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

[irosie91]

Our federal Constitution was designed to be both gender and race neutral, from Inception.

It must about equality and equal protection of the law. It can't be about Religion.

The Religious must keep it themselves; asking for aid from a secular and temporal Government invokes our supreme law of the land.

true-----but the writers and signers didn't mean it. OBVIOUSLY ---no one asked them to define the
word "men" or "common welfare" etc etc.
The seemed, historically, to accept the idea that those
words referred to EPISCOPLIAN MALES


The COTUS most certainly was not designed from its inception to be gender and race neutral.

Do you EVER write anything that is either worth reading or correct?

Yes, it was. Are you ever not, full of fallacy?

sorry danny-------neither gender neutral nor anti-homophobe

Our Original Constitution and Bill of Rights are Both, gender and race neutral.

 

[there4eyeM]

Honey, I am all woman, and no way is the subjugating of women a plus for us. Ever.

And your pouncing on a man that believes in the rights of women to be treated equally, well, this just confirms to me that you really aren’t for the better treatment of women, at all.

Never, but that could have something to do with the fact that I've never asked.

On the other hand, I can cite you any number of occasions when organizations of all sorts have changed their rules because people with a stake in the organization asked them to. One that springs to mind is the number of businesses which became non-smoking areas even before smoking laws were passed, because their customers and employees asked for it. Another is the fact that increasing numbers of businesses are scent-free (meaning they require their employees not to wear perfume or cologne at work) to accommodate people with allergies and breathing issues (not to mention people like me, who just hate perfume).

The House of Representatives gym was men-only for decades, but then changed to allow women when women started to be elected in large numbers. Ditto for the House pool.

People change rules all the time to reflect changing and evolving requirements. I have no idea where you got the notion that the world used to, or should, remain static and unchanging forever, and that there's something inherently bad about evaluating current needs and adjusting to fit. That's not conservative; that's fossilized.

Such change should be made with an eye to balancing the needs of the old and well as the new.


That is not happening today.


The interests of the old, is considered irrelevant, if not WRONG, or BAD somehow.

The change IS being made with an eye to balancing the needs of the old as well as the new.

What YOU want is for the change to be made with an eye to pleasing the bigots who have no say in it, but are going to piss and moan anyway.

You can tell me about how "the interests of the old are considered bad" when someone WHO ACTUALLY HAS A RIGHT TO A SAY IN THE HOUSE DRESS CODE complains. Right now, the irrelevance in your *****-aching comes not from "the interests of the old", but from the fact that YOU'RE NOT A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE.

The fact that my posts accord with women underlines the correctness of resisting anything that would promote or continue a system that takes a woman for fifty percent of a man before the law.


That is silly on top of silly


1. You claim that we are balancing the needs of the old as well as the new, and then call me a bigot for supporting the old. Self aware much? NOT.


2. You're not a member of the House either, but you are here *****-aching too. And with more drama and emotion than I.

1) I claim - correctly - that the House is trying to balance the needs of the old as well as the new. I call you a bigot - also correctly - because you are demanding that theycling to the old and ignore the new in perpetuity, in service solely of your personal hatreds.

2) You are bitching about changes in a group you are not part of. I am pointing out the idiocy in a group I AM part of, ie. this message board. Also, your belief that you're being less dramatic and emotional?

 

[danielpalos]

Our federal Constitution was designed to be both gender and race neutral, from Inception.

It must about equality and equal protection of the law. It can't be about Religion.

The Religious must keep it themselves; asking for aid from a secular and temporal Government invokes our supreme law of the land.

true-----but the writers and signers didn't mean it. OBVIOUSLY ---no one asked them to define the
word "men" or "common welfare" etc etc.
The seemed, historically, to accept the idea that those
words referred to EPISCOPLIAN MALES


The COTUS most certainly was not designed from its inception to be gender and race neutral.

Do you EVER write anything that is either worth reading or correct?

Yes, it was. Are you ever not, full of fallacy?

sorry danny-------neither gender neutral nor anti-homophobe

Our Original Constitution and Bill of Rights are Both, gender and race neutral.

i love to "call women on their bluff". show me, even if you are not from the "Show Me" State.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Ironically, there's no irony in holy books having rules for how people should live their lives. As long as they choose to follow those rules, it's none of my business. Again, there is no amount of "But her beliefs SUCK!" that is going to make a difference here. You can quote the Quran until your face turns blue trying to convince me that you should have the right to prevent someone from following it, and it still isn't going to happen.

Huge straw man! No one is trying to prevent someone from following their own religion. Rashida Tlaib, also a Muslim entering Congress this year, wears no hijab. I really have to say your reading comprehension or ability to discern patterns of thought must really be very low.
The issue is wearing the hijab.
Roy Moore cannot post the Ten Commandments in his courthouse. Ilhan Omar should not be able to proselytize her religion through her hijab on the floor of Congress.

Likewise, you can tell me about "Well, in Saudi Arabia" or "In Pakistan", and I'm not even going to read it, for the simple reason that WE'RE NOT IN THOSE COUNTRIES. We're in THIS country, and last time I checked, Ms. Omar is making her choices completely free of any legal persecution or oppression. If someone proposes that we make a law requiring hijabs (or forbidding them, for that matter), call me and we'll talk.

Clearly, this is about having the right to exercise your religious beliefs, even if other people think you shouldn't. Period.

Clearly it is not! How dense are you? Very very dense, I would say. Omar's hijab amounts to promotion of one particular religion over all others and that does not belong on the floor of Congress. Read the ******* Constitution, for God's sake.

 

[Pogo]

Ironically, there's no irony in holy books having rules for how people should live their lives. As long as they choose to follow those rules, it's none of my business. Again, there is no amount of "But her beliefs SUCK!" that is going to make a difference here. You can quote the Quran until your face turns blue trying to convince me that you should have the right to prevent someone from following it, and it still isn't going to happen.

Huge straw man! No one is trying to prevent someone from following their own religion. Rashida Tlaib, also a Muslim entering Congress this year, wears no hijab. I really have to say your reading comprehension or ability to discern patterns of thought must really be very low.
The issue is wearing the hijab Roy Moore cannot post the Ten Commandments in his courthouse. Ilhan Omar should not be able to proselytize her religion through her hijab on the floor of Congress.

Likewise, you can tell me about "Well, in Saudi Arabia" or "In Pakistan", and I'm not even going to read it, for the simple reason that WE'RE NOT IN THOSE COUNTRIES. We're in THIS country, and last time I checked, Ms. Omar is making her choices completely free of any legal persecution or oppression. If someone proposes that we make a law requiring hijabs (or forbidding them, for that matter), call me and we'll talk.

Clearly, this is about having the right to exercise your religious beliefs, even if other people think you shouldn't. Period.

Clearly it is not! How dense are you? Very very dense, I would say. Omar's hijab amounts to promotion of one particular religion over all others and that does not belong on the floor of Congress. Read the ******* Constitution, for God's sake.

Why don't you read us the part of the Constitution that bars head coverings.

I'll put on some popcorn.

 

[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.

So we have to defend our traditions and culture - which include tolerance of and freedom for individual personal religious beliefs - by suppressing freedom of individual personal religious beliefs?

Or is it just that you've decided that religious freedom is a much less important part of our traditions and culture than "Damn it, only what descendants of Western European white people is okay!"?

That is what I am talking about.


You CAN'T have due consideration of the value of a change, if one side, the LOUDER side, is screaming RACIST,


EVERY ******* TIME, there is any attempt to discuss the issue.

 

[Correll]

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.

So we have to defend our traditions and culture - which include tolerance of and freedom for individual personal religious beliefs - by suppressing freedom of individual personal religious beliefs?

Or is it just that you've decided that religious freedom is a much less important part of our traditions and culture than "Damn it, only what descendants of Western European white people is okay!"?

As has been amply illustrated to you several times in this thread now, this woman does NOT have a right to wear her hoodie in Congress any more than I have a right to carry a gun into a court room.

Pretty simple ******* concept , why you can't just be honest is obvious.

YOu made a point, they called you racist.


In the lib mind, that's a win for them.

 

[Correll]

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.

While it’s true that limitations on all rights, including religious freedoms, do exist, the aspect of that you willfully choose to ignore is that when limitations are applied, there must be compelling interests by the government to restrict rights.

As has been woefully demonstrated, you can’t cite any compelling interests in this case to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment right to exercise their religion.

So there is no reason not to change the rule accordingly.

Your whining about being annoyed is not a compelling interest. Your bigoted bitching about her being Muslim is not a compelling interest. Your nonsense about others failing to change that rule over fashion statements is not a compelling interest.

You're are pretending that due consideration did take place?


Can you support that?

btw. your race baiting really, really undermines that claim.

As far as I can tell, this change to the rules has not actually been applied yet. The articles about the subject all talk about it as a proposed rule change. What makes you say that due consideration is not taking place? What constitutes due consideration?

Can you support the claim you seem to be making that due consideration is not taking place?

The way the libs scream "racist" the moment anyone questions any proposed change.


You CAN'T have due consideration in that kind of environment.


Not to mention there is the overall conduct of liberals. They NEVER give due consideration.


Surely you've noted them, making fun of conservatives for being "Afraid" of change?

 

[Pogo]

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.

So we have to defend our traditions and culture - which include tolerance of and freedom for individual personal religious beliefs - by suppressing freedom of individual personal religious beliefs?

Or is it just that you've decided that religious freedom is a much less important part of our traditions and culture than "Damn it, only what descendants of Western European white people is okay!"?

As has been amply illustrated to you several times in this thread now, this woman does NOT have a right to wear her hoodie in Congress any more than I have a right to carry a gun into a court room.

Pretty simple ******* concept , why you can't just be honest is obvious.

YOu made a point, they called you racist.


In the lib mind, that's a win for them.

Funny then that "racist" doesn't even appear in the nest, anywhere. Nor is this thread about race anyway.

In your mind you just make it up and that's a "point" for you, amirite?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Why don't you read us the part of the Constitution that bars head coverings.

I'll put on some popcorn.

You couldn't help posting such stupid bullshit?
The Constitution doesn't bar the Ten Commandments yet Roy Moore no longer can preside as an Alabama Supreme Court Justice because of it.

 

[Correll]

How many times have you joined an organization or community, and before you even join, they changed the rules for your convenience?

Never, but that could have something to do with the fact that I've never asked.

On the other hand, I can cite you any number of occasions when organizations of all sorts have changed their rules because people with a stake in the organization asked them to. One that springs to mind is the number of businesses which became non-smoking areas even before smoking laws were passed, because their customers and employees asked for it. Another is the fact that increasing numbers of businesses are scent-free (meaning they require their employees not to wear perfume or cologne at work) to accommodate people with allergies and breathing issues (not to mention people like me, who just hate perfume).

The House of Representatives gym was men-only for decades, but then changed to allow women when women started to be elected in large numbers. Ditto for the House pool.

People change rules all the time to reflect changing and evolving requirements. I have no idea where you got the notion that the world used to, or should, remain static and unchanging forever, and that there's something inherently bad about evaluating current needs and adjusting to fit. That's not conservative; that's fossilized.

Such change should be made with an eye to balancing the needs of the old and well as the new.


That is not happening today.


The interests of the old, is considered irrelevant, if not WRONG, or BAD somehow.

The change IS being made with an eye to balancing the needs of the old as well as the new.

What YOU want is for the change to be made with an eye to pleasing the bigots who have no say in it, but are going to piss and moan anyway.

You can tell me about how "the interests of the old are considered bad" when someone WHO ACTUALLY HAS A RIGHT TO A SAY IN THE HOUSE DRESS CODE complains. Right now, the irrelevance in your *****-aching comes not from "the interests of the old", but from the fact that YOU'RE NOT A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE.

That is silly on top of silly


1. You claim that we are balancing the needs of the old as well as the new, and then call me a bigot for supporting the old. Self aware much? NOT.


2. You're not a member of the House either, but you are here *****-aching too. And with more drama and emotion than I.

1) I claim - correctly - that the House is trying to balance the needs of the old as well as the new. I call you a bigot - also correctly - because you are demanding that theycling to the old and ignore the new in perpetuity, in service solely of your personal hatreds.

2) You are bitching about changes in a group you are not part of. I am pointing out the idiocy in a group I AM part of, ie. this message board. Also, your belief that you're being less dramatic and emotional?

1. You can't have due consideration when any challenge is immediately screamed at as "bigot".

2. The issue is the change in the rules in the House. We both are discussing the issue, and your "Argument" is to call me names and to ridicule the idea of discussion in a discussion forum.

And you want me to believe that people like you, gave due consideration to this issue? LOL!!!

 

[Correll]

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.

As has been pointed out, limitations on rights occur when there is an overriding reason for it.

Your dislike of Muslims doesn't qualify.

Your argument would have more merit, if it was not made so emotionally.

 

[Pogo]

Why don't you read us the part of the Constitution that bars head coverings.

I'll put on some popcorn.

You couldn't help posting such stupid bullshit?
The Constitution doesn't bar the Ten Commandments yet Roy Moore no longer can preside as an Alabama Supreme Court Justice because of it.

Roy Moore? 'Scuse me, time for another song.... you know, while you're trying to actually answer the question. Mi mi mi....

Well they often call me Pedo
But my real name is Mister Moore....

Well they often call me Pedo
But my real name is Mister Moore....

I'm all for meetin' brand new chicklets
While hangin' at the Gadsden Mall....

Well, now, they often call me Pedo
'Cause I don't believe in wastin' time

Well, now, they often call me Pedo
'Cause I don't believe in wastin' time

Well, I've known some pretty women
And barely past the age of nine​

 

[Correll]

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.

Your stance on "due consideration" appears to be "I don't approve of it, so don't do it". I guess that's universal, but I don't know that you should be proud of it.

Nothing in my posts gives you reason to make such a statement.


I can only conclude that you are projecting your lib assumption that all change is good, and any due consideration equals, just do it.

 

[Correll]

Honey, I am all woman, and no way is the subjugating of women a plus for us. Ever.

And your pouncing on a man that believes in the rights of women to be treated equally, well, this just confirms to me that you really aren’t for the better treatment of women, at all.

Such change should be made with an eye to balancing the needs of the old and well as the new.


That is not happening today.


The interests of the old, is considered irrelevant, if not WRONG, or BAD somehow.

The change IS being made with an eye to balancing the needs of the old as well as the new.

What YOU want is for the change to be made with an eye to pleasing the bigots who have no say in it, but are going to piss and moan anyway.

You can tell me about how "the interests of the old are considered bad" when someone WHO ACTUALLY HAS A RIGHT TO A SAY IN THE HOUSE DRESS CODE complains. Right now, the irrelevance in your *****-aching comes not from "the interests of the old", but from the fact that YOU'RE NOT A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE.

That is silly on top of silly


1. You claim that we are balancing the needs of the old as well as the new, and then call me a bigot for supporting the old. Self aware much? NOT.


2. You're not a member of the House either, but you are here *****-aching too. And with more drama and emotion than I.

1) I claim - correctly - that the House is trying to balance the needs of the old as well as the new. I call you a bigot - also correctly - because you are demanding that theycling to the old and ignore the new in perpetuity, in service solely of your personal hatreds.

2) You are bitching about changes in a group you are not part of. I am pointing out the idiocy in a group I AM part of, ie. this message board. Also, your belief that you're being less dramatic and emotional?

Honey, you may consider yourself "all woman", but you're not all WOMEN. There is no way subjugating women to other women in the name of "not subjugating women" is a plus for us. EVER.

Maybe the difference here is that one of us is a woman who considers other women too stupid to be allowed to think for themselves and make their own mistakes, and one of us is willing to treat women like real, autonomous people, even when she personally thinks they're screwing up.

Yeah, no "maybe" about that.

Your defending a man who wants to dictate who women should be against a woman who champions their freedom to be wrong, just because you personally like the dictates he outlines, confirms to me that you wouldn't recognize ACTUAL freedom if you fell over it. You couldn't care less about women being free; you just want us all to be like you.

I have no desire to "dictate to women" any more than any rule "dictates" to the people under it.


Save your Gender Card for someone who might care.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Public officials swearing in on the Holey Babble for two-plus centuries and a "pledge of allegiance" foisted on children invoking a deity, and NOW you're suddenly worried about 'expressions of religion'?

Check your First Amendment, where religious freedom is articulated. Its first five words are "Congress shall make no law".

The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to cover any religious expression (such as the Ten Commandments, a popsicle stick cross on public land or a hijab) by a government entity and finds it an illegal de facto endorsement of a particular religion over others. That's the law! Take it up with the Supreme Court.

 

[Correll]

Freedom from the fear of a man worried his wife might be seen as lustful because she exposes her head, is not freedom.

Honey, I am all woman, and no way is the subjugating of women a plus for us. Ever.

And your pouncing on a man that believes in the rights of women to be treated equally, well, this just confirms to me that you really aren’t for the better treatment of women, at all.

That is silly on top of silly


1. You claim that we are balancing the needs of the old as well as the new, and then call me a bigot for supporting the old. Self aware much? NOT.


2. You're not a member of the House either, but you are here *****-aching too. And with more drama and emotion than I.

1) I claim - correctly - that the House is trying to balance the needs of the old as well as the new. I call you a bigot - also correctly - because you are demanding that theycling to the old and ignore the new in perpetuity, in service solely of your personal hatreds.

2) You are bitching about changes in a group you are not part of. I am pointing out the idiocy in a group I AM part of, ie. this message board. Also, your belief that you're being less dramatic and emotional?

Honey, you may consider yourself "all woman", but you're not all WOMEN. There is no way subjugating women to other women in the name of "not subjugating women" is a plus for us. EVER.

Maybe the difference here is that one of us is a woman who considers other women too stupid to be allowed to think for themselves and make their own mistakes, and one of us is willing to treat women like real, autonomous people, even when she personally thinks they're screwing up.

Yeah, no "maybe" about that.

Your defending a man who wants to dictate who women should be against a woman who champions their freedom to be wrong, just because you personally like the dictates he outlines, confirms to me that you wouldn't recognize ACTUAL freedom if you fell over it. You couldn't care less about women being free; you just want us all to be like you.

All I heard was "Freedom from the things I think she shouldn't want. Freedom to be what I think is best for her."

Your lack of listening, is on you.

 

[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.

Must be irony.
Asshole and accuses someone of name calling

I always try to give people the same respect they show me.

So, since he called me a name, I called him one back.


The difference is, that I am generally truthful about the names I call people.


Faun is an asshole. Surely you'v noticed that.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

But in the US, whether or not a woman follows the Koran is a choice.

The proposed rule change would allow a religious exception to the House hat rule, not a Muslim exception or a hijab exception.

Changing the rules of Congress to accommodate someone's religion, be it Islam or Buddhism, is not acceptable and violates our secular legal admonitions against favoring any certain religion.
No matter how much you twist words and logic you can't change that.

 

[Pogo]

But in the US, whether or not a woman follows the Koran is a choice.

The proposed rule change would allow a religious exception to the House hat rule, not a Muslim exception or a hijab exception.

Changing the rules of Congress to accommodate someone's religion, be it Islam or Buddhism, is not acceptable and violates our secular legal admonitions against favoring any certain religion.
No matter how much you twist words and logic you can't change that.

You be sure to run down to Congress and tell them that.

Right before they begin with that prayer thingy.