a mosque------do we have a right to VIOLATE muslim law in the USA-----it impinges on the rights of muslims to do so. Did you know that in some muslim lands ---EATING during Ramadan daytime is a crime? Hindus working in those lands do not even mention food. Do you impose your miserable religion on muslims thus violating their rights?

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

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


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

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

That is a nice strawman you have there. I'm sure you are proud of it. I respectfully decline your invitation to join you in playing with it.


My statement stands.



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.

Nonsense. You have no evidence she receives special treatment because she’s a naturalized citizen.

lol!!! 181 year old rule, shit canned just for her? That's special treatment.


Ask me how many times some organization or group or community changed the rules just to make me happy?

You said it was because she was naturalized. That you abandoned that nonsense reveals even you know that assertion is ridiculous.

And no one cares what makes you happy.

 

[OldLady]

There are actually not a lot of religions that still require a head covering in public, but if someone is a member of such a religion, it would give them the choice of either not participating in Congress or not complying with their religious tenets. Not a very "fair" position to be in, is it? I see the rule change (which already exists in the Senate, btw) as simply accommodating another religion that had never been represented in the House before.

The new House rule is at the bottom of page 11. It doesn't give the specific language. There is a WaPo article on it, too, but there's a paywall, so I can't get into it.
House Democrats hope to change 181-year-old rule barring hats to include exemption for religious headwear

Rashida Tlaib is also entering Congress as a Muslim woman along with Omar. She doesn't bother wearing a hijab.
Is she somehow less Muslim than Omar?

It's comical that you speak of "fairness" knowing that Roy Moore was removed from his position on the bench because he could not express the same religious convictions you insist Ilhan Omar is owed. Well, not comical exactly. It's actually sick!

Get ready gentlemen, OL is gonna cuss:
**** ROY MOORE and the goddamned nag he rode in on.

A woman quietly going about her business and wearing a head covering as required by her faith is NOT the same as putting up a Christian monument on public government property. Her wearing a hijab is the same as .... NOT cheating on your wife or something--it is a personal choice based in your faith that is not interfering with anyone else and has nothing to do with proselytizing for Islam. It is a head scarf. That is all it is. Keep that geezer Moore out of it because it is a false equivalence and I'm getting tired of hearing it.

 

[danielpalos]

The hijab is a sign of a woman’s submission to a man’s religion. Plus, she looks stupid.

Some men allege, women have to cover up, because there is not enough moral fortitude to go around.