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

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Actually, I answered his question . . . in far more detail than he wanted.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I'm certain she doesn't even know Taz exists. Heck, the people talking to Taz are only barely aware of that.

Ceci, as long as you care, it's all good.

Then you're going to be a very sad moron when reality hits.

 

[Montrovant]

The point though is they didn't have to change, they chose to. Just like IF the Republicans win the House back they can choose to change the rule again and if they do, this woman will have to comply. Seriously this isn't that big of a deal.

The republicans won't dare. They would be vilified by the Media and Pop Culture as Evul and Racist.


We are NOT free to make changes. Some changes are forced down our throats and any resistance or attempt to change them back is met with massive resistance.

I think it's more like the Republicans wouldn't bother, because who gives a shit?

You keep blathering about "we are not free to make changes", just as though you still labor under the mistaken idea that YOU have ever gotten to make changes in the day-to-day running of Congress. YOU are not a member of Congress. You are not a Congressional staffer. You aren't even the Capitol building janitor. This is 100% nothing to do with you and none of your business. NOTHING is being "forced down your throat", because it doesn't affect you except to the extent that you want to sit around stewing and being outraged by the knowledge that some "black Muslim" - to quote your frequent phrase - is DARING to be in Congress without knuckling under to how you think she should be.

Your pretense that this type of Privilege is limited merely to Congress or this specific incident is noted and dismissenond as silly.


Now, my point stands. We are NOT free to make changes.

Your pretense that we're talking about anything OTHER than Congress, simply because you feel threatened by anything ever changing anywhere, is noted and pitied.

Now, your point is as non-existent as ever. YOU are not free to make changes; not because of some apocryphal "privilege" or "PC catering" to people you've personally designated as undesirables, but because YOU are not part of the House of Representatives, YOU therefore have zero say or stake in their rules of conduct, and YOU are butting your nose into something that does not affect you and is not any of your business, because YOU think you should be able to dictate the entire world be just like you so that YOU don't have to feel bad.

In other words, you're thinking an awful lot like a leftist.

Now this is hilarious, when you see a liberal actually arguing that there is no requirement for a separation of church and state in this country. LOL just the sort of thing that happens when you have zero actual principles to live by.

Who is the liberal and where did they argue there is no requirement for separation of church and state?

 

[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.

You made a point about Constitutional Rights, and he demonstrated that that point was invalid.


That's a crushing.


Don't project your inability to be objective.

I made a point about Constitutional rights. He made a false analogy, and you creamed your pants because you thought someone had validated your bigotry.

That's laughable and pathetic.

Don't project your inability to think without your glands.

That you are too stupid to understand an analogy doesn't make it false.

You have a right to carry a gun, you also have a right to express your religion.

Those are both rights as much as the left would like one of them not to be, and the other as well if it's a Christian expressing their religion, but that's a topic for another thread.

Having those rights doesn't have shit to to do with The House, or any other organization saying "fine , but you can't exercise that right here" meaning for example that just because I have a right to carry a gun, that doesn't mean I have a right to carry around inside a bank because the bank has a right to set rules. Just as Congress does.

I understood the analogy just fine. It was wrong. That's why I disagreed with it.

Helpfully explaining your wrongness will not lessen it.

 

[Taz]

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?

Praying 5 times a Day is part of Sharia law. That is protected by our Constitution and is not outlawed in the U.S.

That should make you and your camels happy then.

 

[Taz]

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.

I'm certain she doesn't even know Taz exists. Heck, the people talking to Taz are only barely aware of that.

Ceci, as long as you care, it's all good.

Then you're going to be a very sad moron when reality hits.

Naw, you’re a softy at heart.

 

[Montrovant]

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?

You are correct....sharia law holds no weight in our courts of law....just like any other religious law.

Let's think on the 10 Commandments, a form of Sharia Law for Jews and Christians

The Ten Commandments

1 Thou shalt have no other gods before me
2 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
3 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
4 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
5 Honour thy father and thy mother
6 Thou shalt not kill
7 Thou shalt not commit adultery
8 Thou shalt not steal
9 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
10 Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's slaves, animals, or anything else)


1 is not a secular law
2 is not a secular law
3 is not a secular law
4 is not a secular law
5 is not a secular law
6 IS a secular law in all cultures/countries
7 is not a secular law (tho it probably will get you divorced)
8 IS a secular law in all cultures/countries
9 is not a secular law (unless under oath in a court of law)
10 is not a secular law

Actually, in some states adultery is apparently part of secular law. Of course, it seems they are rarely if ever prosecuted, and it's an open question whether they would pass Constitutional muster were a case brought against them.

In which states is cheating on your spouse illegal?
Adultery Laws - Where Is Cheating Illegal
Why is adultery still a crime?

I find the idea of it being criminal ludicrous, although I can see it having civil consequences as a breach of contract.

 

[OldLady]

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.

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?

NO! A granite monument in a Court House, where the laws are adjudicated cannot put up a Christian monument to the Ten Commandments, the cornerstone of the Christian religion.
Where on her hijab does it say or list anything about Islam? This is what Judge Moore want to advertise:

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
   
   
2. You shall not make idols.
   
   
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
   
   
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
   
   
5. Honor your father and your mother.
   
   
6. You shall not murder.
   
   
7. You shall not commit adultery.
   
   
8. You shall not steal.
   
   
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
   
   
10. You shall not covet.
    

 

[ph3iron]

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 ...

Nice Christian foul mouth.
Ammerican muslims are better educated and earn more than our zero college white rubes.
Especially like ms purge who doesn't know "America great" was our WWII Nazi group name
Or maybe she does??

 

[ph3iron]

View attachment 232366

I recall a report from a nice Long Island neighborhood several years ago.


A young gay male was killed.


The locals were horrified. They said "this is not who we are".


BUT, they had welcomed the influx of hispanic immigration until there was a large hispanic population with a serious gang problem and the gang was upset that one of it's members was behaving in a not macho fashion.


So they killed him.


A community that invites in a large and alien population, gives up the right to define itself.

That's what happened to the Indians.
Let white convicts in here

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Correll should be so proud to know that he's thinking on the exact same wavelength as you. If that doesn't make him suicidal, nothing on Earth will.

I bet you'd be right up there throwing the first stone.

Not sure what stones have to do with suicide, but I never have understood idiots very well.

 

[The Purge]

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 ...

Nice Christian foul mouth.
Ammerican muslims are better educated and earn more than our zero college white rubes.
Especially like ms purge who doesn't know "America great" was our WWII Nazi group name
Or maybe she does??

I am not a Christian, asshole! Unlike you, terrorist fodder!

 

[Cecilie1200]

The point though is they didn't have to change, they chose to. Just like IF the Republicans win the House back they can choose to change the rule again and if they do, this woman will have to comply. Seriously this isn't that big of a deal.

The republicans won't dare. They would be vilified by the Media and Pop Culture as Evul and Racist.


We are NOT free to make changes. Some changes are forced down our throats and any resistance or attempt to change them back is met with massive resistance.

I think it's more like the Republicans wouldn't bother, because who gives a shit?

You keep blathering about "we are not free to make changes", just as though you still labor under the mistaken idea that YOU have ever gotten to make changes in the day-to-day running of Congress. YOU are not a member of Congress. You are not a Congressional staffer. You aren't even the Capitol building janitor. This is 100% nothing to do with you and none of your business. NOTHING is being "forced down your throat", because it doesn't affect you except to the extent that you want to sit around stewing and being outraged by the knowledge that some "black Muslim" - to quote your frequent phrase - is DARING to be in Congress without knuckling under to how you think she should be.

Your pretense that this type of Privilege is limited merely to Congress or this specific incident is noted and dismissenond as silly.


Now, my point stands. We are NOT free to make changes.

Your pretense that we're talking about anything OTHER than Congress, simply because you feel threatened by anything ever changing anywhere, is noted and pitied.

Now, your point is as non-existent as ever. YOU are not free to make changes; not because of some apocryphal "privilege" or "PC catering" to people you've personally designated as undesirables, but because YOU are not part of the House of Representatives, YOU therefore have zero say or stake in their rules of conduct, and YOU are butting your nose into something that does not affect you and is not any of your business, because YOU think you should be able to dictate the entire world be just like you so that YOU don't have to feel bad.

In other words, you're thinking an awful lot like a leftist.

Now this is hilarious, when you see a liberal actually arguing that there is no requirement for a separation of church and state in this country. LOL just the sort of thing that happens when you have zero actual principles to live by.

Now this is hilarious, when someone is told multiple times that I'm not a "liberal", but is too stupid to comprehend it because he - mistakenly - thinks he represents all things conservative, and any disagreement must be "liberalism". As opposed to, for example, simple acknowledgement that he talks out of his ass.

Congratulations on "brilliantly" identifying the hypocrisy that doesn't exist in the principles of a "liberal" who never was one . . . and being too pig-stupid and arrogant to pick up on your own mistake.

 

[Taz]

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.

Correll should be so proud to know that he's thinking on the exact same wavelength as you. If that doesn't make him suicidal, nothing on Earth will.

I bet you'd be right up there throwing the first stone.

Not sure what stones have to do with suicide, but I never have understood idiots very well.

At the rape victim. Sheesh, try to keep up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The republicans won't dare. They would be vilified by the Media and Pop Culture as Evul and Racist.


We are NOT free to make changes. Some changes are forced down our throats and any resistance or attempt to change them back is met with massive resistance.

I think it's more like the Republicans wouldn't bother, because who gives a shit?

You keep blathering about "we are not free to make changes", just as though you still labor under the mistaken idea that YOU have ever gotten to make changes in the day-to-day running of Congress. YOU are not a member of Congress. You are not a Congressional staffer. You aren't even the Capitol building janitor. This is 100% nothing to do with you and none of your business. NOTHING is being "forced down your throat", because it doesn't affect you except to the extent that you want to sit around stewing and being outraged by the knowledge that some "black Muslim" - to quote your frequent phrase - is DARING to be in Congress without knuckling under to how you think she should be.

Your pretense that this type of Privilege is limited merely to Congress or this specific incident is noted and dismissenond as silly.


Now, my point stands. We are NOT free to make changes.

Your pretense that we're talking about anything OTHER than Congress, simply because you feel threatened by anything ever changing anywhere, is noted and pitied.

Now, your point is as non-existent as ever. YOU are not free to make changes; not because of some apocryphal "privilege" or "PC catering" to people you've personally designated as undesirables, but because YOU are not part of the House of Representatives, YOU therefore have zero say or stake in their rules of conduct, and YOU are butting your nose into something that does not affect you and is not any of your business, because YOU think you should be able to dictate the entire world be just like you so that YOU don't have to feel bad.

In other words, you're thinking an awful lot like a leftist.

Now this is hilarious, when you see a liberal actually arguing that there is no requirement for a separation of church and state in this country. LOL just the sort of thing that happens when you have zero actual principles to live by.

Who is the liberal and where did they argue there is no requirement for separation of church and state?

Apparently, my lack of worship for his received "brilliance and wisdom" when he showed up and started vomiting nonsense without reading the thread is a sign of "liberalism", instead of my very consistent lack of patience with bloviating idiocy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I'm certain she doesn't even know Taz exists. Heck, the people talking to Taz are only barely aware of that.

Ceci, as long as you care, it's all good.

Then you're going to be a very sad moron when reality hits.

Naw, you’re a softy at heart.

Provide proof that I have a heart.

 

[mdk]

Cecilie1200 is a well-known communist agitator around here and her favorite color is red.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Correll should be so proud to know that he's thinking on the exact same wavelength as you. If that doesn't make him suicidal, nothing on Earth will.

I bet you'd be right up there throwing the first stone.

Not sure what stones have to do with suicide, but I never have understood idiots very well.

At the rape victim. Sheesh, try to keep up.

Yeah, um, I was talking about Correll and his rather alarming agreement with you. The idiocy on which the two of you were agreeing, not so much.

Learn to comprehend English.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cecilie1200 is a well-known communist agitator around here and her favorite color is red.

Yeah, and I cried when Hillary Clinton lost, because I adore her pantsuits.

 

[mdk]

Cecilie1200 is a well-known communist agitator around here and her favorite color is red.

Yeah, and I cried when Hillary Clinton lost, because I adore her pantsuits.

I bet you have one in every color.