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

[Eric Arthur Blair]

”Your question was so ******* stupid it deserves no reply. It was really, really, really ******* stupid!”

LOLOL

You’re such a ******* idiot. You claim that Moore was merely doing the same as Omar.

Omar is exercising her religion.

I ask you to explain how displaying a monument of the Ten Commandments is “exercising” his religion and you turn into a pussified bowl of jello.

Look, don't get butt hurt over your stupidity. It's not my fault and you are taking up my important time with your nonsense.
And if you think bringing out the word exercising makes a big difference, it does not!
In fact it's not a distinction at all, dumbass.
On ignore you go.

 

[Correll]

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?!

It is on them to figure out how to live in our society, not the other way around.


Or at least, in a sane world, it would be.


That is the principle here.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Twenty-six pages of panty staining hysterics. How delightful.

Pretty sad that so many Americans get worked up over the dumbest things.

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.

As long as they're practicing it peacefully, I don't consider Muslims any more or less wrong and misguided than a number of other religions I routinely ignore. I only have a problem with Muslims when they want to exercise their religion by killing and enslaving people and mutilating women's genitals.

 

[Correll]

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.

That they might have gone though the motions, does not refute my point.


The rules matter less than the need to pander to "diversity" and "political correctness".

 

[DandyDonovan]

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.

It's definitely a blend of culture and old religious laws. She was no doubt raised that it is the proper thing to do. It's like Rosie said, it wouldn't be lady-like to go around with her hair hanging out in public What our mama taught us can stick with us forever, ya know.

I mean I'm cool with it, I don't think it's something to get worked up about at all, but the fact remains she can't claim "my religion says I have to cover my head so change the rules" when her religion tells her she shouldn't be there in the first place........

Which is why I earlier was surprised that this was limited to religious head wear.

The truth is, this is yet another subject that is neither worth defending nor attacking.

You make it sound as if she is picking and choosing which parts of her religion to (conveniently) follow, and that is being unfair to her, imo. You don't know what her "religion" tells her by having read excerpts from the Koran anymore than you can discern how a Methodist in 2018 will live based on reading the Bible.

It's not being unfair to her, it's merely stating facts , I even stated that it isn't that unusual for religious people . Do you know of any Muslim sects which require women to wear a head covering at all time, but also allow them to become politicians? I do not.

And you can't just ignore the fact that we KNOW Muslims, and others but in this thread we are talking about Muslims, use our country's laws , rules, and customs against us, so you MUST consider that this woman getting this rule changed is simply the first step in something much more sinister. That doesn't mean it is, that just means you have to consider it and take it seriously if you are even the least bit concerned about our country.

Do you know of any Muslim sects which require women to wear a head covering at all time, but also allow them to become politicians? I do not.
Donovan, I don't know any practicing Muslims. Do you? How do you know so much about their faith? Or are you just guessing? Be honest. What mosque are you active in, what Muslim families are you close with, to know how young women are raised in their faith in this country?

Muslims, use our country's laws , rules, and customs against us, so you MUST consider that this woman getting this rule changed is simply the first step in something much more sinister.
Not buying that one.

I've spent much time studying Muslims as part of my job. I can't and won't go into details in public about my work, but suffice to say I have studied Muslims for years.

And my dear if you don't believe that people who hate this country use our own laws, and governing rules, and customs against us you haven't been paying attention. The Chinese in particular have been doing exactly this for years.

 

[Correll]

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.

Your pretense that this is just about hats in the House is noted and dismissed.


My point stands.


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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Why? It really affects no one but her, and breast-feeding doesn't always make that as practically possible as bottle-feeding.

And what the hell does "native-born" versus immigrant have to do with anything? Not to mention there's no more "adapting" involved in simply ignoring someone else's clothing than there is in ignoring someone breast-feeding a child.

My wife breast fed and worked.

Don't believe I ever said she couldn't. I said breast-feeding has practical concerns and issues that bottle-feeding doesn't. It's one of the reasons I didn't breast-feed with my kids. And I would hope we can agree that being a member of Congress is rather different from reguar jobs.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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?!

It is on them to figure out how to live in our society, not the other way around.


Or at least, in a sane world, it would be.


That is the principle here.

I hate to break this to you Sparky, but this woman did figure out how to live in our system, she figured out that the rule against headwear can be changed, and it will be. So your argument that she isn't living within our system is 100% dead wrong.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

On what basis would the ACLU be able to sue Moore for a personal clothing choice? Point out the precedent, please.

Seriously? On the basis that Moore's clothing would constitute a government endorsement of a specific religion (exactly like Omar's hijab).
Have you heard of the Constitution, by any chance?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Twenty-six pages of panty staining hysterics. How delightful.

Pretty sad that so many Americans get worked up over the dumbest things.

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.

No, he wasn't. Making changes to a public building is not an exercise of your personal religion. If you must exercise your religion by erecting a multi-ton statue, do it on your own property.

"This is what happens"? You mean halfwits show up and blather nonsensically about false analogies despite being told 271 times in a 24-hour period exactly why it's false?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I hate to break this to you Sparky, but this woman did figure out how to live in our system, she figured out that the rule against headwear can be changed, and it will be. So your argument that she isn't living within our system is 100% dead wrong.

Indeed! The system has been changed purely to accommodate one specific person. How is that living within our system?

 

[Natural Citizen]

There's nothing about foreign policy on either of their sites. Just a bunch of progressive pablum, really.

I wonder how they'll vote in terms of middle eastern conflicts. There's been talk about making peace with the Taliban again. And the US is really is in need of some illusion of victory there.

 

[bodecea]

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?!

It is on them to figure out how to live in our society, not the other way around.


Or at least, in a sane world, it would be.


That is the principle here.

And exactly WHAT IS our society? Please give us all the definitive rule book on what is culturally allowed in the U.S. and what is not. TIA

 

[Correll]

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.

I asked you to ask me how many times a organization or group or community changed the rules just to make me happy?



You did not ask me that, because you are afraid of the answer.

 

[bodecea]

On what basis would the ACLU be able to sue Moore for a personal clothing choice? Point out the precedent, please.

Seriously? On the basis that Moore's clothing would constitute a government endorsement of a specific religion (exactly like Omar's hijab).
Have you heard of the Constitution, by any chance?

No...it's a personal choice on what to wear by a person......NOT a government endorsement. I'm sorry that you are not up there yet in comprehension of the difference.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

And exactly WHAT IS our society? Please give us all the definitive rule book on what is culturally allowed in the U.S. and what is not. TIA

"Society" as defined by what is Constitutionally allowed.

 

[bodecea]

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.

I asked you to ask me how many times a organization or group or community changed the rules just to make me happy?



You did not ask me that, because you are afraid of the answer.

So.....now we get to the crux of the complaint.....you want a [sic] organization or group or community changing its rules just to make you happy too. It's jealousy.

 

[bodecea]

And exactly WHAT IS our society? Please give us all the definitive rule book on what is culturally allowed in the U.S. and what is not. TIA

"Society" as defined by what is Constitutionally allowed.

Wait....you think the Constitution tells us what we are allowed? Don't you find that rather restrictive?

 

[Correll]

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?

How many times have you joined an organization or community, and before you even join, they changed the rules for your convenience?

 

[Correll]

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.

I wasn't planning on it. I don't see how it is relevant. They were told to live by the rules.


I don't see how anything on that front could be relevant.