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

[DandyDonovan]

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.

She is not living in our system, she is changing it to be HER system. We are the ones that are going to have to learn to live in it now.

OUR system allows for changes. You realize, of course, that if the House had wanted the rules to be permanent they could have long ago made a rule stating that no rules may be changed, don't you?

That is , in fact, the beauty of our entire system. It is entirely adaptable, and even our Constitution can be changed, albeit in a very difficult process as is appropriate.

 

[Faun]

What you said was this:
.

You said the Senate "allows" religious head wear and that's misstating things.
They simply haven't banned head wear like the House had. That makes your statement immaterial.

It wasn't that long ago. Is it a violation of our secular government for the Senate to allow any individual religious expression, or only a hijab? You've been pretty unclear about your stance.

I haven't been unclear at all. Where have you been? First of all you again misstate the issue: The Senate is not allowing "any" religious expression.
Only religious expression that doesn't tacitly endorse one particular religion over others. I think that eliminates the hijab just as it does the ten commandments.

One doesn't need to be a Supreme Court scholar to have some basis for a claim about what is or is not considered unconstitutional. Of course, perhaps you do not actually have such a basis. I'm not asking Roy Moore about this because I'm asking you, and because the Roy Moore situation was different than this one, as has been explained to you repeatedly.

And I've stated over and over again based on court rulings that any religious expression that endorses any particular religion over others tacitly implies the government is favoring a certain religion and that is
not legal. So ask Roy Moore why he could not post the ten commandments in his court room: Because it
implies endorsement by our government of that religion. That's counter to our supposed secular nation.

The Constitution doesn't need to be altered to allow a Congressional representative to wear a hijab (or a yarmulke, or a cross, or a bindi, etc.). The Constitution does not prohibit the free exercise of religion, only government endorsement of religion. An individual wearing a piece of religious headwear does not constitute government endorsement of religion. If you disagree you can feel free to bring suit against the House and Senate. I think you'll find that your understanding of the concept of separation of church and state is in error if you do.

I've indicated where your reasoning falls apart. If wearing a hijab does not constitute government endorsement of that religion then Roy Moore should get his job back and he should put that ten commandments poster back up
because if one is okay then the other must be as well as they are both expressions of religious faith that feature one specific religion over all others. The End

”You said the Senate "allows" religious head wear and that's misstating things. They simply haven't banned head wear like the House had. That makes your statement immaterial.”

No, ya lying cuck. The Senate has a rule that permits Senators to wear religious headwear on the Senate floor...

United States Senate Manual, 104th Congress-RULES FOR REGULATION OF THE SENATE WING OF THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL

... he [the Sergeant of Arms] shall not permit any person to place any object whatsoever--including hats, coats, or other personal apparel--or portion of a person on any railing, or any male to wear a hat, except that where a man's religious beliefs require that he wear a head-cover in such public places as the Senate Gallery, then such head-cover shall be permitted;\1\ and he shall not allow any person to lean forward over the railings or to place his or her hands thereon.​

Don’t you ever get tired of making an ass of yourself on this topic?

Oh wait, you said you’re ignoring me. That means while everyone else here gets to see me bitchslap you with the back side of my pimp hand, you put yourself into the unenviable position of not being able to defend yourself. How ******* stupid are you??

 

[OldLady]

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.

She is not living in our system, she is changing it to be HER system. We are the ones that are going to have to learn to live in it now.

In what way is she "changing our system?" By wearing a hijab? LOL
What great changes are you going to have to make to live in this Brave New World where some women wear a hijab? You know they already do, everywhere else in this country? On the street, in their offices, in school?
Correll, find something sensible to sweat over.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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.

She is not living in our system, she is changing it to be HER system. We are the ones that are going to have to learn to live in it now.

In what way is she "changing our system?" By wearing a hijab? LOL
What great changes are you going to have to make to live in this Brave New World where some women wear a hijab? You know they already do, everywhere else in this country? On the street, in their offices, in school?
Correll, find something sensible to sweat over.

I myself expect to be very inconvenienced by a woman who I don't know wearing a hoodie somewhere that I am not at.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Obviously we are talking about religious jewelry in this context. Did you think that wedding bands were being included in the conversation?

When did the visibility of the apparel become the determining factor in whether something is Constitutionally acceptable? Are crosses of a certain size no longer Constitutional? If that's the case, why is the difference in size between a hijab and a multi-ton granite monument of the 10 commandments not relevant?

Both a granite monument and a hijab can easily be seen and therefore be recognized as a potential endorsement of a certain religion by the government. Isn't that perfectly obvious?

You've got me there, it certainly is the gallery.

Like I said...don't get your talking points from an utter idiot and a miserable prick! It makes you look bad.

How do you know that explicit expressions that exalt one religion over all others made by government entities is verboten? I've already pointed out one case to you in which that is not true (Van Orden v Perry).
You've not shown any evidence that the sort of expression in question here is prohibited. Do you know of any cases in which a government employee was deemed to be in violation of the Constitution for wearing a religious head cover? Hell, do you know of any cases in which a government employee was deemed to be in violation of the Constitution because of the religious nature of any apparel they wore? Once again, your argument appears to rest on your opinion alone.

Separation of Church and State in the United States - Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History
How do I know that Van Orden v Perry says what you say it does? Are you actually disputing the concept of separation of church and state?
"Despite its inclusion in the pantheon of democratic virtues, separation of church and state did not become constitutional canon until the mid-twentieth century with incorporation of the Bill of Right to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. In the modern Court’s first Establishment Clause holding, Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote:

The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another […] No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion […] In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between Church and State.”

There is zero doubt that the thing that I can prove is a Constitutionally sound principle of American secular governance
is a real actual thing. Where is your evidence it is not?

I'm not trying to argue the merits of the ACLU, I'm pointing out that when you admit to knowing very little about an organization, your opinions of that organization lose weight.

Have I admitted to knowing very little about the ACLU? I don't recall that. I know about their zeal for kicking God out of the public arena based on the principle of separation of church and state.

Here's a question: Do you think the military allowing religious head covers for soldiers is unconstitutional?

That's an Obama directive, surprise. U.S. Army Allows Turbans, Hijabs, Beards, and Dreadlocks - The Atlantic
I think it undermines military order but using the ACLU's philosophy ANY government activity that could be construed as an endorsement of religion is illegal. Of course that's only ever been applied to Christianity by them.

As a Supreme Court justice I would have to find that our military occupies a unique place in our government and since it does not make policy but is only a defensive force, military exemptions granted for religious purposes would not be seen as endorsement per se by our government of any religion but merely a religious expression by military personnel. But that's off the top of my head and I could easily change my mind on that issue.

What I do know is some faceless grunt does not occupy the same place in our government as a member of Congress.

 

[Faun]

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

She can do that in a mooselimb country.

She’s a U.S. citizen which means she gets to do it here. Sucks for you that there’s nothing you can do about it.

I don’t care if she wants to look foolish, she can tattoo a swastika on her forehead, for all I care. It would fit well with the rag wrapped around her noggin.

I’m certain she doesn’t care what you think of her look. In fact, I’m certain she doesn’t even know what you think. What’s important to her is that her First Amendment rights are being protected.

And by Democrats. Republicans clearly don’t give two shits about First Amendment rights.

Her first amendment rights aren’t protected, sharia law is outlawed.

I’m a Libertarian, not Republican.

That you couldn’t produce a statute that shows Sharia law is outlawed, demonstrates even you know it’s not. Certainly, parts of it are, and of course, Sharia law does not trump the Constitution. But nowhere in U.S. law does it say Sharia law is outlawed.

 

[Faun]

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.

Expressing one’s religion is not necessarily exercising it. Express means to show. Exercise means to practice.

For example, let’s see you explain how erecting a monument of the Ten Commandments is “exercising” one’s religion....

If you erect it in the Capital Building, it’s more than just a benign nothing.

LOLOL

That wasn’t the question, now was it. I think I’m onto something as you’re now the second retard to run away from that question.

I just handed you your ass. Now get off the internet, you’re making it dumber.

It’s adorable how you think you handed me my ass by avoiding my question.

 

[Taz]

She can do that in a mooselimb country.

She’s a U.S. citizen which means she gets to do it here. Sucks for you that there’s nothing you can do about it.

I don’t care if she wants to look foolish, she can tattoo a swastika on her forehead, for all I care. It would fit well with the rag wrapped around her noggin.

I’m certain she doesn’t care what you think of her look. In fact, I’m certain she doesn’t even know what you think. What’s important to her is that her First Amendment rights are being protected.

And by Democrats. Republicans clearly don’t give two shits about First Amendment rights.

Her first amendment rights aren’t protected, sharia law is outlawed.

I’m a Libertarian, not Republican.

That you couldn’t produce a statute that shows Sharia law is outlawed, demonstrates even you know it’s not. Certainly, parts of it are, and of course, Sharia law does not trump the Constitution. But nowhere in U.S. law does it say Sharia law is outlawed.

It's illegal to chop someone's hand off for stealing an egg. There's your ******* statute. Idiot. Think of getting off the internet, you're making it dumber. Seriously.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Really? You throw out "Well, other people have tried to get the rule changed, but they didn't get it. Only she did," and you don't think it's relevant to actually substantiate that? You make an argument, but the verifiable details can just be dismissed?

Well, let me make it relevant for you, Bigot Boy. No details = it's a lie you made up to sell your position.

Unless/until you prove otherwise, the rule was changed because she's the first person who has requested accommodation for her religious beliefs. You want to claim otherwise, do NOT expect to just say it and have it stand. I don't accept that shit when leftists do it, and I don't accept it here.

It wasn't for religious reasons, but Frederica Wilson did try to get the hat ban lifted about 8 years ago.
Frederica Wilson Gives Up on Fight to Wear Hats on House Floor

I happened to have seen an article about it while looking at things relevant to Ms. Omar's situation. Obviously it was a different set of circumstances than this current one.

Yeah, that really WOULD have been accommodating just one person, and not for any meaningful reason. I can't say off the top of my head how many obsessive shopping addicts the House contains at any given moment.

 

[Faun]

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.

Cite the law which states Sharia law is outlawed....

We don’t allow stoning of rape victims, nor chopping off the hand of petty thieves... you have been schooled, now stfu.

You’re merely list some of their laws that are outlawed. Some are not. Sharia law is not outlawed.

 

[Faun]

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.

You didn't ask, because you know that you are just spewing shit from your face anus, and that I would call you on it.

LOLOL

You’re ******* demented.

I adequately explained, as have others, why no one answered your question.

 

[danielpalos]

Even a "DeathStar" can have a casual Friday; why not Congress.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

It seems to me that Ms. Omar is doing exactly that. She's a citizen, she's been elected to the House of Representatives, and she's working through the rules in place in the House to petition for a change.

Is your version of a "sane world" one in which change never occurs?

I think his version of a sane world is one where everyone is required to be just like him.

 

[Faun]

She’s a U.S. citizen which means she gets to do it here. Sucks for you that there’s nothing you can do about it.

I don’t care if she wants to look foolish, she can tattoo a swastika on her forehead, for all I care. It would fit well with the rag wrapped around her noggin.

I’m certain she doesn’t care what you think of her look. In fact, I’m certain she doesn’t even know what you think. What’s important to her is that her First Amendment rights are being protected.

And by Democrats. Republicans clearly don’t give two shits about First Amendment rights.

Her first amendment rights aren’t protected, sharia law is outlawed.

I’m a Libertarian, not Republican.

That you couldn’t produce a statute that shows Sharia law is outlawed, demonstrates even you know it’s not. Certainly, parts of it are, and of course, Sharia law does not trump the Constitution. But nowhere in U.S. law does it say Sharia law is outlawed.

It's illegal to chop someone's hand off for stealing an egg. There's your ******* statute. Idiot. Think of getting off the internet, you're making it dumber. Seriously.

That’s but one law of many. Just admit you can’t find any U.S. statute that outlaws Sharia law.

 

[Taz]

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.

Cite the law which states Sharia law is outlawed....

We don’t allow stoning of rape victims, nor chopping off the hand of petty thieves... you have been schooled, now stfu.

You’re merely list some of their laws that are outlawed. Some are not. Sharia law is not outlawed.

None of sharia holds weight in court. Now go kiss a ******* carpet. Can't you hear Allah calling you?

 

[Taz]

I don’t care if she wants to look foolish, she can tattoo a swastika on her forehead, for all I care. It would fit well with the rag wrapped around her noggin.

I’m certain she doesn’t care what you think of her look. In fact, I’m certain she doesn’t even know what you think. What’s important to her is that her First Amendment rights are being protected.

And by Democrats. Republicans clearly don’t give two shits about First Amendment rights.

Her first amendment rights aren’t protected, sharia law is outlawed.

I’m a Libertarian, not Republican.

That you couldn’t produce a statute that shows Sharia law is outlawed, demonstrates even you know it’s not. Certainly, parts of it are, and of course, Sharia law does not trump the Constitution. But nowhere in U.S. law does it say Sharia law is outlawed.

It's illegal to chop someone's hand off for stealing an egg. There's your ******* statute. Idiot. Think of getting off the internet, you're making it dumber. Seriously.

That’s but one law of many. Just admit you can’t find any U.S. statute that outlaws Sharia law.

I just told you, it's illegal to chop anyone's hand off, for pretty much any reason I would think, lol. Now seriously, go water your camel.

 

[bodecea]

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.

You didn't ask, because you know that you are just spewing shit from your face anus, and that I would call you on it.

More name calling.

 

[Montrovant]

Both a granite monument and a hijab can easily be seen and therefore be recognized as a potential endorsement of a certain religion by the government. Isn't that perfectly obvious?

So only something easily seen violates the Constitution? OK, what do you base that opinion on, and what are the limits of "easily seen"? Do you not think the fact that a hijab is a personal ornamentation which leaves when the person wearing it leaves, while a granite monument becomes a part of the building it is placed in and cannot be moved without machinery and a great deal of effort, makes those situations different? Is the visibility of the display the only important factor, and again, what do you base such an opinion on?

Separation of Church and State in the United States - Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History
How do I know that Van Orden v Perry says what you say it does? Are you actually disputing the concept of separation of church and state?
"Despite its inclusion in the pantheon of democratic virtues, separation of church and state did not become constitutional canon until the mid-twentieth century with incorporation of the Bill of Right to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. In the modern Court’s first Establishment Clause holding, Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote:

The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another […] No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion […] In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between Church and State.”

There is zero doubt that the thing that I can prove is a Constitutionally sound principle of American secular governance
is a real actual thing. Where is your evidence it is not?

If you want to know what Van Orden v Perry says, simply look it up. That's what I did. You were clearly able to go look up other things. In Van Orden a 10 commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol was deemed not to violate the Constitution.

I have never once argued that the concept of separation of church and state does not exist. It is your understanding of the current status of how that concept is applied I have been arguing against. That we have a separation of church and state does not mean that every (easily visible) expression of religious belief by government employees is prohibited.

Have I admitted to knowing very little about the ACLU? I don't recall that. I know about their zeal for kicking God out of the public arena based on the principle of separation of church and state.

You said you had no idea if the ACLU had ever fought to protect the rights of Christians, only that they had sued Christians. I easily found more than 20 cases in which the ACLU fought to protect the rights of Christians in just the past decade. If you don't know what kinds of cases the ACLU brings and works with, yeah, you don't know that much about them.

Certainly the ACLU has been involved in separation cases. They tend to get more media attention. That doesn't mean the organization hasn't fought for the religious freedoms of individuals of various faiths, too.

That's an Obama directive, surprise. U.S. Army Allows Turbans, Hijabs, Beards, and Dreadlocks - The Atlantic
I think it undermines military order but using the ACLU's philosophy ANY government activity that could be construed as an endorsement of religion is illegal. Of course that's only ever been applied to Christianity by them.

As a Supreme Court justice I would have to find that our military occupies a unique place in our government and since it does not make policy but is only a defensive force, military exemptions granted for religious purposes would not be seen as endorsement per se by our government of any religion but merely a religious expression by military personnel. But that's off the top of my head and I could easily change my mind on that issue.

What I do know is some faceless grunt does not occupy the same place in our government as a member of Congress.

Actually, there has apparently been a mechanism for religious exemption to the grooming and uniform requirements of the military since the 1980s. The article you posted says it would just become easier to apply for such an exemption, and changed rules about women's hair to allow dreadlocks. From the article you posted: "In the 1986, the Supreme Court heard a case brought by an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, Simcha Goldman, who had been forbidden by the Air Force to wear a yarmulke while on duty and in uniform. The Court deferred to the military. In response, Congress passed a rule stating that servicemen should be able to wear religious apparel."

So now we have visibility of religious expression and the particular place one holds in government as mitigating factors as to whether an expression of religion violates the Constitution. Clearly you understand that context matters; that circumstances can change whether something is a Constitutional violation. That being the case, why are you so insistent that the differences between a woman wearing a hijab and a man having a monument placed in a courthouse are meaningless? For the umpteenth time, what is it you base your opinion about that on? You've said you don't know of any relevant Supreme Court rulings, I haven't seen you post anything in the Constitution that would indicate the First Amendment separation of church and state covers only those things you claim it does, what makes you so secure in your understanding of how the separation of church and state works?

I'm more than happy to admit I'm not an expert and that I may not have a proper understanding of all the nuances of how the concept of separation is applied, but I've also done a little checking to find things like relevant court decisions about the subject. There is clearly subjective opinion either way, I just don't understand where your seemingly unshakable confidence in your opinion comes from.

 

[Montrovant]

I’m certain she doesn’t care what you think of her look. In fact, I’m certain she doesn’t even know what you think. What’s important to her is that her First Amendment rights are being protected.

And by Democrats. Republicans clearly don’t give two shits about First Amendment rights.

Her first amendment rights aren’t protected, sharia law is outlawed.

I’m a Libertarian, not Republican.

That you couldn’t produce a statute that shows Sharia law is outlawed, demonstrates even you know it’s not. Certainly, parts of it are, and of course, Sharia law does not trump the Constitution. But nowhere in U.S. law does it say Sharia law is outlawed.

It's illegal to chop someone's hand off for stealing an egg. There's your ******* statute. Idiot. Think of getting off the internet, you're making it dumber. Seriously.

That’s but one law of many. Just admit you can’t find any U.S. statute that outlaws Sharia law.

I just told you, it's illegal to chop anyone's hand off, for pretty much any reason I would think, lol. Now seriously, go water your camel.

This is just silly. Can you both agree that any portion of Sharia Law which violates US law is outlawed, and any part which does not is not outlawed, while agreeing that Sharia Law does not have the force of law in the US? The same as any other set of religious law?

Of course, you're making me feel better about the content of my own current conversation in this thread, so perhaps it would be better if you keep this up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

She’s a U.S. citizen which means she gets to do it here. Sucks for you that there’s nothing you can do about it.

Separation of church and state


View attachment 233221

Only thing that trumps it is common sense AND the law. At no point in time has the law ever said, or been interpreted to say, that elected officials lose their individual civil rights. Therefore, "separation of church and state" - which doesn't even appear in the law as such - is not applicable to the individual First Amendment rights of Representatives, no matter how many times you parrot it in the gleeful tones of a 3-year-old who thinks he's finally outsmarted his parents.