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

[Taz]

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?

That would violate U.S. law.

But as a lawmaker, is it okay for her to believe in sharia above our Constitution? Because that's what real mooselimbs are supposed to do.

Of course she can believe whatever she wants. You advocating for mind control now?

She can do that in a mooselimb country.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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

This nonsense that you obviously read or heard somewhere and adopted as your own is pablum for the moron. Obviously expressing your religion is a form of exercising it. Stupid to even argue otherwise . You simpletons are hilarious.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You've been in frightened panic mode since you started posting on this thread.

I admit your idiocy and transparently false arguments are frightening in that some people apparently think like you do.

 

[Taz]

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.

As a good mooselimb, she must advocate for sharia, and hold sharia above our Constitution. Otherwise, she might as well put a crown on her head and call herself Her Majesty.

Who says she must? Are you the one who tells muslims what they must and must not do? Is the muslimsplainin'?

Then it’s like hating hockey and walking around with a NY Rangers sweater on all the time. Mixed messages.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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.

Tho I'll wager that those crying in fear the loudest against this new Congresswoman would have gladly voted for Roy Moore who has clearly stated by word and deed that he wants this country to live by christian sharia law.

By the same token, it's quite clear from your juvenile postings that you would NOT defend Roy Moore in the manner you are defending this woman. So STFU.

You are absolutely correct I would NOT defend a child fondler like I would a woman wearing a scarf on her head. Very astute of you.

What does Joe Biden have to do with this? Oh that's right you are just stupid and dishonest. Obviously we were assuming all factors remained the same. You would not defend Roy Moore's right to wear a hat in Congress. You know this, I know this, the entire world knows this.

If you can't honestly debate a topic I'll just ignore your drivel from this point forward.

 

[Taz]

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?

Is it?

Would that be okay with you? Is the question.

Nope....just like it's not ok for the likes of Roy Moore to have the goal of christian sharia as a lawmaker. Would you have voted for him if you lived in Alabama?

No.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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?

Is it?

Would that be okay with you? Is the question.

Nope....just like it's not ok for the likes of Roy Moore to have the goal of christian sharia as a lawmaker. Would you have voted for him if you lived in Alabama?

How stupid the both of you are. It is perfectly legal and okay for both of them to want their respective religions to be the law of the USA . What would NOT be right is either of them forcing their way on the rest of us.

Thankfully, neither have done so, or even tried to do so. You both are merely idiots who hate one religion or the other.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

This nonsense that you obviously read or heard somewhere and adopted as your own is pablum for the moron. Obviously expressing your religion is a form of exercising it. Stupid to even argue otherwise . You simpletons are hilarious.

I'm glad you noticed. Shit for brains thinks he (she or it) really is on to something though I tried to get through about this point many posts ago. And that's not even the dumbest thing he (she/it) has said. Read what he (she or it) said about the Ten Commandments. It's hilarious!

I put that loser on ignore.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Ah...is that why all those evangelical christians are owing their allegiance to a three time married adultery/sexual abusing liar?

As opposed to who? Hillary the Hildebeast?
Sometimes one doesn't get to choose between two perfect choices. Taking the lesser of two evils is always a viable option in an imperfect world.

 

[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.

"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?

Never, but that could have something to do with the fact that I've never asked.

On the other hand, I can cite you any number of occasions when organizations of all sorts have changed their rules because people with a stake in the organization asked them to. One that springs to mind is the number of businesses which became non-smoking areas even before smoking laws were passed, because their customers and employees asked for it. Another is the fact that increasing numbers of businesses are scent-free (meaning they require their employees not to wear perfume or cologne at work) to accommodate people with allergies and breathing issues (not to mention people like me, who just hate perfume).

The House of Representatives gym was men-only for decades, but then changed to allow women when women started to be elected in large numbers. Ditto for the House pool.

People change rules all the time to reflect changing and evolving requirements. I have no idea where you got the notion that the world used to, or should, remain static and unchanging forever, and that there's something inherently bad about evaluating current needs and adjusting to fit. That's not conservative; that's fossilized.

 

[bodecea]

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?

That would violate U.S. law.

But as a lawmaker, is it okay for her to believe in sharia above our Constitution? Because that's what real mooselimbs are supposed to do.

Of course she can believe whatever she wants. You advocating for mind control now?

She can do that in a mooselimb country.

So you do not believe in religious freedom in this country for fellow Americans. You a trump supporter?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

So you do not believe in religious freedom in this country for fellow Americans. You a trump supporter?

No one has the freedom to impose their medieval religion on others. But Ilhan Omar may be part of a new wave of Muslims who doesn't want to impose her religion's savagery on others (though she did defend the people who were defendants in the female genital mutilation case). Yeah...maybe not.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Tho I'll wager that those crying in fear the loudest against this new Congresswoman would have gladly voted for Roy Moore who has clearly stated by word and deed that he wants this country to live by christian sharia law.

By the same token, it's quite clear from your juvenile postings that you would NOT defend Roy Moore in the manner you are defending this woman. So STFU.

You are absolutely correct I would NOT defend a child fondler like I would a woman wearing a scarf on her head. Very astute of you.

What does Joe Biden have to do with this? Oh that's right you are just stupid and dishonest. Obviously we were assuming all factors remained the same. You would not defend Roy Moore's right to wear a hat in Congress. You know this, I know this, the entire world knows this.

If you can't honestly debate a topic I'll just ignore your drivel from this point forward.

You spelled Roy Moore wrong. Or maybe you tried to spell Dennis Hastert....you know...the pervert that the GOP elected to the third highest office in the US.

 

[bodecea]

So you do not believe in religious freedom in this country for fellow Americans. You a trump supporter?

No one has the freedom to impose their medieval religion on others. But Ilhan Omar may be part of a new wave of Muslims who doesn't want to impose her religion's savagery on others (though she did defend the people who were defendants in the female genital mutilation case). Yeah...maybe not.

I'm sorry to hear that someone is forcing a hijab on you. But does it make you look good?

 

[Votto]

This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. ******* ABNORMALS and worthless, spineless Repukes are taking us down the path of destruction!....Wherr are the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE scumbags when they should be up in arms....but dont let a 66 year old cross stand on public property to memorialize our fallen war heros!

For 181 years, the U.S. House of Representatives has imposed a ban on its members wearing head coverings. With Ilhan Omar, one of the first Muslim women to be elected to Congress, set to take her oath of office in January, that rule—which would have prohibited her wearing her customary headscarves or the hijab—is slated to change.

The change was proposed jointly by Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Incoming Rules Chairman Jim McGovern and member-elect Ilhan Omar as part of a larger overhaul package.

When Omar is sworn in next year, she will become the first federal legislator to wear a religious headscarf. Her arrival will mark a number of other “firsts” as well. The Minnesota Democrat will be the first Somali-American in Congress and the first woman of color to represent her state in Washington. She’ll be joined by fellow Midwestern Democrat, Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib, as the first two Muslim women in Congress.

Hats of any kind have been banned from the House floor since 1837.

Read more at citizenfreepress.com ...

I wonder how much explosives she can hide in that scarf when she enters the Congressional chambers?

Then again, she would only do that if she were trying to save the country.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I'm sorry to hear that someone is forcing a hijab on you. But does it make you look good?

What I wear isn't the issue but you knew that.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Multiple posters have decried the possibility of the House changing its rules to accommodate Omar. It hasn't simply been 'hijabs are bad', it's been an argument that she should not be able to wear any head covering because the House rules don't currently permit it, and those rules apparently should never be changed if only one person is being discomfited. Either that, or no religious ornamentation should ever be granted an exception.

And again, it's been pointed out multiple times that the Senate does not have a rule preventing religious headwear. That makes the consternation about the House possibly allowing a hijab seem even more silly.

 

[bodecea]

This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. ******* ABNORMALS and worthless, spineless Repukes are taking us down the path of destruction!....Wherr are the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE scumbags when they should be up in arms....but dont let a 66 year old cross stand on public property to memorialize our fallen war heros!

For 181 years, the U.S. House of Representatives has imposed a ban on its members wearing head coverings. With Ilhan Omar, one of the first Muslim women to be elected to Congress, set to take her oath of office in January, that rule—which would have prohibited her wearing her customary headscarves or the hijab—is slated to change.

The change was proposed jointly by Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Incoming Rules Chairman Jim McGovern and member-elect Ilhan Omar as part of a larger overhaul package.

When Omar is sworn in next year, she will become the first federal legislator to wear a religious headscarf. Her arrival will mark a number of other “firsts” as well. The Minnesota Democrat will be the first Somali-American in Congress and the first woman of color to represent her state in Washington. She’ll be joined by fellow Midwestern Democrat, Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib, as the first two Muslim women in Congress.

Hats of any kind have been banned from the House floor since 1837.

Read more at citizenfreepress.com ...

I wonder how much explosives she can hide in that scarf when she enters the Congressional chambers?

Then again, she would only do that if she were trying to save the country.

She models herself after Tim McVeigh?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Multiple posters have decried the possibility of the House changing its rules to accommodate Omar. It hasn't simply been 'hijabs are bad', it's been an argument that she should not be able to wear any head covering because the House rules don't currently permit it, and those rules apparently should never be changed if only one person is being discomfited. Either that, or no religious ornamentation should ever be granted an exception.

And again, it's been pointed out multiple times that the Senate does not have a rule preventing religious headwear. That makes the consternation about the House possibly allowing a hijab seem even more silly.

What the Senate does is immaterial. The question is are we still a secular nation or not?
Presumably everyone in government has a rule preventing religious wear because we supposedly profess a belief in separation of church and state. You seem to think not. Tell me when the concept of separation of church and state was invalidated. I missed that Constitutional revision.

 

[Taz]

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

That would violate U.S. law.

But as a lawmaker, is it okay for her to believe in sharia above our Constitution? Because that's what real mooselimbs are supposed to do.

Of course she can believe whatever she wants. You advocating for mind control now?

She can do that in a mooselimb country.

So you do not believe in religious freedom in this country for fellow Americans. You a trump supporter?

You don’t even support real freedom of religion or you would care that sharia is outlawed.