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

[irosie91]

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.

where? in England? ------that would make sense. In the USA in my very liberal public High School-----boys and men would not be allowed to wear a kilt to school-----even those named Scot MacDonald

 

[DandyDonovan]

NM.

 

[Faun]

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?

That’s how it’s been in the Senate. Where was your outrage?

 

[Montrovant]

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?

Roy Moore is not and was not forbidden to express his religious faith. He was forbidden from having a multi-ton granite monument placed and kept on display in a courthouse. No one told him he could not wear any Christian clothing or jewelry that I've ever heard of, which would be what would need to have happened for his situation to be directly comparable to Omar's. Either that, or Omar would have to have had some sort of Islamic monument put on display in the House and then refused to have it removed despite an order from a federal judge.

I suspect you know this and refuse to admit it.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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?

That’s how it’s been in the Senate. Where was your outrage?

I have no outrage have you even read the thread? I've defended this woman wearing her hajib as I don't give a shit one way or the other.

 

[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.

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.

"Completely reasonable" in what sense? Because it serves a useful purpose meaningful to the greater purposes and goals of the House? Or because you're going to put that damned Muslim in her place and show her that she has to be just like you?

 

[OldLady]

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?

Women must cover their hair if they are muslim. These rules are more or less enforced in different places.
Thanks, Rosie. That's all I wanted to know.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

Well get ready to ******* swear some more because Roy Moore's right to express his religious convictions is just as important as Ilhan Omar's (at least if the democrats haven't changed the Constitution lately in order to accommodate
Omar). That this slab of rock is not exactly like a head scarf is absolutely immaterial and irrelevant.
If Moore is wrong that so is Omar, in principle (which I know leftists generally ignore when it suits their agenda).

Your continuing argument is as dumb as bringing Tammy Duckworth and her breast feeding child into this....as if
a baby sucking teat is equivalent to the Constitutional concept of separation of church and state as first stated by Thomas Jefferson. IF we truly have a secular nation THEN Ilhan Omar's hijab should be just as offensive as Roy Moore's ten commandments. But of course no one likes Roy Moore and he's not a female Muslim democrat.
That makes his rights irrelevant!

 

[Taz]

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.

Isn't that what the camels are for?

 

[OldLady]

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.

Yes, Daniel, Muslim men have sex on the brain more than any religion I ever saw. Almost all their rules have to do with keeping their women from straying or from other men stealing them. lol

 

[Faun]

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?

LOLOL

You still can’t discern the difference between exercising and expressing, huh? Omar is exercising, i.e., practicing her religion by wearing a hijab in public. Moore was not exercising his religion by putting up a monument of the Ten Commandments.

Savvy?

 

[irosie91]

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.

the HIJAB---which is nothing more than a scarf is actually more
cultural than "religious" In ancient Rome, Greece and Israel----
all respectable women-----especially those married-----wore some
sort of scarf on their heads when in public. In the USA----quaker and amish and puritan girls did not go about with their hair hanging out---they wore some kind of cap or bonnet. Loose hair was a kind of symbol of Licentiousness. Even Indian women have various customs involving pulling their saris over their heads for this or that circumstance involving public or-----men around. Another hair custom is that mature girls-----had to bind it up -----not let it ALL HANG OUT. Muslims have LATELY transformed that whole idea into a FETISH for the sake of GROUP CONSCIOUSNESS. That group
consciousness also dictates the ARABIAN STYLE of the head covering--------it is more "uniform" than religion. Linda Sarsour
imagines that she became a NEW RACE when she pulled a rag
onto her head-------she became the erstwhile never described race----
PERSON OF COLOR (I will try not to laugh)

 

[bodecea]

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.

When the House has opened with prayers from non-christian faiths, there are some poor sport christians who whine about it.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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.

Yes, Daniel, Muslim men have sex on the brain more than any religion I ever saw. Almost all their rules have to do with keeping their women from straying or from other men stealing them. lol

And in fact , most Muslim sects would forbid this woman from being a politician anyway. She's a Muslim when it's convenient for her, which isn't that unusual for religious people, but certainly takes away from the argument that this change HAD to be made so she didn't violate her religion, since her religion actually forbids her from serving anything except dinner anyway.

 

[there4eyeM]

The apparel concerned is not a requirement of the named religion. It is a symbol of the repression of women implicit in that religion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Yeah, I have to wonder when accommodating the Constitutional rights of US citizens became "special treatment". I was pretty sure that was something that was supposed to be done for everyone.

Other people have tried to get the rule changed.


They didn't get special treatment, they were told to obey the rules like everyone else.


The black muslim is just to privileged in dems eyes though. THey cannot be denied.

And now you're going to share the specifics of these "other people" and their reasons for wanting the rules changed, right?

No offense, but I don't accept anyone else's word for anything, and you've made it clear how opposed you are to special treatment.

 

[Taz]

Where was she running? In Pakistan?

 

[irosie91]

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.

"Completely reasonable" in what sense? Because it serves a useful purpose meaningful to the greater purposes and goals of the House? Or because you're going to put that damned Muslim in her place and show her that she has to be just like you?

because it serves a useful purpose meaningful to the greater purposes and goals of the House<<<<< yes.

It creates an aura of DECORUM by eliminating opened PRACTICE OF this or that RELIGION IN THE HOUSE. Catholics do "MASS"
regularly-----I would suggest that a MASS ritual not be held during
the proceedings of the house. ------also----that Hindus not bring in
statues and donate various foods or flowers to them ----in the House.
ETC ETC

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Well get ready to ******* swear some more because Roy Moore's right to express his religious convictions is just as important as Ilhan Omar's (at least if the democrats haven't changed the Constitution lately in order to accommodate
Omar). That this slab of rock is not exactly like a head scarf is absolutely immaterial and irrelevant.
If Moore is wrong that so is Omar, in principle (which I know leftists generally ignore when it suits their agenda).

Your continuing argument is as dumb as bringing Tammy Duckworth and her breast feeding child into this....as if
a baby sucking teat is equivalent to the Constitutional concept of separation of church and state as first stated by Thomas Jefferson. IF we truly have a secular nation THEN Ilhan Omar's hijab should be just as offensive as Roy Moore's ten commandments. But of course no one likes Roy Moore and he's not a female Muslim democrat.
That makes his rights irrelevant!

Tammy Duckworth was brought into this because another poster complained about rules being changed to accommodate an individual. It's kind of odd that someone who thinks putting a large monument on display in a courthouse is the same as wearing a hijab would suddenly fail to see any points of similarity in another comparison.

The problem with the Moore situation wasn't the 10 commandments, it was having those commandments put on public display in a courthouse in the form of a large monument. I believe another poster mentioned that Moore would have been allowed to wear a shirt with the commandments printed on them, which seems like a glaringly obvious way to point out the fallacy of your argument. It is not the content of Moore's expression of religious conviction that was the problem, instead it was the form that expression took.

Your entire argument seems to be based on the false premise that any form of religious expression is the same as any other form. As I've stated previously, personal expression =/= public expression. Religious clothing or jewelry is a personal expression. A multi-ton monument placed in a courthouse is a public expression, and one that can be seen as part of the government.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Roy Moore is not and was not forbidden to express his religious faith. He was forbidden from having a multi-ton granite monument placed and kept on display in a courthouse. No one told him he could not wear any Christian clothing or jewelry that I've ever heard of, which would be what would need to have happened for his situation to be directly comparable to Omar's. Either that, or Omar would have to have had some sort of Islamic monument put on display in the House and then refused to have it removed despite an order from a federal judge.

I suspect you know this and refuse to admit it.

I know that a slab of stone is not the same as a head scarf, except in the respect that they are both symbols of religious devotion and I have only stated this about fifty times by now. How many more times should I state this?
The idea that Roy Moore would have to directly mimic or closely mirror Omar's hijab (like wearing a bloody crown of thorns
or something similarly ridiculous) in order to have an argument of disparate treatment for Moore and Omar is just
fallacious b.s.! It's nonsense and I can't get past the feeling that so many people are just literal simplistic thinkers and they can't possibly wrap their minds around a concept that compares two seemingly different things that are really the same in principle.