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

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

A personal choice or not, so what? ALL clothing is a personal choice unless one is in the military or going to a
school with a dress code. So what? Moore may not make a "personal choice" that would put him in conflict with the US Constitution. Have your mom explain things to you.

 

[bodecea]

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?

The Lions Club, when they finally allowed women in.
The Senior Play stage crew in HS when they finally allowed girls in.
The NAS I was stationed at when they finally allowed black shoe junior officers to get off-base BAQ instead of just the aviators.

Just three off the top of my head.

 

[bodecea]

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.

A personal choice or not, so what? ALL clothing is a personal choice unless one is in the military or going to a
school with a dress code. So what? Moore may not make a "personal choice" that would put him in conflict with the US Constitution. Have your mom explain things to you.

And what personal choice COULD Moore make that would put him in conflict with the US Constitution?

 

[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?

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.

Sorry, but a rule does not become more or less valid simply on the basis of how long it's been around.

It does raise the question of why change it now.


And that answer seems to be that newcomers have precedence and the rest of US have to change for them.

 

[Faun]

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!

LOLOL

You poor thing. Bless your heart.

Expressing one’s religion is not the same as exercising it.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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

The Supreme Court has defined what is permissible when it comes to any governmental entity engaging in what is seen as endorsement of a specific religion over all others. Is that restrictive?

 

[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?

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.

Sorry, but a rule does not become more or less valid simply on the basis of how long it's been around.

It does raise the question of why change it now.


And that answer seems to be that newcomers have precedence and the rest of US have to change for them.

Or it could be as simple as no one has asked before.

 

[Correll]

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.

No, I would not be able to. NO one would dare bring forth a motion to change them back. The PC mob would destroy them.

Not to mention they'd be opening themselves to all manner of legal issues.

I said "destroy". That includes legalistic attacks.


So, like I said, I would NOT be able to just bring forth a motion to change them back.


That claim has been refuted. Thanks for your support on that.

 

[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?

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.

Sorry, but a rule does not become more or less valid simply on the basis of how long it's been around.

It does raise the question of why change it now.


And that answer seems to be that newcomers have precedence and the rest of US have to change for them.

Has there been occasion before this to change it?

Ironically, I would not expect all this deplorable pearl clutching if the first had been a Sikh MAN......it's always the women who bear the brunt of RW whining over "but it's always been this way!!!!!"

 

[Correll]

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

I do not have to give a definitive account of all of our Society and Culture to assert that it has value and that conserving that is a valid goal.


Your request is moronic. And dishonest.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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.

Sorry, but a rule does not become more or less valid simply on the basis of how long it's been around.

It does raise the question of why change it now.


And that answer seems to be that newcomers have precedence and the rest of US have to change for them.

Has there been occasion before this to change it?

Ironically, I would not expect all this deplorable pearl clutching if the first had been a Sikh MAN......it's always the women who bear the brunt of RW whining over "but it's always been this way!!!!!"

Oh here we go with the "conservatives are misogynists" bullshit meanwhile at least 10 liberals are on this board right now calling Melania Trump a whore because she's married to Donald.

 

[Correll]

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.

That is one possible interpretation.


Or I could be just pointing out the fact that she received special treatment.


D'uh.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

And what personal choice COULD Moore make that would put him in conflict with the US Constitution?

You claim he could wear a shirt with the Ten Commandments written all over it. Perhaps he could at home.
But never at his work as a judge. That would be wrong in a hundred different ways. Are you playing dumb, or really are puzzled by the concept of separation of church and state?

 

[Faun]

So then it would be ok for Republican Reps wear MAGA Caps, Fair is Fair

Sure. All you have to do is get the Congress to allow it.

 

[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.

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?

The Lions Club, when they finally allowed women in.
The Senior Play stage crew in HS when they finally allowed girls in.
The NAS I was stationed at when they finally allowed black shoe junior officers to get off-base BAQ instead of just the aviators.

Just three off the top of my head.

So the rules were changed and THEN you joined.


You did not join, and then demand and receive changes for your convenience.

 

[there4eyeM]

If a person chooses to wear a symbol of female repression in public, that is protected expression. Wearing it in private, in a context of governmental function, can be considered as quite different.

 

[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.

Sorry, but a rule does not become more or less valid simply on the basis of how long it's been around.

It does raise the question of why change it now.


And that answer seems to be that newcomers have precedence and the rest of US have to change for them.

Or it could be as simple as no one has asked before.

I saw at least one reference to someone else asking and being denied.

 

[bodecea]

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

I do not have to give a definitive account of all of our Society and Culture to assert that it has value and that conserving that is a valid goal.


Your request is moronic. And dishonest.

So....you cannot give a definitive account of all our Society and Culture.......and yet, here you try to stand in judgement of this new Representative...wagging your finger at her hijab.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Sorry, but a rule does not become more or less valid simply on the basis of how long it's been around.

It does raise the question of why change it now.


And that answer seems to be that newcomers have precedence and the rest of US have to change for them.

Or it could be as simple as no one has asked before.

I saw at least one reference to someone else asking and being denied.

Share that one with us.

 

[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.

Sorry, but a rule does not become more or less valid simply on the basis of how long it's been around.

It does raise the question of why change it now.


And that answer seems to be that newcomers have precedence and the rest of US have to change for them.

Has there been occasion before this to change it?

Ironically, I would not expect all this deplorable pearl clutching if the first had been a Sikh MAN......it's always the women who bear the brunt of RW whining over "but it's always been this way!!!!!"

Yes, there was. At least once.


So, shove your gender baiting.