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

[Cecilie1200]

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..

It used to allow it....before the Civil War. But maybe you should petition them to allow it again.

Why would I , when I don't care what rules they have for themselves ? I merely point out that you no more have a right to wear a head covering as a member of Congress than you do to carry a gun.

"I merely point out that two very dissimilar things are exactly the same, and therefore there are no rights whatsoever that Congress can't simply ignore at will for no reason."

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

It really isnt. You just hate muslims and dont want to accomodate them. It makes you look small and mean spirited.The nasty party.

It really is and your ignorance about things you haven't the slightest clue about is really breathtaking.
I wouldn't dream of trying to butt in and pretend I know about your parliamentary nonsense but that doesn't seem to stop you when it comes to the Constitution. What colossal gall!
You are gift that keeps on giving...ignorance.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Yeah, or maybe her personal religious convictions are, y'know, personalized.

Christians practice their faith with an enormous spectrum of variety. Doesn't make one "more Christian" than another; just means they each have a different view of what God requires from them. And depending on the issue, they may actually all be right.

Likewise, not all Muslims are hardline fundamentalists, but even more . . . reformed, for lack of a better word, Muslim women still hold to a lot of the modesty requirements.

Bottom line, it's between her and Allah. If you aren't either of those people, your judgement is irrelevant.

So if she thinks that chopping off a robber's hand is ok (as per sharia), that's ok with you?

Because her wearing a hijab is just like changing our laws on robbery/theft punishment criteria to match up with some ME theocracy.

 

[bodecea]

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

The decision in question is not yours to make, so your opinion is irrelevant.

All you need to know is that SHE considers it necessary, and that it affects you not in the slightest.

So if SHE considers it necessary to worship a prophet who was a pedophile, and wants to marry off HER 9 year old daughter to an old guy, you're ok with that?

Is marrying off her 9 year old daughter to Roy Moore legal in this country?

 

[bodecea]

It really isnt. You just hate muslims and dont want to accomodate them. It makes you look small and mean spirited.The nasty party.

It really is and your ignorance about things you haven't the slightest clue about is really breathtaking.
I wouldn't dream of trying to butt in and pretend I know about your parliamentary nonsense but that doesn't seem to stop you when it comes to the Constitution. What colossal gall!
You are gift that keeps on giving...ignorance.

Still very very frightened of an American woman wearing a hijab.

 

[irosie91]

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 think it's actually a red herring to discuss whether or not her religion officially requires the hijab as a tenet of their beliefs, for the simple reason that it STILL leads us down the path of requiring people to vet their personal exercise of religion through other people.

As a Christian, I believe that it would be a sin for me to deliberately choose not to do something that God wants me to do. That applies even if it is not something that is universally and officially considered sinful by the church and other Christians. The sin is in the deliberate choice to disobey God.

Therefore, it would be a violation of my free exercise of religion to require me to do the opposite of what God wants of me, because you would basically be forcing me to commit a sin.

I'm not going to violate someone else's rights by forcing them to do something they would consider disobedience to their god without an extremely compelling reason to do so.

you continue to make a fool of yourself. NO ONE is demanding that she NOT COVER HER HAIR-----the issue is how she does it. Her "god" does not demand (if you want to go down that road) that she
WRAP HER HEAD IN A MEDIEVAL Arabian headdress. ----it is, very simply, a custom in the both the middle east and far east for thousands of years that grown women cover their hair in PUBLIC.
They did it in Rome, in Greece ------probably not Egypt. ----- In fact
women wore hats when my mother was a girl in New York City. For the sake of decorum------of course women should be able to wear a discreet head covering when acting as a Representative of the USA or a teacher in a public school if they consider it a requirement of their religion Clothing SPECIFIC to a given religion may be curtailed for the sake of DECORUM. Similarly----if someone decides to decorate with a giant crucifix with a "jesus" nailed on for a
congressional meeting-----I would consider that----RUDE and Disruptive too. ----also, an Indian dhoti would seem out of place too-----Hindus are people with a culture too-----with all kinds of
symbolic decorations I would expect an Indian Female in
congress to avoid showing up in a Sari----especially of the skimpy kind which does not seem risqué to people from India---would seem
overly sexy to some Baptists. Ie---I support a reasonable, moderate
and secular, non-distracting dress code.

 

[Faun]

”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.

You must be retarded to think challenging you to demonstrate your claims is a “stupid question”...

... or a ***** who’s using that as an excuse to avoid answering the question to back your idiocies.

Or maybe you’re just both a retard AND a *****.

Either way, your idiocy is DOA since you can’t prove it.

 

[Faun]

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.

As stated, I did not ask you because nobody cares about you.

 

[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.

Yeah, or maybe her personal religious convictions are, y'know, personalized.

Christians practice their faith with an enormous spectrum of variety. Doesn't make one "more Christian" than another; just means they each have a different view of what God requires from them. And depending on the issue, they may actually all be right.

Likewise, not all Muslims are hardline fundamentalists, but even more . . . reformed, for lack of a better word, Muslim women still hold to a lot of the modesty requirements.

Bottom line, it's between her and Allah. If you aren't either of those people, your judgement is irrelevant.

So if she thinks that chopping off a robber's hand is ok (as per sharia), that's ok with you?

Because her wearing a hijab is just like changing our laws on robbery/theft punishment criteria to match up with some ME theocracy.

I'm asking if it's ok for her to hold sharia law above our Constitution like a LOT of mooselimbs do? And if it's okay for her to push sharia type legislation?

 

[Pilot1]

She can wear an Indian headdress for all I care. I won't even accuse her of "cultural appropriation".

 

[Taz]

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

The decision in question is not yours to make, so your opinion is irrelevant.

All you need to know is that SHE considers it necessary, and that it affects you not in the slightest.

So if SHE considers it necessary to worship a prophet who was a pedophile, and wants to marry off HER 9 year old daughter to an old guy, you're ok with that?

Is marrying off her 9 year old daughter to Roy Moore legal in this country?

So it's ok with you if that's one of her goals as a lawmaker?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Still very very frightened of an American woman wearing a hijab.

That's a straw man if ever there was one. Claiming someone is "frightened" of this openly un Constitutional move is just
b.s. and a cowardly way of ducking the real issue.

 

[irosie91]

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.

Can you name a single Orthodox Jew who has served in the House?

Do you even know the difference between an Orthodox Jew and other sorts of Jews?

Do you know the definition of the word "orthodox"?

Wait til an ultra-orthodox Jew is elected.....they will lose their minds! View attachment 233120

do YOU know what constitutes an "ULTRA ORTHODOX JEW"?----
I got news-------I know lots. NONE wear that traditional garb stuff
that you have pictured when they are functioning as judges or lawyers or plying a scapel in the operating room. Those in such positions
ADAPT and blend for the sake of decorum

 

[Faun]

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.

No, I’m pretty sure Melanie’s called a whore because she did porn before marrying trump.

 

[OldLady]

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.

But she lives in America, where we do not have Sharia Law.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Once again, the crux of the problem seems to be that you feel left out and are demanding special treatment. "How come she gets to wear a hat when I can't?" You do this on so many fronts, Correll. Grow up.

You are mistaken. My point is that she is receiving special treatment, having the rules changed for her.

Even if that were true, so what?

He's having trouble differentiating between "special treatment", where one person gets considerations not available to anyone else, and simply being the catalyst for a change which applies equally to everyone.

 

[Faun]

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.

Great, ^^^ another idiot ^^^ who doesn’t understand that even rights have restrictions.

Can you take your gun with you if you’re incarcerated? Can you scream “fire” in a crowded theater where there is no fire?

Thanks for admitting you’re too stupid to contribute coherently. Here ya go....

 

[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.

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.

This is an example of an the national mindset where it is on US to adjust to them instead of the other way around.


Plenty of changes are occurring that are effecting me and mine communities, and it is silly of you to pretend this is some isolated incident.

Yeah, no. If we were talking about us having to actually change something about ourselves, that would be one thing. Since we're talking about us merely having to accommodate their presence and participation in our society without changing anything we ourselves do or don't do, you're way off-course.

Unless those "plenty of changes" you're talking about involve women wearing hijabs and actually have some detrimental effect - or ANY effect - on you personally, it's irrelevant to the topic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Again, the fear, fear, fear of deplorables for a woman in a hijab.

If you can't debate a point without resorting to childish remarks , and to make matters worse you didn't even debate the point, then you have no place in serious discussion.

Ooh, the noob is now going to start handing down rules for message board behavior.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 do actually know some practicing Muslim women. They all wear hijabs, and since I know them from work, I would have to assume they're from a less-fundamental type of Islam which allows women to have jobs (and presumably to drive), but which still holds certain views about female modesty. Can't say that I've ever questioned them that closely, because it would be invasive and rude.