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

[Montrovant]

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.

She probably has them in red, and blue, but definitely not white!

 

[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.

I bet you have one in every color.

And a big picture of her over my bed for inspiration.

Okay, I stretched sarcasm too far, and now I need to go throw up. BRB.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

No one, least of all me, thinks what Roy Moore did was proper.

Where on her hijab does it say or list anything about Islam?

Nowhere. Are you disputing the hijab is a Muslim sign of women's second place status under the religion of Mohammad? That says plenty about the hijab, I would say.

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.

We know what the Ten Commandments say. By the way, Moses is venerated by Islam.

 

[bodecea]

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.

She probably has them in red, and blue, but definitely not white!

Not after Labor Day.

 

[Asclepias]

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 ...

Good stuff. An antiquated and retarded rule bites the dust.

 

[MisterBeale]

Twenty-six pages of panty staining hysterics. How delightful.

Pretty sad that so many Americans get worked up over the dumbest things.

They've been up in arms over it in Europe for ages. In France, the hijab is not allowed in schools. The full-face veil is outlawed in several countries. It is definitely seen as a symbol of Islam, which is exactly why it causes such an uproar. Kinda sad.

Why is it sad?

I don't believe we should be in an uproar over people peacefully practicing their religion. Not even Islam.

. . . and yet, the left is completely insulted when the majority of folks want images and monuments of the ten commandments in courthouses and in public squares?

I am having a hard time believing you.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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?

A hijab is different than a slab of stone. On that I agree. Having said that I have no idea what your point is but you have constantly tried to make a distinction here that does not exist outside of the obvious physical ones.

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.

When the House votes to end a long time rule so Ilhan Omar can wear her hijab that certainly seems like an endorsement of religion by the government to me (and least a democrat endorsement).
If Roy Moore hadn't been removed from office because his religious expression
was deemed illegal you might have a point.
But he was barred from posting the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and it seems to me the government is sending out a message that Christian expressions of religion are verboten but Muslim expressions are A-OK.
How is that not the government picking one religion over the other?

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.

If you didn't read my link on the subject of the ACLU's anti Christian bias then I really don't have much to say to you about this.
Your claim of the ACLU aiding Christians has magically grown from a few examples yesterday to more than 20 cases now. Color me skeptical.

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.

As I said the ACLU has a noted Christian bias and just because they take on a few cases to the contrary it only serves
to point out how hostile they have been to Christians in general (including the classic case of them suing to have an ad hoc remote mountain top memorial removed because some hiker (an ACLU member, no doubt) complained to them about a tiny little cross there.

 

[Taz]

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.

You probably wanted to munch her rug.

 

[Montrovant]

A hijab is different than a slab of stone. On that I agree. Having said that I have no idea what your point is but you have constantly tried to make a distinction here that does not exist outside of the obvious physical ones.

The physical differences make for a difference in principle. I've explained my reasoning about how that is true multiple times.

When the House votes to end a long time rule so Ilhan Omar can wear her hijab that certainly seems like an endorsement of religion by the government to me (and least a democrat endorsement).
If Roy Moore hadn't been removed from office because his religious expression
was deemed illegal you might have a point.
But he was barred from posting the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and it seems to me the government is sending out a message that Christian expressions of religion are verboten but Muslim expressions are A-OK.
How is that not the government picking one religion over the other?

Roy Moore was removed from office for violating a court order by a federal judge.

Moore didn't simply post the commandments, he had a large monument placed in the courthouse. You continue to view the two situations (the hijab and the monument) as the same, which is why you mistakenly think they put forth the message you are reading into it.

If a hijab were allowed on the House floor, but a head cover for a Christian were not, you'd have a point. If an Islamic monument were allowed to be placed in a courthouse, but a Christian monument were not, you'd have a point. The problem is your refusal to accept that the two situations are different.

If you didn't read my link on the subject of the ACLU's anti Christian bias then I really don't have much to say to you about this.
Your claim of the ACLU aiding Christians has magically grown from a few examples yesterday to more than 20 cases now. Color me skeptical.

The number of examples has not grown. I posted a link and pulled 2 examples out of that link to put into my post. The other examples have always been in the link. Clearly you did not bother looking at it. I did, on the other hand, read through your link. It was an opinion piece from a professor at a Christian college which dealt, in large part, with a particular survey put out by the ACLU. Even if the ACLU has an anti-Christian bias, nothing in the link you posted proved that the court cases the ACLU has been involved in on behalf of Christians did not occur.

As I said the ACLU has a noted Christian bias and just because they take on a few cases to the contrary it only serves
to point out how hostile they have been to Christians in general (including the classic case of them suing to have an ad hoc remote mountain top memorial removed because some hiker (an ACLU member, no doubt) complained to them about a tiny little cross there.

How many cases has the ACLU pursued which are hostile to Christianity, compared to those which are protecting the religious freedom of Christians? I don't know the answer, but considering you didn't know the ACLU had ever fought to protect the religious freedom of Christians, I doubt you do, either. As such, your opinion of the organization's hostility to Christians in general is not one that holds much weight for me. Again, the ACLU has fought to protect the religious freedom of Christians in more than 20 cases in just the past 10 years, as shown in the link I provided, should you wish to look at it. That is true even if they have an anti-Christian bias.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Great, let me know when you can come up with a compelling reason to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment rights.

No hats during sessions is completely reasonable. If she can't accept that, doesn't have to attend.

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

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

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

Would you be as upset had it been a Sikh male elected to Congress? Yes, you would have!

You are a bigot, through and through!

I'm guessing they wouldn't be....unless they thought that Sikh was some kind of muslim.

They do!

Calling Muslims "dot heads" is proof that they are clueless bigots and suffer from intense xenophobia.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The physical differences make for a difference in principle. I've explained my reasoning about how that is true multiple times.

Not at all. Expressing one's religious self is the same regardless of the means of expression. Only an inferior mind would
get distracted and confused by the visual difference between a slab or rock and a hijab.Religious expression is religious expression....period! I'm disappointed I still have to keep making this point.

Roy Moore was removed from office for violating a court order by a federal judge.

Moore didn't simply post the commandments, he had a large monument placed in the courthouse. You continue to view the two situations (the hijab and the monument) as the same, which is why you mistakenly think they put forth the message you are reading into it.

Moore had the monument introduced when a court said he could not post the Ten Commandments on his courthouse wall. It helps to know the facts before arguing an issue.

If a hijab were allowed on the House floor, but a head cover for a Christian were not, you'd have a point. If an Islamic monument were allowed to be placed in a courthouse, but a Christian monument were not, you'd have a point. The problem is your refusal to accept that the two situations are different.

And you continue to make a flawed argument this is not supported by logic and common sense.

What is the essential issue? It is whether a government official can bring his religious views into public life therefore threatening the prohibition against our secular government endorsing one religion over another. In both cases, Moore and Omar, that is what they are doing....promoting one specific religion as a part of their public lives.

Only Roy Moore was slapped down for it and so far Ilhan Omar has received the support of the House of Representatives who apparently don't believe in our founding principles.
This is a matter for the Supreme Court to resolve since democrats are being hypocritically two faced about things (as usual).

The number of examples has not grown. I posted a link and pulled 2 examples out of that link to put into my post. The other examples have always been in the link. Clearly you did not bother looking at it. I did, on the other hand, read through your link. It was an opinion piece from a professor at a Christian college which dealt, in large part, with a particular survey put out by the ACLU. Even if the ACLU has an anti-Christian bias, nothing in the link you posted proved that the court cases the ACLU has been involved in on behalf of Christians did not occur.

You seem to admit anti Christian bias by the ACLU does exist yet insist the few examples of the ACLU representing Christians disproves the bias?
You need to make up your mind and then admit that the few cases you can cite does not disprove the many others.

Here is something else to help you decide. Pay special attention to the section Censoring God.
ACLU - Conservapedia

 

[danielpalos]

why should anyone take the right wing seriously about morals in the ordinary and mundane world?

Are women about equality and civil liberty, or Religion.

 

[Faun]

The physical differences make for a difference in principle. I've explained my reasoning about how that is true multiple times.

Not at all. Expressing one's religious self is the same regardless of the means of expression. Only an inferior mind would
get distracted and confused by the visual difference between a slab or rock and a hijab.Religious expression is religious expression....period! I'm disappointed I still have to keep making this point.

Roy Moore was removed from office for violating a court order by a federal judge.

Moore didn't simply post the commandments, he had a large monument placed in the courthouse. You continue to view the two situations (the hijab and the monument) as the same, which is why you mistakenly think they put forth the message you are reading into it.

Moore had the monument introduced when a court said he could not post the Ten Commandments on his courthouse wall. It helps to know the facts before arguing an issue.

If a hijab were allowed on the House floor, but a head cover for a Christian were not, you'd have a point. If an Islamic monument were allowed to be placed in a courthouse, but a Christian monument were not, you'd have a point. The problem is your refusal to accept that the two situations are different.

And you continue to make a flawed argument this is not supported by logic and common sense.

What is the essential issue? It is whether a government official can bring his religious views into public life therefore threatening the prohibition against our secular government endorsing one religion over another. In both cases, Moore and Omar, that is what they are doing....promoting one specific religion as a part of their jobs.

Only Roy Moore was slapped down for it and so far Ilhan Omar has received the support of the House of Representatives who apparently don't believe in our founding principles.
This is a matter for the Supreme Court to resolve since democrats are being hypocritically two faced about things (as usual).

The number of examples has not grown. I posted a link and pulled 2 examples out of that link to put into my post. The other examples have always been in the link. Clearly you did not bother looking at it. I did, on the other hand, read through your link. It was an opinion piece from a professor at a Christian college which dealt, in large part, with a particular survey put out by the ACLU. Even if the ACLU has an anti-Christian bias, nothing in the link you posted proved that the court cases the ACLU has been involved in on behalf of Christians did not occur.

You seem to admit anti Christian bias by the ACLU does exist yet insist the few examples of the ACLU representing Christians disproves the bias?
You need to make up your mind and then admit that the few cases you can cite does not disprove the many others.

Here is something else to help you decide. Pay special attention to the section Censoring God.
ACLU - Conservapedia

”Expressing one's religious self is the same regardless of the means of expression.”

Again, for the hard of learning, Omar is not merely expressing her religion, she’s exercising it.

And *poof*, just like that, there goes your entire argument. Squashed like a bug on the windshield of an 18-wheeler barreling down a highway.

 

[bodecea]

Twenty-six pages of panty staining hysterics. How delightful.

Pretty sad that so many Americans get worked up over the dumbest things.

They've been up in arms over it in Europe for ages. In France, the hijab is not allowed in schools. The full-face veil is outlawed in several countries. It is definitely seen as a symbol of Islam, which is exactly why it causes such an uproar. Kinda sad.

Why is it sad?

I don't believe we should be in an uproar over people peacefully practicing their religion. Not even Islam.

. . . and yet, the left is completely insulted when the majority of folks want images and monuments of the ten commandments in courthouses and in public squares?

I am having a hard time believing you.

So you are FOR christian sharia law, eh?

 

[bodecea]

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.

You probably wanted to munch her rug.

When one's argument fails badly, one turns to random personal attacks, eh?

 

[bodecea]

No hats during sessions is completely reasonable. If she can't accept that, doesn't have to attend.

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

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

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

Would you be as upset had it been a Sikh male elected to Congress? Yes, you would have!

You are a bigot, through and through!

I'm guessing they wouldn't be....unless they thought that Sikh was some kind of muslim.

They do!

Calling Muslims "dot heads" is proof that they are clueless bigots and suffer from intense xenophobia.

And can't even get their xenophobia correct.

 

[MisterBeale]

Pretty sad that so many Americans get worked up over the dumbest things.

They've been up in arms over it in Europe for ages. In France, the hijab is not allowed in schools. The full-face veil is outlawed in several countries. It is definitely seen as a symbol of Islam, which is exactly why it causes such an uproar. Kinda sad.

Why is it sad?

I don't believe we should be in an uproar over people peacefully practicing their religion. Not even Islam.

. . . and yet, the left is completely insulted when the majority of folks want images and monuments of the ten commandments in courthouses and in public squares?

I am having a hard time believing you.

So you are FOR christian sharia law, eh?

I googled "christian sharia law," and nothing came up. Sorry, I do not know what that is.


If by this, you mean the dominant mores of the community that I grew up in? I have no problem with them. The nation I grew up in, and my childhood was pretty good.

In fact, it even produced a man that was the child of a Muslim and elite CIA family that went on to become president. If that's not a progressive, loving and understanding nation? I couldn't tell you what is.

I do know for sure, Israel is never going to vote in a Muslim president, nor will you see Iranians be voting in a Christian. . . So I don't know what your problem is with our mores is.

 

[danielpalos]

Pretty sad that so many Americans get worked up over the dumbest things.

They've been up in arms over it in Europe for ages. In France, the hijab is not allowed in schools. The full-face veil is outlawed in several countries. It is definitely seen as a symbol of Islam, which is exactly why it causes such an uproar. Kinda sad.

Why is it sad?

I don't believe we should be in an uproar over people peacefully practicing their religion. Not even Islam.

. . . and yet, the left is completely insulted when the majority of folks want images and monuments of the ten commandments in courthouses and in public squares?

I am having a hard time believing you.

So you are FOR christian sharia law, eh?

It must be about natural rights once our Government gets involved.

 

[bodecea]

They've been up in arms over it in Europe for ages. In France, the hijab is not allowed in schools. The full-face veil is outlawed in several countries. It is definitely seen as a symbol of Islam, which is exactly why it causes such an uproar. Kinda sad.

Why is it sad?

I don't believe we should be in an uproar over people peacefully practicing their religion. Not even Islam.

. . . and yet, the left is completely insulted when the majority of folks want images and monuments of the ten commandments in courthouses and in public squares?

I am having a hard time believing you.

So you are FOR christian sharia law, eh?

I googled "christian sharia law," and nothing came up. Sorry, I do not know what that is.


If by this, you mean the dominant mores of the community that I grew up in? I have no problem with them. The nation I grew up in, and my childhood was pretty good.

In fact, it even produced a man that was the child of a Muslim and elite CIA family that went on to become president. If that's not a progressive, loving and understanding nation? I couldn't tell you what is.

I do know for sure, Israel is never going to vote in a Muslim president, nor will you see Iranians be voting in a Christian. . . So I don't know what your problem is with our mores is.

So...you have no problem with sharia as long as it's christian.....or at least one christian sect.

 

[bodecea]

They've been up in arms over it in Europe for ages. In France, the hijab is not allowed in schools. The full-face veil is outlawed in several countries. It is definitely seen as a symbol of Islam, which is exactly why it causes such an uproar. Kinda sad.

Why is it sad?

I don't believe we should be in an uproar over people peacefully practicing their religion. Not even Islam.

. . . and yet, the left is completely insulted when the majority of folks want images and monuments of the ten commandments in courthouses and in public squares?

I am having a hard time believing you.

So you are FOR christian sharia law, eh?

It must be about natural rights once our Government gets involved.

And what does that vague post mean?