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

[Faun]

No one forbids her to wear it, other than within the Congressional chamber. Where laws have been made to uphold the rights of women not to be enslaved.

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.

The only thing to consider is whether anyone is requiring Ms. Omar to wear the hijab, other than her god.

Beyond that, you have nothing whatsoever to consider about someone else's life choices if they don't affect you. And spare me the lofty claims of "repression for our sisters"; if you're telling her she can't wear it, that's no different from someone else telling her she has to. Both are the desire to decide for women who and what they have to be, instead of letting them decide for themselves.

Then explain why she should be denied her constitutional right to exercise her religion in the House...?

There in no Constitutional right to exercise religion in the House of Representatives and rules in that House and for the Body of Legislature therein do not change Constitutional rights for citizens in 'daily life'. The clearly obvious nature of that fact puts in doubt the sincerity, or the intelligence, of the imperative statement of the post, demanding an explanation.

Congress members don’t lose rights for no reason other than stepping into the chamber. I’ll accept your post as tacit admission that you’re among those who can’t cite a single compelling interest to deny a U.S. citizen their constitutional right to exercise their religion.

 

[Faun]

So, you will be ok, when she pulls out her prayer rug to exercise her religious rights in the chamber, as well?

No one forbids her to wear it, other than within the Congressional chamber. Where laws have been made to uphold the rights of women not to be enslaved.

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.

The only thing to consider is whether anyone is requiring Ms. Omar to wear the hijab, other than her god.

Beyond that, you have nothing whatsoever to consider about someone else's life choices if they don't affect you. And spare me the lofty claims of "repression for our sisters"; if you're telling her she can't wear it, that's no different from someone else telling her she has to. Both are the desire to decide for women who and what they have to be, instead of letting them decide for themselves.

Then explain why she should be denied her constitutional right to exercise her religion in the House...?

^^^ another one who can’t cite a single compelling interest in denying a U.S. citizen their constitutional right to exercise their religion.

 

[Faun]

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.

Your incessant whining undermines yours. Either you can offer a compelling reason to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment right to exercise their religion in this case or anything you say is a waste of bandwidth. Which is it?

Your dismissal of my point, is not a supporting argument.


My point stands.


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


Can you support that?

LOL

You poor thing. Bless your heart. If you can’t think of one single compelling interest, you’ve got nothing.

 

[Faun]

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.

Well that’s not true. Using the Correll methodology of making up any reason you want in lieu of unanswered questions means others can apply that same philosophy to you. So where you say it’s not ok to beat up nazi’s, according to the rules you play by, means you can be categorized as a nazi sympathizer.

But I did not do that. There were clues to what you meant by your refusal to answer.


I guessed that it was something dark and ugly.

And My God, was I right.

So, your claim as to my "methodology" is a lie.


And you are a godwinning asshole.

There were no clues. There was only your imagination which led you astray as always. I told you from the beginning your diversion about communists was irrelevant. You just didn’t want to believe me because you thought you could utilize your diversion to win an argument.

Not a diversion. Checking your stated reason for supporting violence against a white child.


And the relevance has been explained to you many times. YOu are just being a liar now.


Further more, I have had time to consider your shocking claim to not care about genocide targeted at your people.


I do not believe that you are that vile and repulsive of a lizard.


I think that you are indeed a marxist, and you give them a pass on their genocides due to in group bias.


You are a vile person, but not as vile as your stated reason for not caring about genocide implied.

 

[irosie91]

Funny, you still have yet to point to a single Supreme Court ruling that indicates hijabs, or any other religious head covers, are unconstitutional if worn on the floor of the House of Representatives. Should I simply take your word for it that such a ruling exists?

If you had any brains at all, and your posts indicate otherwise, you could use your own ability to read and comprehend
the government's Constitutional view of religion and government entanglement with them to deduce that politicians and officials that bring their religious convictions into the realm of government are strictly forbidden, ala Roy Moore.

It's effing stupid to think that because there is no specific Supreme Court ruling on hijabs then that means there is no 1st Amendment conflict with her explicit promotion of Islam on the floor of Congress. I guess you believe everything that the Supreme Court has not specifically outlawed is therefore legal (although the SC has specifically outlawed government
showing a preference for one religion over all others, again, ala Roy Moore).
Why not tell me how Roy Moore's promotion of Christian doctrine is different from Omar's promotion of Islamic doctrine.
Oh, right...you can't.

Dumbfuck, this rule change doesn’t favor any religion.

lack of rule------a good rule would be "NO RELIGIOUS
DRESS in congress" ----just standard USA style clothes.
For covering specific body parts if you must----IMPROVISE----using standard USA stuff

 

[there4eyeM]

If it is not permitted to yell "fire!" in a theater it is reasonable to limit declarations, on government property, for the repression of women.

 

[Faun]

If it is not permitted to yell "fire!" in a theater it is reasonable to limit declarations, on government property, for the repression of women.

It’s not permitted to yell fire in a theater where there is no fire for safety reasons. Whose safety is at risk if someone is wearing something on their head as their religion requires?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

"No one is trying to prevent someone from following their own religion. All we're trying to do is stop her from dressing the way she believes Allah wants her to!"

"If ALL Muslim women don't wear hijabs, that means it's not really her religious beliefs!"

"She is forcing her religion on me by not keeping it a secret!"

Fortunately, I don't have to bother actually answering any of these absurdities, because Roy Moore = you automatically lose. Again.

Straw men need no reply since they reflect your view and not mine. And actually YOU lose when you act the coward and won't deal with the issue of Roy Moore and his removal from office for expressing his religious preferences on the job.
You make this easy.

 

[Faun]

"No one is trying to prevent someone from following their own religion. All we're trying to do is stop her from dressing the way she believes Allah wants her to!"

"If ALL Muslim women don't wear hijabs, that means it's not really her religious beliefs!"

"She is forcing her religion on me by not keeping it a secret!"

Fortunately, I don't have to bother actually answering any of these absurdities, because Roy Moore = you automatically lose. Again.

Straw men need no reply since they reflect your view and not mine. And actually YOU lose when you act the coward and won't deal with the issue of Roy Moore and his removal from office for expressing his religious preferences on the job.
You make this easy.

LOLOL

You’ve been so beaten over Moore’s monument and you prove to be too stupid to realize it.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I've challenged you to produce any evidence that supports your claims about the Supreme Court's stance on religious expression. It doesn't have to be specifically about hijabs, it just has to support your point. You continue to provide absolutely no evidence to support your claims, but you certainly do complain that evidence is asked for a lot!

My evidence is Roy Moore being removed from the bench because he refused
to stop posting the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and I've only mentioned this fact dozens of times now.
You may never get tired of asking the same idiotic questions over and over again but I get tired of dealing with settled matter endlessly. You don't deserve my time anymore. You are a broken record.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

lack of rule------a good rule would be "NO RELIGIOUS
DRESS in congress" ----just standard USA style clothes.
For covering specific body parts if you must----IMPROVISE----using standard USA stuff

The rule may not favor any single religion over all others but Omar's hijab sure does. How ******* stupid can some people be? Very, very stupid!

 

[Montrovant]

I've challenged you to produce any evidence that supports your claims about the Supreme Court's stance on religious expression. It doesn't have to be specifically about hijabs, it just has to support your point. You continue to provide absolutely no evidence to support your claims, but you certainly do complain that evidence is asked for a lot!

My evidence is Roy Moore being removed from the bench because he refused
to stop posting the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and I've only mentioned this fact dozens of times now.
You may never get tired of asking the same idiotic questions over and over again but I get tired of dealing with settled matter endlessly. You don't deserve my time anymore. You are a broken record.

And I've explained to you why the monument Moore had placed in the courthouse is different from Omar wearing a hijab. I've provided evidence from a Supreme Court case that not all religious expression is treated the same. You, on the other hand, continue to repeat the same claim without providing any evidence at all.

It would be like you looking at a murder with a gun, and a self-defense case with a gun, and getting upset that only one was prosecuted. After all, both involved someone being shot! They must be treated exactly the same!

It's OK. I understand that you can't actually support your claim.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

First of all, she is not a "government entity". She's a human being, who happens to have a government job. Her personal clothing choices are just that: PERSONAL. At no point in time has the Supreme Court EVER interpreted the personal activities of government officials to be official government acts, and I defy you to prove otherwise. Likewise, the Supreme Court has never stated that individuals lose their Constitutional rights when they become employees of the government.

And I will "take it up with the Supreme Court" the instant you prove me wrong, and NOT the instant you incorrectly cite their position on the relevant issues.

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State
I can't make you understand what the Supreme Court has said about separating religion from government (no one can, as you are too ******* stupid). But the evidence is overwhelming.
Get your mom to help out.

 

[Montrovant]

First of all, she is not a "government entity". She's a human being, who happens to have a government job. Her personal clothing choices are just that: PERSONAL. At no point in time has the Supreme Court EVER interpreted the personal activities of government officials to be official government acts, and I defy you to prove otherwise. Likewise, the Supreme Court has never stated that individuals lose their Constitutional rights when they become employees of the government.

And I will "take it up with the Supreme Court" the instant you prove me wrong, and NOT the instant you incorrectly cite their position on the relevant issues.

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State
I can't make you understand what the Supreme Court has said about separating religion from government (no one can, as you are too ******* stupid). But the evidence is overwhelming.
Get your mom to help out.

In which of those cases did the Supreme Court interpret the personal activities of government officials to be official government acts?

Wait, do you think just posting a link to some USSC decisions on religious expression is evidence of your point, even if none of the cases actually deal with the question at hand?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

And I've explained to you why the monument Moore had placed in the courthouse is different from Omar wearing a hijab.

NOT when it comes to separation of church and state you haven't. Stop with your ******* idiocy.

I've provided evidence from a Supreme Court case that not all religious expression is treated the same. You, on the other hand, continue to repeat the same claim without providing any evidence at all.

Invoking your particular religion's God in any governmental context is forbidden as I've proved with my link giving Supreme Court decisions
on the matter. U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State
You haven't proved your case at all as you keep claiming as the circumstances and rationale of the court in each decision you cite can very greatly depending on the particulars.
Analyze, detail and explain the court's rationales in each case and then get back to me, or not.
In any event don't forget the Supreme Court has the last word so unless your few pitiful examples are from the Supreme Court itself, I don't want to hear about it.

It would be like you looking at a murder with a gun, and a self-defense case with a gun, and getting upset that only one was prosecuted. After all, both involved someone being shot! They must be treated exactly the same!

It's OK. I understand that you can't actually support your claim.

That is funny because you want me to take it on faith that the couple of cases you cite have the exact same case facts and circumstances as Roy Moore's, the most pertinent example of a government representative being removed from office for failing to separate his job from his religion. But thanks for ironically pointing out your own erroneous contention.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

In which of those cases did the Supreme Court interpret the personal activities of government officials to be official government acts?

Wait, do you think just posting a link to some USSC decisions on religious expression is evidence of your point, even if none of the cases actually deal with the question at hand?

I provided what you wanted....examples of the Supreme Court dealing with the issue of separation of church and state.
Now if you want to dispute what I've provided, have fun! Go at it! Give me examples of my citation does not prove my point.
The ball is in your court now. Stop being a big baby.

 

[jillian]

The 181 year old ban took place when all of the representatives were men and they didn't want them wearing hats inside the building.

Today there are also women who get elected to serve and the wearing a lady's scarf (hijab) in the house chamber should be a non issue. ....

see what i told you about the "people" you support, snooks?

 

[DandyDonovan]

OMG , are you idiots still ranting and raving over a hoodie? LOL too funny.

Here's what we know , if this woman was a Christian wanting to wear her Jesus hat the majority of posters on this board would hold the exact opposite opinion that they hold when it's a Muslim woman. Meaning yall are dopes.

 

[jillian]

And I've explained to you why the monument Moore had placed in the courthouse is different from Omar wearing a hijab.

NOT when it comes to separation of church and state you haven't. Stop with your ******* idiocy.

I've provided evidence from a Supreme Court case that not all religious expression is treated the same. You, on the other hand, continue to repeat the same claim without providing any evidence at all.

Invoking your particular religion's God in any governmental context is forbidden as I've proved with my link giving Supreme Court decisions
on the matter. U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State
You haven't proved your case at all as you keep claiming as the circumstances and rationale of the court in each decision you cite can very greatly depending on the particulars.
Analyze, detail and explain the court's rationales in each case and then get back to me, or not.
In any event don't forget the Supreme Court has the last word so unless your few pitiful examples are from the Supreme Court itself, I don't want to hear about it.

It would be like you looking at a murder with a gun, and a self-defense case with a gun, and getting upset that only one was prosecuted. After all, both involved someone being shot! They must be treated exactly the same!

It's OK. I understand that you can't actually support your claim.

That is funny because you want me to take it on faith that the couple of cases you cite have the exact same case facts and circumstances as Roy Moore's, the most pertinent example of a government representative being removed from office for failing to separate his job from his religion. But thanks for ironically pointing out your own erroneous contention.

actually it IS different. someone wearing a hijab IS protected because the first amendment protects HER religion, the same as someone wearing a yarmulke. Someone putting a religious symbol in front of a courthouse isn't because THAT is equating the state with a religion and trying to create a state religion. \

you should probably stop pretending you understand the issue.

 

[DandyDonovan]

And I've explained to you why the monument Moore had placed in the courthouse is different from Omar wearing a hijab.

NOT when it comes to separation of church and state you haven't. Stop with your ******* idiocy.

I've provided evidence from a Supreme Court case that not all religious expression is treated the same. You, on the other hand, continue to repeat the same claim without providing any evidence at all.

Invoking your particular religion's God in any governmental context is forbidden as I've proved with my link giving Supreme Court decisions
on the matter. U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State
You haven't proved your case at all as you keep claiming as the circumstances and rationale of the court in each decision you cite can very greatly depending on the particulars.
Analyze, detail and explain the court's rationales in each case and then get back to me, or not.
In any event don't forget the Supreme Court has the last word so unless your few pitiful examples are from the Supreme Court itself, I don't want to hear about it.

It would be like you looking at a murder with a gun, and a self-defense case with a gun, and getting upset that only one was prosecuted. After all, both involved someone being shot! They must be treated exactly the same!

It's OK. I understand that you can't actually support your claim.

That is funny because you want me to take it on faith that the couple of cases you cite have the exact same case facts and circumstances as Roy Moore's, the most pertinent example of a government representative being removed from office for failing to separate his job from his religion. But thanks for ironically pointing out your own erroneous contention.

actually it IS different. someone wearing a hijab IS protected. Someone putting a religious symbol in front of a courthouse isn't.

you should probably stop pretending you understand the issue.

Neither is protected you idiot. You don't have a RIGHT to wear a hijab in Capitol building.