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

[bodecea]

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?

Why not as a judge? It's gonna be covered by his robes anyways.

 

[Correll]

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.

Nope. I'm judging the weak fools that considered it important to change the rules for her.

 

[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.

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.

Well then, you can link that "at least once" for us, right?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Nope. I'm judging the weak fools that considered it important to change the rules for her.

We know.....because dropping this rule frightens you to no end.

 

[Correll]

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.

Why? Nothing I say will change your mind.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Irrelevant.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Why? Nothing I say will change your mind.

Ah....and there we have it. There was no such thing. You lied.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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.

That's the hilarious thing. The head covering is meant to repress women , remind them that they are subservient to men. Which certainly explains why Democrats favor them. The party that really has a war against women.

 

[Faun]

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.

Could a member of Congress carry a gun into a session of Congress?

The answer is no, rendering your argument that she has a Constitutional right to wear her hijjab as stupid as you are.

No, absolutely NO member of Congress - or staffer, or anyone else who isn't law enforcement - can carry a gun in the Capitol. What the **** that has to do with changing the dress code so she can wear her hijab is beyond anyone rational.

Seriously, between you and Eric, I have to wonder if the local mental hospital didn't just get a new computer in the dayroom or something.

Dude. He crushed you.

Dude, all that means is "He agreed with me, so it was OBVIOUSLY a win."

And I'm not a dude.

No, I crushed your "Congress can't restrict her RIGHT" argument to pieces by pointing out that Congress doesn't permit it's members to carry firearms into chambers. That you are an idiot and didn't understand that point is of little concern to me..

LOL

You crushed nothing with that since there’s a compelling interest in not allowing firearms in Congress.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Could a member of Congress carry a gun into a session of Congress?

The answer is no, rendering your argument that she has a Constitutional right to wear her hijjab as stupid as you are.

No, absolutely NO member of Congress - or staffer, or anyone else who isn't law enforcement - can carry a gun in the Capitol. What the **** that has to do with changing the dress code so she can wear her hijab is beyond anyone rational.

Seriously, between you and Eric, I have to wonder if the local mental hospital didn't just get a new computer in the dayroom or something.

Dude. He crushed you.

Dude, all that means is "He agreed with me, so it was OBVIOUSLY a win."

And I'm not a dude.

No, I crushed your "Congress can't restrict her RIGHT" argument to pieces by pointing out that Congress doesn't permit it's members to carry firearms into chambers. That you are an idiot and didn't understand that point is of little concern to me..

LOL

You crushed nothing with that since there’s a compelling interest in not allowing firearms in Congress.

My God you people are ignorant. If you had a RIGHT to either, Congress couldn't pass a rule/law against it. You do NOT have a right to either, so therefor changing the rule either way does not affect a right. Congress could change the rule about firearms in chambers TODAY if they wanted to.

Rendering the argument that she has a right to wear her hijab in chambers moot, she has no such right. Argument DESTROYED.

 

[bodecea]

No, absolutely NO member of Congress - or staffer, or anyone else who isn't law enforcement - can carry a gun in the Capitol. What the **** that has to do with changing the dress code so she can wear her hijab is beyond anyone rational.

Seriously, between you and Eric, I have to wonder if the local mental hospital didn't just get a new computer in the dayroom or something.

Dude. He crushed you.

Dude, all that means is "He agreed with me, so it was OBVIOUSLY a win."

And I'm not a dude.

No, I crushed your "Congress can't restrict her RIGHT" argument to pieces by pointing out that Congress doesn't permit it's members to carry firearms into chambers. That you are an idiot and didn't understand that point is of little concern to me..

LOL

You crushed nothing with that since there’s a compelling interest in not allowing firearms in Congress.

My God you people are ignorant. If you had a RIGHT to either, Congress couldn't pass a rule/law against it. You do NOT have a right to either, so therefor changing the rule either way does not affect a right. Congress could change the rule about firearms in chambers TODAY if they wanted to.

Rendering the argument that she has a right to wear her hijab in chambers moot, she has no such right. Argument DESTROYED.

She has a right now....the House dropped the restriction.

 

[bodecea]

Could a member of Congress carry a gun into a session of Congress?

The answer is no, rendering your argument that she has a Constitutional right to wear her hijjab as stupid as you are.

No, absolutely NO member of Congress - or staffer, or anyone else who isn't law enforcement - can carry a gun in the Capitol. What the **** that has to do with changing the dress code so she can wear her hijab is beyond anyone rational.

Seriously, between you and Eric, I have to wonder if the local mental hospital didn't just get a new computer in the dayroom or something.

Dude. He crushed you.

Dude, all that means is "He agreed with me, so it was OBVIOUSLY a win."

And I'm not a dude.

No, I crushed your "Congress can't restrict her RIGHT" argument to pieces by pointing out that Congress doesn't permit it's members to carry firearms into chambers. That you are an idiot and didn't understand that point is of little concern to me..

LOL

You crushed nothing with that since there’s a compelling interest in not allowing firearms in Congress.

I think it would be fun to get rid of that restriction. I'm surprised the NRA isn't all over that.

 

[bodecea]

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.

That's the hilarious thing. The head covering is meant to repress women , remind them that they are subservient to men. Which certainly explains why Democrats favor them. The party that really has a war against women.

Interesting....so when Catholic institutions such as the Vatican require women to be covered, that's repression. Ok, good to know.

 

[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.

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.

If it were completely reasonable, why doesn't the Senate have the same "completely reasonable" rule?

BTW....I am amazed at how frightened certain people are of a woman in a hijab.

This is not about a woman in a hijab, but about the mindset that we need to adjust to them instead of the other way around.

This is about a woman in a hijab, because you think we need to demand that they change to be like us, rather than us simply making room for them to be different alongside us.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Relevant reading...

The first time a veil was worn on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, the wearer was not, as one would expect, a Muslim woman. Instead, it was a woman named Carolyn Maloney, a Democratic representative from New York. In October 2001, as the ruins of the Twin Towers were still smoldering, Maloney put on a blue burqa, the kind worn by women in Afghanistan, as part of a theatrical appeal to get representatives to vote for a war against the Taliban. “The veil is so thick, it is difficult to breathe,” Maloney declared as part of her plea for war against the Taliban whom she—incorrectly—blamed for the 9/11 attacks.

Continued - Two Muslim Women Are Headed to Congress

 

[bodecea]

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.

That's the hilarious thing. The head covering is meant to repress women , remind them that they are subservient to men. Which certainly explains why Democrats favor them. The party that really has a war against women.

Interesting....so when Catholic institutions such as the Vatican require women to be covered, that's repression. Ok, good to know.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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"?

Apparently, the House no-hats rule is an integral, foundational part of our democratic republic, despite the fact that hardly anyone even knew it existed until last week.

 

[Taz]

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.

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.

She is a cherry picker, because she doesn’t follow sharia law completely.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Why not as a judge? It's gonna be covered by his robes anyways.

Because is anyone ever saw the shirt beneath the robes, a court clerk, a bystander, anyone, then Moore would be wide open to all the censures that the court handed down to him due to his posting of the Ten Commandments in his courthouse which is what brought him such legal disdain to begin with.
He isn't supposed to be bringing his religious fervor into the courthouse in any manner at all. It violates separation of church and state.
But now that concept has been broken by the democrats on behalf of Ilhan Omar so perhaps we will see the Ten Commandments in the court room once more.

 

[Taz]

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

Irrelevant.

So are your dentures. Yet she still looks stupid and submitted.