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

[danielpalos]

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?

what do you mean by vague? We have a First Amendment. It can't be about Religion.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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

It is utter babble and a pathetic attempt at equating Islamic theocracy and Christianity. That's what it is.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Anybody else getting ads for Arab dating sites on this page?

 

[MisterBeale]

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.

You aren't making any sense.

Sharia is Islamic.

 

[Correll]

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

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.

OK, asshole, if it means that much to you, though I doubt it does.

House Democrats hope to change 181-year-old rule barring hats to include exemption for religious headwear


"Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson, known for her wide collection of hats, tried to get the rule evoked in 2010, calling it “sexist,” according to the Miami Herald.

“It dates back to when men wore hats and we know that men don't wear hats indoors, but women wear hats indoors,” Wilson said. “Hats are what I wear. People get excited when they see the hats. Once you get accustomed to it, it's just me. Some people wear wigs, or high heel shoes or big earrings or pins. This is just me.” "

 

[Correll]

HOw it is it hypocritical to want newcomers to adopt to our ways, instead of the other way around?

What do you mean, “our ways?” They’re not “our ways,” they’re House ways and we are not members of the House. They make up their own rules and it’s customary for the House to change some rules at the start of a new session.

This one has stood for 181 years.


Till the black muslim female had a problem with it. Then everyone else has to change to accommodate her.

Sorry, but a rule does not become more or less valid simply on the basis of how long it's been around.

It does raise the question of why change it now.


And that answer seems to be that newcomers have precedence and the rest of US have to change for them.

Because NOW is the time when it is conflicting with someone's exercise of religion.

That's when one usually modifies rules: when they become irrelevant or problematic. Duhhh.

The answer only seems to be, "The newcomers are more important and WAAAHHH!" because you're being a bigoted little tit.

Jews have been serving in Congress for generations. I doubt this is the first time this has come up.

 

[Correll]

HOw it is it hypocritical to want newcomers to adopt to our ways, instead of the other way around?

Newcomers? Damn those Germans who came here and brought those stupid trees for Christmas time! Why didn't they adapt to our non-christmas celebrating ways? If it was good enough for the Puritans, why wasn't it good enough for them?

Cultural diffusion is fine. That is not what we are seeing here, today. We are changing too much, too fast and for the worse.

Allowing religious headwear on the floor of the House, something which is already allowed in the Senate, is "changing too much, too fast and for the worse"?

Wow. Are you really pretending to be unaware of the massive changes occurring in this nation?


I reject this pretense. You are not that stupid.


My point stands. Your dishonesty does not challenge it.


Cultural diffusion is fine. That is not what we are seeing here, today. We are changing too much, too fast and for the worse.

Whatever changes are going on in the nation, this thread is about one particular change. The change this thread is talking about is anything but massive. It is extremely minor. This change will not make the nation as a whole change significantly faster, nor would preventing the rule change make the nation change significantly slower.

This change would match the way things already work in the Senate, so even within Congress it would not be a particularly large change.

There is no reason to not look at a small change as part of a large change.

 

[Correll]

A yarmulke is religious headwear.

Allowing it would violate the rule.

Hence, the rule change.

Except it was not changed for a Jew with generations of American-ness behind him, but for a newcomer.

Where is the religious rule that a Jewish female must cover her hair at all times?

I'm not aware of one. I am aware that some jewish sects require the male to cover HIS hair, or part of it, at least in public.

Why is there a rule that Catholic women had to cover their hair during church services that is now largely ignored?

I don't know. Why?

 

[Correll]

That is a nice strawman you have there. I'm sure you are proud of it. I respectfully decline your invitation to join you in playing with it.


My statement stands.



Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have. If it was, we basically wouldn't have any rules.

And good choice of the word "Privilege", because that is what we are seeing in the quest for "diversity" and "tolerance".


Some people get special treatment, with the rules being changed or just ignored for their convenience or benefit.

Nonsense. You have no evidence she receives special treatment because she’s a naturalized citizen.

lol!!! 181 year old rule, shit canned just for her? That's special treatment.


Ask me how many times some organization or group or community changed the rules just to make me happy?

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

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

Why is that a problem with a rule that never considered the possibility of women even being in the House when it was written?

Women have been in the House for a long time now, living without hats.

 

[Correll]

lol!!! 181 year old rule, shit canned just for her? That's special treatment.


Ask me how many times some organization or group or community changed the rules just to make me happy?

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

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

Even if that were true, so what?

It is not fair to the community, to disregard it's choices and/or interests in favor of one individual, especially a newcomer.




When this type of privilege is granted and the stakes are higher, it rises to an Injustice.

Why can't you just admit your bigotry and get it over with? We all see it in your writings!

Because it is not true.


If you've been following my writings, you should have noticed that I am just as annoyed with changes from white liberals.


Freaking morons.

 

[Correll]

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.

What system is that? Your system of hate & bigotry?

**** you, you asshole.

 

[Correll]

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.

As long as they're practicing it peacefully, I don't consider Muslims any more or less wrong and misguided than a number of other religions I routinely ignore. I only have a problem with Muslims when they want to exercise their religion by killing and enslaving people and mutilating women's genitals.

Big case charging a doctor for mutilating women's genitals, just got dismissed.


Federal judge dismisses charges in female genital mutilation case in Detroit


9 girls that they know of. And the core charges were dropped. BUt hey, it's not my community, and doesn't affect me, so why should I care?


That's your stance on the issue, right?

Did you read the article as to why?

A federal judge dismissed some charges Tuesday against eight people — including two doctors — in the genital mutilation of nine girls at a suburban Detroit clinic, finding it's up to states rather than Congress to regulate the practice.

So, get the state to step up. Just like it's states that have the laws on things like murder, theft, etc.

That is a fair point.


But it does not invalidate my point about how these changes are bringing along a whole host of new problems.


And this doctor is not gong to be punished for this crime. Laws are not retroactive.


At least 9 girls have been mutilated for life.


Change is not always for the better.

 

[Faun]

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.

OK, asshole, if it means that much to you, though I doubt it does.

House Democrats hope to change 181-year-old rule barring hats to include exemption for religious headwear


"Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson, known for her wide collection of hats, tried to get the rule evoked in 2010, calling it “sexist,” according to the Miami Herald.

“It dates back to when men wore hats and we know that men don't wear hats indoors, but women wear hats indoors,” Wilson said. “Hats are what I wear. People get excited when they see the hats. Once you get accustomed to it, it's just me. Some people wear wigs, or high heel shoes or big earrings or pins. This is just me.” "

You dumbfuck, Wilson didn’t seek to get the rule changed in order to preserve her First Amendment right to exercise her religion. She wanted to wear hats on the House floor for fashion purposes, which violates the intent of the rule. The rule was put in place as a symbol of respect for that chamber. It was never intended to deny anyone their religious freedoms.

Others here are right. You’re fueled by nothing but bigotry.

 

[Faun]

What do you mean, “our ways?” They’re not “our ways,” they’re House ways and we are not members of the House. They make up their own rules and it’s customary for the House to change some rules at the start of a new session.

This one has stood for 181 years.


Till the black muslim female had a problem with it. Then everyone else has to change to accommodate her.

Sorry, but a rule does not become more or less valid simply on the basis of how long it's been around.

It does raise the question of why change it now.


And that answer seems to be that newcomers have precedence and the rest of US have to change for them.

Because NOW is the time when it is conflicting with someone's exercise of religion.

That's when one usually modifies rules: when they become irrelevant or problematic. Duhhh.

The answer only seems to be, "The newcomers are more important and WAAAHHH!" because you're being a bigoted little tit.

Jews have been serving in Congress for generations. I doubt this is the first time this has come up.

Your guesses are worthless.... prove it.

 

[Correll]

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.

The utter lack of consideration for our way of life, in all matters, large and small, is worth sweating over.


HOw many times have you heard liberals claiming that there is no American Culture?

 

[Faun]

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

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

Even if that were true, so what?

It is not fair to the community, to disregard it's choices and/or interests in favor of one individual, especially a newcomer.




When this type of privilege is granted and the stakes are higher, it rises to an Injustice.

Why can't you just admit your bigotry and get it over with? We all see it in your writings!

Because it is not true.


If you've been following my writings, you should have noticed that I am just as annoyed with changes from white liberals.


Freaking morons.

TFB for you that you being annoyed is NOT a compelling interest in denying a U.S. citizen their First Amendment right to exercise their religion in accordance with the tenets of their faith.

 

[Correll]

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.

No, Faun is supporting violence against a child and lying about his reason for doing so.


That means he is putting out nothing but shit, on this pages.

Calling him on his vile lies, is a valid point.



You are being willfully ignorant on this issue.

 

[Faun]

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.

No, Faun is supporting violence against a child and lying about his reason for doing so.


That means he is putting out nothing but shit, on this pages.

Calling him on his vile lies, is a valid point.



You are being willfully ignorant on this issue.

”No, Faun is supporting violence against a child and lying about his reason for doing so.”

Liar.

 

[Correll]

Except it was not changed for a Jew with generations of American-ness behind him, but for a newcomer.

Where is the religious rule that a Jewish female must cover her hair at all times?

I'm not aware of one. I am aware that some jewish sects require the male to cover HIS hair, or part of it, at least in public.

There are conservative Jewish sects that require women to cover their hair, as well. I believe Hasidic Jewish women accomplish this by wearing wigs, rather than by wearing hats or scarves.

This might someday also become an issue from a cultural perspective as well as religious, since there are numerous cultures in the world which consider it shockingly immodest for women to go out without a head covering, on a par with showing up in a bikini.

Thank you.


MMm, so instead of asking the community to change their rules for a very small minority's benefit, they found a work around, ie wigs.


MMMmmm, interesting.


Funny how times have changed.


IMO, it is a change for the worse.

What in the actual **** are you talking about? Where did anyone at any time say that Hasidic Jewish women WANT the rules changed?

Do the entire world a favor, and stop making ASSumptions based on your desperation to justify your xenophobia.

I did not assume that they wanted it changed.

Indeed, that is irrelevant to the my point.


They dealt with the rule. Adjusted to it. Adapted to our traditional way of doing things.

 

[bodecea]

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

It is utter babble and a pathetic attempt at equating Islamic theocracy and Christianity. That's what it is.

Christian sharia exists....anyone trying to force the 10 Commandments on us as a country....those trying to force their version of christianity on the rest of us when it comes to laws. Fore example that county clerk in Kentucky. She tried and had support of so-called Presidential candidates for it. That's christian sharia.