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

[Correll]

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.

YOu want to address the point of the post you hit the reply button for?

Rhetorical question. I know you asshole libs don't roll that way. But I repeat myself.

 

[Correll]

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.

Said the man that still won't admit that he does not support violence against communists, nor his real reason for supporting violence against the child in the op.

 

[Correll]

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.

Where had Faun supported violence against a child? How about you show us where he did that.......and at the same time, you still haven't given us a link to this claim tho I asked for it at least twice: Democrats Change 181 Year-Old Rule To Allow Ilhan Omar To Wear Hijab In The House

IN the thread about the white kid attacked by the black kid.

He supports the attack because the kid supposedly made a white supremacist pose.

 

[Correll]

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?

Yeah, uh, are you actually telling the entire world right at this moment that you're so pig-stupid that you can't tell the difference between a dress code about hats and a law about physically maiming people? That's really how you want to present yourself?

When you embrace change without consideration, you get the bad along with the good.

That is my point.

There is no bad here. There’s the preservation of rights for U.S. citizens. That’s good, even if it does piss off a bigot like you who’s pissed that a female Muslim will get to wear her hijab in Congress.

Calling me a bigot for wanting due consideration, demonstrates my point that due consideration is not being given.

 

[there4eyeM]

One thing to consider is that of what our culture regards as 'religious symbols', which do we require that women wear? And where would a woman be punished for not wearing it?
This "head gear", this symbol is of repression of our sisters.

 

[Moonglow]

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 ...

There is always an answer to your fear that involves you exiting the planet..If you fear a head covering then you also fear the Catholics..

 

[Correll]

I don't approve of sharia whether it's christian or muslim or whatever....our laws are secular and are meant to stay secular. Are you not getting that part?

I don't approve of sharia whether it's christian or muslim or whatever....our laws are secular and are meant to stay secular. Are you not getting that part?

I'm not getting the part where two individuals who have been removed from their position of influence within the government (to the degree they had any influence) comprise some sort of existential threat to you. Your snowflakery is showing.
Didn't I make that clear before?

The real shariah law, an all encompassing system of laws and rules of conduct that govern Islamic life, actually exists in parts of the world where fundamentalist Muslims have control and Islamists, like the Muslim Brotherhood, actually have a long range plan to institute shariah law world wide. A world where gays can be killed, women are forced into burkas and servitude, criminals have hands lopped off, adulterers can be stoned, drawing funny pictures of Mohammad and apostasy means death!.

And you compare that to two civil servants who had a thing for the Ten Commandments and would not process marriage licenses for gay marriage? Whoa! Check your imagination. I think it's run away from you!

IF (if) you truly disliked and objected to real shariah law you would object to Ilhan Omar wearing her symbol of servitude on the floor of Congress and normalizing her medieval religion as an example for little girls around the nation to follow.
You would note that she has stated that parents of girls who have been mutilated by female circumcisions shouldn't be subject to harsh penalties or laws.
You would keep our government truly secular (as you claim to want) by not allowing this one particular religion (Islam) to be exempt from laws that prohibit any particular one religion from receiving the imprimatur of favor from our government that a hijab would signal.

Because if it was not singled out for special privileges or recognition it would not be exempt from the rules of the House that have existed for over 181 years just as Roy Moore or this other woman (whatever her name is) were sent packing because their religion was granted no special rights above all others.

But you don't truly mean what you claim and it shows.

Better than I have been saying it, thank you.

 

[Correll]

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.

******* hat bans on the ******* House floor are NOT "our system", for crying out loud unprintably! Please stop confusing your personal prejudices with essential American culture. It's a frigging dress code that applies to fewer than 500 people - none of whom are objecting, and none of whom are YOU - and matters to almost no one.

No one is asking you to "learn to live in" anything except for a world where everyone is not like you, and doesn't need to be, and where you just need to mind your own business and tend to your own life. And given the fact that you have ALWAYS lived in that world, whether or you were too ignorant to know it or not, I'd say it's long past time you learned that lesson.

It's a symbol of the utter lack of consideration given to our traditions and culture, in the larger course of events.

You dumbfuck, preserving and protecting constitutional rights is among our finest traditions and symbols of our culture.

It’s a pity you love your bigotry more than you hate the Constitution.

As has been pointed out, limitations on those rights occur all the time, such as not being allowed to carry firearms into the House.


You can shove your accusations of bigotry up your ass, asshole.

 

[Faun]

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.

I said the rule had been challenged before. Your moving of the goal posts is nothing but the standard intellectual and moral cowardice that defines the modern "liberal".


And, as your post was basically nothing but a name calling. You are an asshole.

LOL

And your example of the rule being challenged is one which is irrelevant to the reason the rule is being challenged now. The reason it’s being changed is due to its infringement on the First Amendment right to exercise religion. Your counter to that was to cite an example of where someone lost a challenge to change it based on a fashion statement, which violated no rights.

 

[Correll]

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.

Where had Faun supported violence against a child? How about you show us where he did that.......and at the same time, you still haven't given us a link to this claim tho I asked for it at least twice: Democrats Change 181 Year-Old Rule To Allow Ilhan Omar To Wear Hijab In The House

I supported one student punching another student because he’s a known nazi at their high school. He got smashed in the face after making a racist gesture at the student who struck him, who’s black.

What Correll lies about is his fallacious claim that I lied about why I supported the beat down when I said I supported it because I see nothing wrong with beating up nazi’s since they tried to wipe out Jews.

Well, he was defending a NAZI, eh?

Nothing I said could reasonably, not, SANELY be called a defense of a nazi.


You are an asshole.

 

[Faun]

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.

Because you give a damn about the answer? LOL!! Piss off.

No, because you have no clue if it’s been challenged on First Amendment grounds before. So why would anyone care about you making it up to suit your argument?

 

[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.

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.

Why did they have a rule then?

Someone said something about decorum. Not really my concern.

 

[Faun]

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.

YOu want to address the point of the post you hit the reply button for?

Rhetorical question. I know you asshole libs don't roll that way. But I repeat myself.

LOLOL m

Because you have failed miserably to cite a compelling interest for why a U.S. citizen should be denied their First Amendment right to exercise their religion. If you can’t do that, and it’s apparent you can’t, then you have no rebuttal. Now the forum is simply making fun of you for trying by skirting around your inability to find even one compelling interest.

 

[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.

Or hell, being wished a Merry Christmas.

Happy secular and temporal days; doesn't seem to have the same effect.

 

[Correll]

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.

No, you are targeting Muslims because of their religious beliefs. You even erroneously call them "dot heads" because your bigotry is fed by your ignorance.

You simply hate anyone who is not white. It's OK to admit it. That way we will know to blame it on your ignorance.

1. I am not targeting Muslims. This particular change is about a Muslim, but my stance on change needing due consideration is pretty much universal.

2. I did not call them dot heads.

3. Enough with the "hate". I can oppose change without "hating" the people involved. You are being unreasonable.

4. There are plenty of whites that I do not like and plenty of non-whites that I do like. YOu are simply incorrect.

 

[Faun]

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.

Said the man that still won't admit that he does not support violence against communists, nor his real reason for supporting violence against the child in the op.

The real reason I support beating up Nazi’s is, as stated, because of their attempted genocide of Jews. I’m Jewish. It’s my people they brutally tormented and killed. It was my family members they horrifically murdered. It’s personal for me. Your failed attempt to divert that thread to be about Communism was irrelevant, just as I told you repeatedly.

 

[Correll]

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.

I said the rule had been challenged before. Your moving of the goal posts is nothing but the standard intellectual and moral cowardice that defines the modern "liberal".


And, as your post was basically nothing but a name calling. You are an asshole.

LOL

And your example of the rule being challenged is one which is irrelevant to the reason the rule is being challenged now. The reason it’s being changed is due to its infringement on the First Amendment right to exercise religion. Your counter to that was to cite an example of where someone lost a challenge to change it based on a fashion statement, which violated no rights.

The practice of restricting rights in limited situations has already been established.


Your pretense otherwise, is either stupid, or dishonest.


I made a reference to the rule being challenged before, you lefties called on me to support it, even though I pointed out that nothing would change your minds, and you didn't care,

and so I did, and lo and behold, you are dismissing it.


Wow. What a surprise. I am shocked. Shocked I tell you.

 

[Faun]

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.

Where had Faun supported violence against a child? How about you show us where he did that.......and at the same time, you still haven't given us a link to this claim tho I asked for it at least twice: Democrats Change 181 Year-Old Rule To Allow Ilhan Omar To Wear Hijab In The House

IN the thread about the white kid attacked by the black kid.

He supports the attack because the kid supposedly made a white supremacist pose.

You’re still lying. Can you post without lying? The reason I said I support the nazi getting punched in the face was because he’s a nazi. I cited his racist gesture as justification for a black kid to smash him in the face.

 

[Correll]

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.

Said the man that still won't admit that he does not support violence against communists, nor his real reason for supporting violence against the child in the op.

The real reason I support beating up Nazi’s is, as stated, because of their attempted genocide of Jews. I’m Jewish. It’s my people they brutally tormented and killed. It was my family members they horrifically murdered. It’s personal for me. Your failed attempt to divert that thread to be about Communism was irrelevant, just as I told you repeatedly.

Mmm, so genocide is only worthy of violence when it is your own people?

Interesting.

My apologies. I could not conceive of such a viewpoint, and thus did not see it as an alternative.


It will take me some time to process that one.

 

[Correll]

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.

Where had Faun supported violence against a child? How about you show us where he did that.......and at the same time, you still haven't given us a link to this claim tho I asked for it at least twice: Democrats Change 181 Year-Old Rule To Allow Ilhan Omar To Wear Hijab In The House

IN the thread about the white kid attacked by the black kid.

He supports the attack because the kid supposedly made a white supremacist pose.

You’re still lying. Can you post without lying? The reason I said I support the nazi getting punched in the face was because he’s a nazi. I cited his racist gesture as justification for a black kid to smash him in the face.

That is what I said.