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



## The Purge (Dec 2, 2018)

This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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 ...


----------



## BlackFlag (Dec 2, 2018)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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.
> 
> ...


Now Jews can wear yarmulke’s.  What, do you hate Jews?


----------



## depotoo (Dec 2, 2018)

They seemed to live with it, understanding the rules...





BlackFlag said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...


----------



## BlackFlag (Dec 2, 2018)

depotoo said:


> They seemed to live with it, understanding the rules...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And now your world has come crashing down and our lives are all over.  Arrrrggghhh!!!!


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 2, 2018)

Banning hats in Congress is a big deal?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2018)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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 Purge (Dec 2, 2018)

Hey, if the rule has been changed I see no reason that this shouldn't  be ok...


----------



## Correll (Dec 2, 2018)

Demographic shift is changing the face of the nation. And we are changing our rules to accommodate the newcomers.


This is great. Unless you liked the nation you grew up in. Then it sucks for you.


----------



## mdk (Dec 2, 2018)




----------



## Correll (Dec 2, 2018)

mdk said:


> View attachment 232366





I recall a report from a nice Long Island neighborhood several years ago.


A young gay male was killed.


The locals were horrified. They said "this is not who we are".


BUT, they had welcomed the influx of hispanic immigration until there was a large hispanic population with a serious gang problem and the gang was upset that one of it's members was behaving in a not macho fashion.


So they killed him.


A community that invites in a large and alien population, gives up the right to define itself.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Dec 2, 2018)

What places are there in the world where Islam is peacefully co-mingled with other religions where Muslims are the overwhelming majority?  Which Muslim countries could I freely walk around wearing a cross and carrying a Bible without fear?

IOW....are Muslims truly a peaceful, tolerant people or are they just getting a foothold in America so that they can eventually unleash Sharia Law?

Christianity in America seems to be in rapid decline just as Islam seems to be gaining a lot of ground.
Not sure why American women are so glad to see the rise of Islam?

Can anyone explain?


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 2, 2018)

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.  ....


----------



## Death Angel (Dec 2, 2018)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Christianity in America seems to be in rapid decline just as Islam seems to be gaining a lot of ground.
> Not sure why American women are so glad to see the rise of Islam?
> 
> Can anyone explain?


Women or American liberals


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Dec 2, 2018)

Death Angel said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> > Christianity in America seems to be in rapid decline just as Islam seems to be gaining a lot of ground.
> ...



I guess it's more Liberal women.
Not sure they've thought it through.

I doubt the feminist care for Islam as it puts women as basically servants to men....but they're totally silent.   Odd.


----------



## Sunni Man (Dec 2, 2018)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> ....are Muslims truly a peaceful, tolerant people or are they just getting a foothold in America so that they can eventually unleash Sharia Law?


The way morals and values are quickly going downhill in America.

I can envision the day when people will be begging for Sharia law.  ...


----------



## Death Angel (Dec 2, 2018)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> > BasicHumanUnit said:
> ...


THIS is the reason. Accept it or not:



> “They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness”


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 2, 2018)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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.
> 
> ...


Where is Versace when we need him!


----------



## elongobardi (Dec 2, 2018)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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.
> 
> ...



They should stay banned.    Your in the US deal with it.   If you don’t like it move back to your shit hole countries 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 2, 2018)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> What places are there in the world where Islam is peacefully co-mingled with other religions where Muslims are the overwhelming majority?  Which Muslim countries could I freely walk around wearing a cross and carrying a Bible without fear?
> 
> IOW....are Muslims truly a peaceful, tolerant people or are they just getting a foothold in America so that they can eventually unleash Sharia Law?
> 
> ...



Is it really down to that binary choice?  Either Muslims are peaceful or they are going to "unleash Sharia Law"?

Muslims make up a tiny percentage of the US population.  The most recent estimates I've seen put Muslims (of all ages, so including children) at about 1% of the US population, whereas are estimated at around 70%.  While Islam may be growing and Christianity declining, the gap is still huge.

A new estimate of U.S. Muslim population
Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics

I don't know whether or not American women are glad to see the rise of Islam.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 2, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...



Which of the American citizens involved do you want to "move back to your shit hole countries"?  

Do you think hats were banned because foreigners were wearing them in sessions of Congress?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 2, 2018)

We haven't had a female Muslim elected in 181 years


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 2, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...



No one hates the Jews because the Jews love the nation and put the nation before their religion.  

The same can't be said of this selfish woman.  The whole representative body needs to change the rules for her.


----------



## Correll (Dec 2, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> > What places are there in the world where Islam is peacefully co-mingled with other religions where Muslims are the overwhelming majority?  Which Muslim countries could I freely walk around wearing a cross and carrying a Bible without fear?
> ...



So, maybe we should discuss the possibilities of rapid growth before it occurs. 


You know, instead of waiting till then, so libs can say, it is too late to do anything.


----------



## Correll (Dec 2, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> We haven't had a female Muslim elected in 181 years




So, that's all she has to offer in your mind? No surprise there.


----------



## elongobardi (Dec 2, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...



They can move out of the US      We keep changing traditions so we don’t insult foreigners in our country.    That’s the problem, no pledge of elegance, no merry Christmas,  no prayer in school.   It’s bullshit.    The US shouldn’t have to change for foreigners.    If they don’t like it leave.     


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## elongobardi (Dec 2, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> We haven't had a female Muslim elected in 181 years



Yeah.   We had Obama for 8 years. [emoji4]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bodecea (Dec 2, 2018)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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.
> 
> ...


Sorry to hear that that woman in an hijab frightens you so very very much.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 2, 2018)

The Purge said:


> Hey, if the rule has been changed I see no reason that this shouldn't  be ok...


I certainly expect to see it soon.   And then...so what?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 2, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...


Awwwwww....


----------



## elongobardi (Dec 2, 2018)

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > We haven't had a female Muslim elected in 181 years
> ...



That’s your response.   No surprise there


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## elongobardi (Dec 2, 2018)

bodecea said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...



Your a moron.     Why do we have to change the rule for her.       


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Correll (Dec 2, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





Yeah, pointing out that liberals, hypocritical focus on race and gender, instead of content of character, or actions, 


I do that all the time. Any reasonable person would have seen it coming from a mile away.


Libs of course, are always shocked that anyone would try to hold them to their own claimed standards.


Every single time.


losers.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 2, 2018)

mdk said:


> View attachment 232366


You beat me to it!


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 2, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


"You're"


----------



## Coyote (Dec 2, 2018)

MisterBeale said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...



Really.  You know her?


----------



## Coyote (Dec 2, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...


She is not a foriegner.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 2, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...



Rules should never be changed.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 2, 2018)

Coyote said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...



I don't need to.

All I need to know is that she ran for Congress because she wants to affect policy, yet she never had any intention of making a compromise of her faith.

She wants the tradition of the nation to bend to her will, OF THE ENTIRE NATION OF ISLAM.

So I already know what is more important to her.  She reveals it by wanting the traditions of the entire body to change for ONE PERSON, exclusively for the demands of one religion.

Apparently all of her citizenship classes and the oath she took to become a citizen?  meh, lip service.

_"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, *or sovereignty*, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

_
. . . . lip service.  It didn't mean shit to her.

LEARN SOMETHING.

Islamic concept of sovereignty - Wikipedia


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 2, 2018)

Coyote said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Stop being melodramatic.

That isn't the point here.

This is about her religion, the state, and sovereignty.

Is she going to be respectful of the US government, or force the US government to be respectful of Allah?  Which is in charge, which has sovereignty?

That is the power play she is showing to her base.  If you don't get that you are obtuse.


----------



## elongobardi (Dec 2, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



You’re an asshole.   Just like your buddies.    The only people that keep yapping are the liberal assholes 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 2, 2018)

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > We haven't had a female Muslim elected in 181 years
> ...


It is asshole Republicans whining about a head scarf


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 2, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...



Maybe you missed it in my last post.  The listed Representatives proposing the change are all US citizens, not foreigners.  Are you conflating 'different from you' or 'different from what you are used to' with foreigners?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 2, 2018)

bodecea said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...


Republicans

We have a 181 year tradition against hijabs


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 2, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...


Touchy tonight huh?

That time of the month?


----------



## Old Yeller (Dec 2, 2018)

How did Dem change any rule?  They are in the minority?    Did the bastards vote?  not on wall funding of course.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 2, 2018)

MisterBeale said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...



The Jews put the nation before their religion"?  First, I think there are plenty of Jews who would disagree with that.  Second, I know that I have seen and heard many Christians say that they put religion before country.  I'm not sure if I've seen those of other religions say the same, but I am pretty confident people of all sorts of different religious beliefs would put their religion before the country.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Dec 2, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Rules should never be changed.



Such sarcasm.....
Why do you think rules should change when they've been good for so long?

"_*Treat others with respect*_".......

Another good rule you lefties have DEFINITELY changed.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 2, 2018)

Old Yeller said:


> How did Dem change any rule?  They are in the minority?    Did the bastards vote?  not on wall funding of course.


Wait a month and Dems will end the silliness


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 2, 2018)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Rules should never be changed.
> ...


They are not respecting women who wear hijabs


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 2, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> *Your* a moron.



It's always funny when someone uses the wrong form of your/you're when calling someone else a moron.


----------



## BlackFlag (Dec 2, 2018)

MisterBeale said:


> BlackFlag said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


Republicans could have stopped it.  Oh well, they still have your vote in their pocket.


----------



## BlackFlag (Dec 2, 2018)

This thread should be called “Republican controlled congress succumbs to radical Islam, and their base will vote for them even more now.”


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 2, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...


Look kid, if "you're" gonna call somebody a moron you better make sure your grammar, spelling, and punctuation are up to snuff or "you're" the one that ends up looking stupid.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 2, 2018)

MisterBeale said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...



Do you think that a person cannot respect the government at the same time the government is respectful of that person's beliefs?

Does changing the rules because an individual brings some sort of complaint always involve someone else ending up in charge, or a loss of sovereignty of the US?


----------



## elongobardi (Dec 2, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Nothing to do with the head scarf.    It’s changing rules to accommodate people of other cultures.    No other country does it except us.    


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Dec 2, 2018)

We're watching the nation change into something totally different right before our eyes.

Is it better?  Is it going to be better?

Every day I'm out in public I see stupid ass people doing more and more stupid ass stuff.
People threatening to kill you because you were doing 40 in a 40mph zone and "didn't get out of their way fast enough"  cause speed limits don't apply to them.
People dumping garbage out their windows.
People risking their and others lives because texting about last nights date is more important than life itself, road rage is the new norm..... etc etc etc

Hateful, angry people.


rightwinger said:


> They are not respecting women who wear hijabs



Oh Shut Uuuuuup already
It's not the Hijab you fool, it's Islam and Sharia Law that bothers em.
And it should.  Islam and socialism are two things that are not compatible with the US Constitution.   Now, if you're happy converting the USA into Somalia, then I can see the basis of your delight.

Good, bad or indifferent......
This nation was built on the foundation of a homogeneous people.

And as sure as the Sun rises, it will crumble on a politically correct doctrine of Diversity.
It's partly why Rome fell.

CHINA knows this and is not allowing "Diversity" in their nation of 1.2 BILLION....in fact, if you've been following the news, their "eliminating" millions of Muslims right now.
Again, *good bad* or *indifferent*....I'm just stating facts.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Dec 2, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > They seemed to live with it, understanding the rules...
> ...


And you'd be OK with someone wearing a KKK hood?


----------



## Andylusion (Dec 2, 2018)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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.
> 
> ...



Well... to be fair.....

In Islam, it is more of an expression of male dominance of women.  Honestly, if you don't wear one in most Islamic based countries, they stone you to death.

If you really want have religious expression, we better put in place a law to stone women who refuse to wear it.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 2, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



What is the harm?


----------



## The Purge (Dec 2, 2018)

Andylusion said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...


Or since you now represent America. Perhaps the bullshit religious ID should be cast aside while doing ALL the peoples work?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 2, 2018)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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.
> 
> ...



So what?


----------



## The Purge (Dec 2, 2018)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...


No one cares what you think...Brucie!


----------



## Slade3200 (Dec 3, 2018)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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.
> 
> ...


Good, that rule change doesn’t hurt anybody, unless we count the butt hurt snowflakes like yourself. Sorry bub.


----------



## AveryJarhman (Dec 3, 2018)

​
Being a non-believer it is difficult for me to empathize with or understand people  worshiping mythical supernatural beings. 

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, just honest.

I also find it impossible to admire fellow human beings following a religion telling them to *'convert or destroy non-believers.'*

Islam: *"There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman.  These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them."*

"al-Taqiyya: deception; *the Islamic word for concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies."*

*"Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to "smooth over differences."*

Peace.


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 3, 2018)

If such a symbol did not represent the oppression of women, perhaps it would be less unpalatable.


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 3, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...


Anyone who believes in "God", and who believes he/she has the word of that deity, obviously believes in something greater than the words and laws of men. If we hear the person saying otherwise, we know he/she is lying to us, and perhaps even to his/her self.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

BlackFlag said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...




What happened to separation of church and state?


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Listen Einstein, we have liberals bitching about the ten commandments, crosses on public property and now the liberals change their mind to accommodate some dot head


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Dec 3, 2018)

I am shocked and disturbed in equal measure. I sense the pain here and my heart goes out to the many people affected by this. Is there a fund that I can donate to ?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Dec 3, 2018)

Andylusion said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...


Excellent thinking!
Let’s call for consistency and demand a bill be passed in Congress to stone all congress women who fail to wear headgear. We don’t want to offend our Muslim Congress-woman.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Tommy Tainant said:


> I am shocked and disturbed in equal measure. I sense the pain here and my heart goes out to the many people affected by this. Is there a fund that I can donate to ?






History of the UDC | United Daughters of the Confederacy



.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...




This blows my mind away..



All this crap about Jefferson and the separation of church and state..


All these lawsuit's by Lefty's and their hatred for Christianity ....


.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 3, 2018)

Tommy Tainant said:


> I am shocked and disturbed in equal measure. I sense the pain here and my heart goes out to the many people affected by this. Is there a fund that I can donate to ?



I'm sure you've seen the billion or so threads about how much they are allegedly enjoying "winning".  Could you imagine how despondent these useless  fuck stains who support Trump would be if they had to actually admit that he is the failure we all know he is?  He just caved on tariffs....you'd think that would be a moment of clarity; right?


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Dec 3, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > I am shocked and disturbed in equal measure. I sense the pain here and my heart goes out to the many people affected by this. Is there a fund that I can donate to ?
> ...


You are deluded. You ramble on about tariffs and shit whilst a *woman can wear a scar over her head* in the workplace. Get your priorities sorted.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > I am shocked and disturbed in equal measure. I sense the pain here and my heart goes out to the many people affected by this. Is there a fund that I can donate to ?
> ...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Tommy Tainant said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...




Burqa Bans: Which Countries Outlaw Face Coverings?



PARIS — The Canadian province of Quebec is the latest place to make it a crime to wear a face-covering garment in public, a move that critics derided as discriminatory against Muslim women.

Quebec’s law, enacted on Wednesday, is the first of its kind in North America, but similar measures — sometimes referred to as burqa bans — have existed in Europe for years.


*Snip*


The French-speaking province of Quebec has barred people with face coverings from receiving public services or from working in government jobs.




.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Sigh !
You do know there is a difference between a hijab and a burqa dont you ?


----------



## candycorn (Dec 3, 2018)

Tommy Tainant said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...


----------



## candycorn (Dec 3, 2018)

Tommy Tainant said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



Would it shock you to find out he doesn't?  Yeah; me neither.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Tommy Tainant said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...




Same thing to a half German half polack like me born in Chicago..

Once again I thought there was supposed to be separation of church and state in America?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



One dot head looks the same to me .


And the point is liberals hate Christians but go nuts if someone offends dot heads


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


I cant see that this makes Islam the state religion. Are politicians allowed to wear crucifix in congress ?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Tommy Tainant said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...




Once again it's supposed to be separation of church and state..

She is flaunting it and the left is so scared of it they allow it.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


What is she flaunting ? She has asked to be allowed to wear a scarf. If the rule isnt changed then she wont. Why is it so important to you that this doesnt happen ?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Tommy Tainant said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...




Why is it important for her to wear the scarf?


It's not some kind of religious symbol is it?


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

It's flauting..


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> It's flauting..


This is "flauting" ya racist clown.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 3, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > BlackFlag said:
> ...



The Jews, at least the European ones, recognize the principles of the nation state and the principles enshrined in the peace of Westphalia which constructs the modern nation state.  This separates the state and religion, or at least recognizes that the state is the one that shall be the one that is sovereign.  Folks first immigrated here so that they could have freedom of religion.  It is not necessary to have that freedom inside the halls of government.  If they choose to do so, it is their choice as to how to do it, and which one.

For a nation to survive, they have to agree on certain similarities, otherwise, there WILL be disintegration.  You don't have to agree, you just have to go along with tradition.  Otherwise?  You don't have a nation anymore.

Peace of Westphalia - Wikipedia

The main tenets of the Peace of Westphalia were: 



All parties would recognize the Peace of Augsburg of 1555, in which each prince would have the right to determine the religion of his own state (the principle of _cuius regio, eius religio_). The options were Catholicism, Lutheranism, and now Calvinism.[11][12]
Christians living in principalities where their denomination was _not_ the established church were guaranteed the right to practice their faith in private, as well as in public during allotted hours.[16]
General recognition of the exclusive sovereignty of each party over its lands, people, and agents abroad, and responsibility for the warlike acts of any of its citizens or agents. Issuance of unrestricted letters of marque and reprisal to privateers was forbidden.
Islamic concept of sovereignty - Wikipedia

The *Islamic concept of sovereignty* differs from the western principles of international custom and law established by the Treaty of Westphalia. An important element of this is the _Ummah_ — the community of Muslims as a whole. Devout Muslims consider that there is no division between religion and politics and so government should be based upon the Qur'an, following the word of God in a unified way, as in the first Caliphate.[1]


What next, will she insist that they change the national prayer breakfast to worship Allah?  Will she insist that the Office of the Chaplain be an Imam?





The Office of the Chaplain, United States House of Representatives

*Opening Prayer*

*11/27/2018*
*Reverend Patrick J. Conroy, S.J.*
Gracious God, we give You thanks for giving us another day.

You have blessed us with all good gifts, and this past week, with thankful hearts, we gathered with family and loved ones throughout this great land to celebrate our blessings together.

Bless the newly elected Members of the 116th Congress who resume their orientation on Capitol Hill. Give them calm and confidence as they prepare for a new role as servants of our Nation's citizens.

Bless the Members of the people's House who have been entrusted with the privilege to serve our Nation and all Americans in their need. Grant them to work together in respect and affection, faithful in the responsibilities they have been given.

As the end of the 115th Congress approaches, bestow upon them the gifts of wisdom and discernment, that in their actions, they will do 
justice, love with mercy, and walk humbly with You.

May all that is done this day be for Your greater honor and glory. Amen.


Going back over the list?  I notice the "Chaplain," has never been a Jew.  Probably because there has never been a high enough percentage of Jews in congress.  This is probably the same reason the rule have not be changed to allow wearing yarmulkes.

Chaplain of the United States House of Representatives - Wikipedia


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 3, 2018)

Tommy Tainant said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > It's flauting..
> ...


Islam is not a race.



Why are folks on the left so obtuse?


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 3, 2018)

Tommy Tainant said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



Two completely different topics.

Apples and oranges.

This is the West, not the East.

For centuries it has been the culture in this nation that it is disrespectful to have head coverings inside a building.  

It has nothing to do with respect to be wearing jewelry. 

Thus, your comparison is a false analogy.



Now, if you want to compare a nun's habit or a veil, then you have an adequate analogy.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Dec 3, 2018)

MisterBeale said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Only racists ever make that point.


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 3, 2018)

A show of religious belief is a show of belief in something superior to human, institutional order. Implicit is an allegiance to one above the other.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 3, 2018)

Tommy Tainant said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...


Dude, I have a good friend that practices Islam.  He is a white Canadian of Greek heritage, and you are telling me I am racist against him for not wanting Islamic head covering on the floor of the house?

Wow, you are the one that is racist against everyone on the planet.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


It’s recognizing the dignity of others is worth more than an archaic rule


----------



## Taz (Dec 3, 2018)

We should kick Minnesota out of the Union.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2018)

Andylusion said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...


Yet in this case it is the women who were elected to Congress


----------



## FJO (Dec 3, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Oh, no?

Take a look at Canada and weep. Or laugh.


----------



## Correll (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




I think it is kind of asshole to dismiss all a person is and does and believes, and instead just define them as member of a group(s).


The point about US changing the rules for a newcomer, is valid.


----------



## BULLDOG (Dec 3, 2018)

Lindsey is all up in the hat rule.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


"Your a moron"....these little tidbits just write themselves...


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

Correll said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Name calling.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...


Thus speaks someone yapping about a woman with a head covering.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2018)

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Anyone who demands a religious woman remove her headscarf over an archaic rule is an asshole


----------



## martybegan (Dec 3, 2018)

mdk said:


> View attachment 232366



Yeah, i actually don't have an issue with this.

Now if she wanted to wear the full burkha and cover her face while in congress, then that would be an issue.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



What if she decides to go full burkha and asks to cover her face during congressional sessions?

I don't have an issue with the headscarf, but covering up completely should be a no-no


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

there4eyeM said:


> If such a symbol did not represent the oppression of women, perhaps it would be less unpalatable.


Is that what it meant when catholic women were covered in church?  Asking for a friend.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


There is.   Come talk to us when a rule is put in place MAKING women wear a hijab INSTEAD of getting rid of a rule that forbids it.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Ah...."flaunting it".....that's the REAL issue for deplorables, everyone.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 3, 2018)

The Purge said:


> Hey, if the rule has been changed I see no reason that this shouldn't  be ok...


Abe was against the confederacy, so I doubt he would be wearing a MAGA hat....


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 3, 2018)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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.
> 
> ...


it's almost as bad as Democrats changing 180 year laws that banned black people and women from voting


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > If such a symbol did not represent the oppression of women, perhaps it would be less unpalatable.
> ...


It isn't expressed the same way in the Bible as in the Koran, but the effect is pretty much the same; i.e., there is an inferiority in women compared to men as well as the differences between them.


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 3, 2018)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...


Not really comparable.


----------



## dannyboys (Dec 3, 2018)

martybegan said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 232366
> ...


By the end of 2019 the DEMs will be allowing the full burka in Congress. You can bank on that!
If the Muslims block voted against the DEMs does anyone in their right mind believe the DEMs would allow muslim congress women to wear a head covering?
Got it in ONE!


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2018)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Won’t affect her ability to be a congresswoman.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2018)

dannyboys said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



If a woman in a burka gets elected she should wear one

Doesn’t affect other congress members


----------



## Olde Europe (Dec 3, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> It’s changing rules to accommodate people of other cultures.    No other country does it except us.



Exceptional!


----------



## martybegan (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



How do we know who the person is if we can't see their face?

sorry, but that's just retarded.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Well it sure makes it hard for us to know it's actually her.


----------



## Correll (Dec 3, 2018)

Tommy Tainant said:


> I am shocked and disturbed in equal measure. I sense the pain here and my heart goes out to the many people affected by this. Is there a fund that I can donate to ?




You could shove your money up your ass, along side your head.


----------



## Olde Europe (Dec 3, 2018)

martybegan said:


> Well it sure makes it hard for us to know it's actually her.



Yeah, and then there's the problem of evil twins sneaking into the People's House and voting to bring down the Republic.

Was there ever something as comical and saddening, at the same time, as the paranoid, hysterical fears of the Other?


----------



## Correll (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




IF that "other" is not a white male. 


If it was Ben Shapiro, you'd be screaming about separation of church and state or some other bullshit.


----------



## Correll (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...





YOu didn't understand my point then, and all you are doing is demonstrating that you still don't understand it.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

there4eyeM said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...


That's why I'm not a fan of patriarchal religions....but we DO have the 1st Amendment, so......


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2018)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > dannyboys said:
> ...


Many ways to tell who a person is without seeing a face

If Republicans want to be such dicks about it they can invest in a fingerprint scanner at the entrance


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2018)

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...


If a white make wants to wear a hijab it is fine with me


----------



## martybegan (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Or the person can just show their face. 

A head scarf is one thing, a full face covering is something else.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 3, 2018)

What other long time rules and traditions can we expect to see rejected and changed in order to cater to the Muslim minority? This issue is an ominous omen and slippery slopes are always innocent and inconsequential, at first!


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




What it's  chained to her head?


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Once again what happened to separation of church and state?


.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...


Nice imagination....however, that thing you speak of hasn't really happened.....has it?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...




Still trying to use the shame tatic bitch?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2018)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



How does that prevent her from serving in Congress other than it freaks you out?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Nothing.  It's still there.  Thank you for asking.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

BULLDOG said:


> Lindsey is all up in the hat rule.
> 
> View attachment 232455




We thought the left wasn't homophobic?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


I'm sorry.....what is it that makes you so upset about this story.......and at me?   Talk about snowflakey behavior........


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Congress is making no laws regarding establishment of religion
They are only allowing free exercise therein


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Bwahaha..

You Lefty's are affraid to offend stupid dot heads, it's obvious.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> What other long time rules and traditions can we expect to see rejected and changed in order to cater to the Muslim minority? This issue is an ominous omen and slippery slopes are always innocent and inconsequential, at first!


Filibuster was a long standing rule and tradition
The Senate had no problem changing that


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Of course they are they are allowing religious head garb into Congress .


Dot head bullshit..



.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Lindsey is all up in the hat rule.
> ...


Can you explain exactly what was homophobic about that post?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > What other long time rules and traditions can we expect to see rejected and changed in order to cater to the Muslim minority? This issue is an ominous omen and slippery slopes are always innocent and inconsequential, at first!
> ...


Same with Presidential candidates showing their tax-returns.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


So....tell us what law they CREATED to allow that.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




Got to love the hidden bullshit on the left..

We are going to fuck with you forever about this


----------



## martybegan (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



again, how do we know who it is?

Again, head covering fine, face covering, no.

Should we allow congress to all show up in guy fawkes masks? Government representatives should be able to be identified.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Once again what happened to separation of church and state?


That only matters when some  says a prayer over the p.a.before a baseball game or when a cross is put up in a cave on a mountain somewhere. That stuff is for Christians, and sometimes Jews. Not muslims!
Don't be silly! The left doesn't have to play by their own rules.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




What you didn't read the op now?


What happened to separation of church and state..


The dumb bitch could take it off


No?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Nice reply.   Now...can you explain exactly what was homophobic about that post?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Once again what happened to separation of church and state?
> ...




Exactly, these fuckers are fine with trashing Christianity but have no problem with dot heads . because they are scared to death of them .


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?

Or you're playing a game.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Congress is making no laws regarding establishment of religion
> They are only allowing free exercise therein


Don't be such a disingenuous sophist! A preference for one religion over all others is being shown here. It's everything
the left claims to be against...except when it suits them. 
The slope is slippery indeed.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


I'm sorry.....but I am not really seeing an answer to my question.  Let me try again.   Can you tell us what law they CREATED to allow her to wear her hijab in the House?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




Read the OP

The left has been bitching about the separation of church and state forever once a scary dot head gets elected they change the rules .

This is bullshit and you know it.


.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Can you explain how allowing a Representative to wear her hijab in the House "trashes christianity"?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


And again, you can't seem to answer my question.........are you deflecting because you cannot?   So...again....can you explain exactly what was homophobic about that post?  Can you?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Congress is making no laws regarding establishment of religion
> ...


How is this a "preference for one religion over another"?   Is no one else now allowed to be covered in the House?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...




Why does she need to wear this?

1. Does she have a head injury?

2. Is she mental

3. Is it a fashion statement

4. Is it because or her religion?




Get a clue


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




You are doing it your preference one religion over another by this dog and pony show..


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

The left is picking a religion..


End of story..


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




It was totally homophobic..

He had to remind everyone Lyndsey is a gay republican..


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



You keep using the phrase "dot heads."  Are you mixing up Islam with Hinduism?  Or perhaps you are thinking this particular woman is Indian rather than Somali?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

I am going to have a field day with this one..


You tards want separation of church and state and allow this?



.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Sounds like YOU are trying to PREVENT someone from wearing a scarf......why does it frighten you so much that someone would do that?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...




I think I posted it 5 pages ago I am a half polack/ German born in Chicago may 4th 1965..Roman Catholic..


All dot heads look the same to me..



What happened to separation of church and state?


She can take it off..


No?



..


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


So, to point out that someone is gay is homophobic?  I'm gay....I just pointed that out.  Am I homophobic?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




Why does this frightened the left?


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 3, 2018)

MisterBeale said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Actually, the comparison works pretty well.  If allowing someone to wear a religious head covering violates the separation of church and state, allowing someone to wear religious jewelry would seem to do the same.  In both cases it's a form of religious apparel.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Uhm since when did you ever see graham were that hat?


You can't see the lefts hypocrisy?

What happened to separation of church and state .

Her by wearing it is bringing one religion over another in Congress..


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




Why does this scare the crap out of the left?


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> I am going to have a field day with this one..
> 
> 
> You tards want separation of church and state and allow this?
> ...


What’s wrong with this? Where have laws ever been crafted to prevent people from wearing something of religious content in public? Are students in public schools not allowed to wear yarmulkes or hajibs?


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



So you seem to be saying that being of Polish and German descent, being born in Chicago, and/or being Roman Catholic are valid excuses for ignorant generalizations.  Gotcha.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > I am going to have a field day with this one..
> ...




Once again these people will be on the news, saying assnine things ..


What happened to separation of church and state..the left wants dot head bullshit instead of Christianity..


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Wearing crappy ass fashion


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Sounds like YOU are trying to PREVENT someone from wearing a scarf......why does it frighten you so much that someone would do that?


*Because a 181 year old custom is being changed specifically to accommodate Muslim wishes. *What else can we expect to see? And can you guarantee that this will not happen over and over again?


----------



## BULLDOG (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Be patient. Glenn Beck doesn't come on the radio for a couple more hours, and he's hoping he will get an answer for you there.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

BULLDOG said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




I don't listen to him homophobic..


.



I just read crap like yours and take the opposite approach..


It's simple.


.


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


I still don’t see where the left has prevented students in public schools from wearing such head garments. What about religious symbols on jewelry, e.g., crosses, Jewish stars, etc.... does the left fight to keep those out of public schools or from Congress?

I’m not seeing the hypocrisy you’re howling over.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2018)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



People call me on the phone and I can tell who they are by their voice

But if Republicans want to be a dick about it, you can give her an access code or fingerprint or retinal scanner 

So many women impersonate women in burkas


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> What’s wrong with this? Where have laws ever been crafted to prevent people from wearing something of religious content in public? Are students in public schools not allowed to wear yarmulkes or hajibs?


The United States congress is not a public place. Your questions are ridiculous. And just that for 181 years no one has demanded an exception to this rule and now the left willingly yields to Muslim demands should tell anyone with half a brain something ominous.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Don't give me any of that bullshit..


The left is all about tearing down crosses and the ten commandments..

Now they want to change the laws to allow religious head garb in Congress .




God damn you guys are fucking assholes.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> I am going to have a field day with this one..
> 
> 
> You tards want separation of church and state and allow this?
> ...


Again.....what law has been CREATED to prevent separation of church and state?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Congress is making no laws regarding establishment of religion
> ...


Read the first amendment and get back to me 

How is allowing a head scarf showing preference?

Why do you want to be such a prick a about a woman exercising her religion?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




I am sure you got laid by one..



.


----------



## BULLDOG (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Of course you do. It's not like anyone expects a right winger to actually consider anything. The right wing bubble says oppose, and you oppose. You're a good little drone.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


As long as my tax money isn't paying for it, and it's not on public, tax-supported property, no problem whatsoever....they are nice ideals to try to live for even tho they are not part of our Secular Laws.....except for the Murder/Thief ones which were part of Mankind's laws long before this Moses guy.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > I am going to have a field day with this one..
> ...




Wait you don't Know this?



( This is going to be amusing for me)




Your on a political message board arguing and don't know the supreme Court ruling?


I would give you a hint but I want you to figure it out for yourself..


.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Read the first amendment and get back to me
> 
> How is allowing a head scarf showing preference?


It's giving an exemption to a religion that none other has.
I thought that was obvious. "Okay, we'll let you ignore the rules everyone else must follow". 
What is it about the word preference that you don't understand? 



> Why do you want to be such a prick a about a woman exercising her religion?


Why do you want to be a prick about respecting the rules of congress that have stood for nearly two hundred years?


----------



## BookShaka (Dec 3, 2018)

Eh, who cares?

I personally think the Republicans should all wear MAGA hats every single day from now on.


----------



## Death Angel (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> .....except for the Murder/Thief ones which were part of Mankind's laws long before this Moses guy.


Sorry, no.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




Nah I am just going to piss you off


*U.S. Supreme Court Decisions *
*(arranged by date)*
_Reynolds v. United States_, 98 U.S. 145 (1879)

Court finds that the federal antibigamy statute does not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion.

_Everson v. Board of Education_, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

Court finds that a New Jersey law which included students of Catholic schools in reimbursements to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

_McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71_, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

_Burstyn v. Wilson_, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)

Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

_Torcaso v. Watkins_, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

_Engel v. Vitale_, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

_Abington School District v. Schempp_, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and _Murray v. Curlett_, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

_Epperson v. Arkansas_, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

_Lemon v. Kurtzman_, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

_Stone v. Graham_, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

_Wallace v. Jaffree_, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

_Edwards v. Aquillard_, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

_Allegheny County v. ACLU_, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

_Lee v. Weisman_, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

_Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah_, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)

City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



One thing I've noticed in my years of posting on Forums, those who have no real argument to stand on, switch quickly to personally attacking the poster they are "replying" to, and cannot hold their own in real debate of the issues.


----------



## Death Angel (Dec 3, 2018)

Minnesota has elected some strange characters.

Wrestler Jesse Ventura, the not funny "comedian" Al Franken, Antifa-fan and woman beater, Keith Ellison, in addition to Omar. And a dog is mayor of one town...


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Dec 3, 2018)

Correll said:


> Demographic shift is changing the face of the nation. And we are changing our rules to accommodate the newcomers.
> 
> 
> This is great. Unless you liked the nation you grew up in. Then it sucks for you.


Population replacement is changing the face of the nation.  It is by deliberate design.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

Death Angel said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > .....except for the Murder/Thief ones which were part of Mankind's laws long before this Moses guy.
> ...


Ok, point out where I am wrong.


----------



## Lysistrata (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> What happened to separation of church and state .
> 
> Her by wearing it is bringing one religion over another in Congress..



This is her_ personal_ expression of faith that has absolutely nothing to do with "bringing one religion over another in Congress." Everybody gets to wear the headgear and jewelry signifying their faith, so Jewish men can wear yarmulkes, Sikhs can wear turbans, etc. This is no skin off anybody's teeth.

It does demonstrate a commitment to religious freedom. Please note that these articles are worn by people on their own bodies and go with the representative when he or she leaves the chamber. This does not involve anyone wanting to leave behind any permanent structure.

These circumstances do not compare to somebody who would stand up before the body and launch into some sermon or prayer, either.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

Death Angel said:


> Minnesota has elected some strange characters.
> 
> Wrestler Jesse Ventura, the not funny "comedian" Al Franken, Antifa-fan and woman beater, Keith Ellison, in addition to Omar. And a dog is mayor of one town...


Have you noticed how Texas voted in "Rape Face" Cruz and the ever funny Louie Gohmert?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

This is the same fucking thing..



_Allegheny County v. ACLU_, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

Tipsycatlover said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Demographic shift is changing the face of the nation. And we are changing our rules to accommodate the newcomers.
> ...


I would hope that people have children by deliberate design.


----------



## deanrd (Dec 3, 2018)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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.
> 
> ...


Wait a second, you guys are upset about a head scarf?

A scarf?

Really?

That scares you?

OMG!  

A fuking scarf!

Hilarious,

and pitiful, 

just pitiful.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> This is the same fucking thing..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"inside a government building"....yes.   Put it on church or private property.


----------



## deanrd (Dec 3, 2018)

Sunni Man said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> > ....are Muslims truly a peaceful, tolerant people or are they just getting a foothold in America so that they can eventually unleash Sharia Law?
> ...


I know, right?

It's the GOP.  The Party of theft and criminals.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> > Minnesota has elected some strange characters.
> ...




She is tearing down the establishment clause..

I know ghost readers lawyers read .
Es·tab·lish·ment Clause
_noun_
LAW

the clause in the First Amendment of the US Constitution that prohibits the establishment of religion by Congres


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > What’s wrong with this? Where have laws ever been crafted to prevent people from wearing something of religious content in public? Are students in public schools not allowed to wear yarmulkes or hajibs?
> ...


*”The United States congress is not a public place.”*

Congressmen/women are public servants and most of the Capitol is open to the public. Even the House & Senate galleries when not in session and to visitors acquiring a pass from a legislator when it is.

How Do I Tour the U.S. Capitol and See Congress in Session?

But that’s neither here nor there, the salient point is that the rule that is in place has nothing to do with religion. It’s not like that rule was put in place to separate church from state. Furthermore, this only applies to the House as the Senate allows religious head coverings...

_...he shall not permit any person to place any object whatsoever--including hats, coats, or other personal apparel--or portion of a person on any railing, or any male to wear a hat, *except that where a man's religious beliefs require that he wear a head-cover in such public places as the Senate Gallery, then such head-cover shall be permitted*;_

United States Senate Manual, 104th Congress-RULES FOR REGULATION OF THE SENATE WING OF THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL​
... so what is the objection other than this being nothing more than conservative rage where the right presents a knee-jerk response to anything the left promotes?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > This is the same fucking thing..
> ...




She is wearing it in Congress a pure crime..


Oh trust me lawyers read these posts..


----------



## Death Angel (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Death Angel said:
> ...


No she's not. As long as that cult is legal, she is free to exercise her "religion" too. This is what happens when you let Democrats flood the country with these Turd Worlderers.


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Dumbfuck, the Senate already allows this and they’re a part of Congress.

Where was your outrage over that??


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




The establishment clause you stupid tard



Es·tab·lish·ment Clause
_noun_
LAW

the clause in the First Amendment of the US Constitution that prohibits the establishment of religion by Congress.


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Because they hate Muslims.


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...


How does wearing a head cover establish religion?

And why haven’t you complained about the Senate allowing this?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

BookShaka said:


> Eh, who cares?
> 
> I personally think the Republicans should all wear MAGA hats every single day from now on.


And that would be fine.   Let them.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > This is the same fucking thing..
> ...




So this dumb dot head can flaunt her religion in Congress?


Bullshit..you started the fight..


.


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


So? So, in open society freedom of expression is guaranteed. In selected, voluntary, closed environments, certain concerns may be promoted and others not.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Why does she need to wear it?


.


----------



## deanrd (Dec 3, 2018)

The Ban on Hats on the House Floor | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

Congresswoman-elect Frederica Wilson says hat ban started in 1800s but can be waived

An aside: we wondered if the current hat ban rule would prohibit religious Jews from wearing yarmulke or Muslim women from wearing the hijab or headscarf. Steel, Boehner's spokesman, said in an e-mail:* "The rule regarding hats has never been interpreted to apply to religious headcoverings."*

It was actually a ban on MEN wearing hats.

There is no such rule in the Senate.

FYI.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Death Angel said:
> ...


How is this woman tearing down the Establishment Clause?   Why is it that she frightens you so much by wearing her hijab?   Do Jews with yalmukes frighten you as much?


----------



## martybegan (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Or again, show your face. it's not a hard thing to ask.


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Why don’t you answer my questions?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


For the same reason that Orthodox Jews will wear a yamulke.  
For the same reason that Catholic women used to wear head covers at mass.
For the same reason that Sikhs wear their head coverings and grow beards.
For the same reason that Jews and Muslims don't eat pork.
For the same reason that some Christians wear crosses and some Jews wear Stars of David.
For the same reason that Catholics cross themselves in prayer.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


I agree with the "show your face" part.  Is that a problem with this new Congresswoman?


----------



## deanrd (Dec 3, 2018)

The Purge said:


> Hey, if the rule has been changed I see no reason that this shouldn't  be ok...


----------



## Lysistrata (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...



This has nothing at all to do with the Establishment Clause. No one is being required to wear anyone else's religious symbol. Islam is not being elevated to be the official religion of the U.S. House of Representatives. Where are you getting this stuff???


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Fear...he's afraid of a young woman in a hijab.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




It's huge and this girl is going down she is promoting a religion


Es·tab·lish·ment Clause
_noun_
LAW

the clause in the First Amendment of the US Constitution that prohibits the establishment of religion by Congress.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




They changing the rules to promote one religion over another .


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The rightwing echo chamber is full of such noise.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Not at all, and that's why I am fine with the rule being removed.

The face covering is a theoretical question for the next, possibly more devout, muslim woman representative. 

Or the current one, is she has a "closer to Allah" moment and decides to go full burkha.


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


LOLOL 

Look at how rightarded these nuts here are. This one is actually claiming that by letting a Muslim woman wear a hijab in the House gallery, Islam would be established as the nation’s religion.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




This is a feild day for me to point out the hypocrisy on the left..I could care less..

She is flaunting the law..


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




And the left is Letting her..


.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> It's huge and this girl is going down she is promoting a religion


Yes. This is about the promotion of Islam by the left. And we must remember this promotion, by itself isn't exceptional.
It's all the other little concessions made to Muslims...Islam taught in public schools, special dietary requirements, prayer rooms, wash rooms, the call to prayer broadcast over loudspeakers, ect. 

All special considerations no other religion enjoys and all backed by leftists.


----------



## Lysistrata (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



There appears to some smoke-filled back room where a bunch of weirdos make up stuff to disseminate online to the foolish.

Not only is calling someone a "dothead" totally disgusting and repulsive, it also displays the ignorance of the people responsible for it. Wearing a dot on the forehead is a Hindu custom. This freshman rep is a Muslim.

I find it interesting that among several Ethiopians living in my neighborhood, some of the older women have the Ethiopian Cross tattooed on their foreheads.

I guess that I'm supposed to quake in fear as the woman in a hijab bags my groceries at the Giant.


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


And yet, you’ve failed miserably to demonstrate any hypocrisy.

And what law is she flaunting?


----------



## deanrd (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


What law?


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Well no, this does not actually establish Islam as the nation’s religion. Sadly, you’re merely suffering another one of your _”episodes.”_


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


"Girl"?   Are you not aware that one must be at least 25 years old to be a member of the House of Representatives.   And no, this WOMAN isn't promoting a religion any more than any other member wearing a cross necklace or a yamulke.


----------



## deanrd (Dec 3, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


Republicans are racist.

They don't know much about different religions because they simply don't know much about anything at all.

These are people who believe the earth is thousands of years old and we were shimmered into being from dirt.  If you believe that, you can be brainwashed into believing anything.

Republicans prove that point.


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > It's huge and this girl is going down she is promoting a religion
> ...


How does this promote Islam? It allows men to wear yarmulkes. So according to you, Judaism and Islam are being promoted?

And if that’s a concern of the right, why have y’all been silent all these years when the Senate allows it?

And can you show how allowing men to wear yarmulkes in the Senate has promoted Judaism?


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 3, 2018)

The hijab is not religious headwear.  It is a symbol of hatred against Western culture.  It should not be allowed in Congress.  Nor should Islam be allowed anywhere in the Western Hemisphere.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Read the first amendment and get back to me
> ...



Unless it specifies this only applies to hijabs, how is it "giving an exemption to a religion that none other has"?  For example, as someone else brought up, wouldn't the rule change allow Jewish representatives to wear a yarmulke?  Would it allow a Sikh to wear a turban?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Read the first amendment and get back to me
> ...


Because the rules were written for men wearing headgear at a time they never envisioned s Muslim woman being elected

Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

What is not clear?


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

Cosmos said:


> The hijab is not religious headwear.  It is a symbol of hatred against Western culture.  It should not be allowed in Congress.  Nor should Islam be allowed anywhere in the Western Hemisphere.


They stem from scripture in the Qur’an and is a symbol of modesty and faith.

And head coverings for religious belief has been allowed in the Senate. You rightards are only outraged now because your marionette strings are being tugged.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Because the rules were written for men wearing headgear at a time they never envisioned s Muslim woman being elected
> 
> Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
> 
> What is not clear?


So they would have made special exclusions for Muslims had they known?


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


And the rule was never established for religious purposes. It was just a general rule for showing respect in the chamber that people shouldn’t wear hats.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Because the rules were written for men wearing headgear at a time they never envisioned s Muslim woman being elected
> ...



181 years ago? Probably not. Both White and Christian supremecy were far more blatant then than they are now. 

The idea of a woman voting, let alone being elected to congress was most likely anathama to them as well.


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Because the rules were written for men wearing headgear at a time they never envisioned s Muslim woman being elected
> ...


This rule change is not special just for Muslims.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > The hijab is not religious headwear.  It is a symbol of hatred against Western culture.  It should not be allowed in Congress.  Nor should Islam be allowed anywhere in the Western Hemisphere.
> ...



You're a fucking idiot.  Koran is nothing but a filthy military recruiting tool designed to raise large armies of illiterate and obedient suicide killers.  Islam is not a religion.  It's a hostile and invasive medieval political structure akin to nazism which spreads by force.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Of course it is you dumbass.  It was not proposed until some district was stupid enough to elect one.


----------



## The Purge (Dec 3, 2018)

deanrd said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, if the rule has been changed I see no reason that this shouldn't  be ok...


Assholes, like this one wants to erase American history.....His motto... MAKE MARX GREAT AGAIN....Pathetic piece of shit!


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

Cosmos said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


^^^ Too fucking rightarded. No doubt, there are idiots  as dumb as you who say the same about the Old Testament.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

Cosmos said:


> The hijab is not religious headwear.  It is a symbol of hatred against Western culture.  It should not be allowed in Congress.  Nor should Islam be allowed anywhere in the Western Hemisphere.


Nope.  Try again.


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

Cosmos said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...


And it covers anyone of any faith requiring a head covering. So no, not special for Muslims. I don’t care how bigoted you are.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

deanrd said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




What the fuck?

What they are doing is promoting one religion over another..

And your ok with it. Of course you are dot head .


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


How about this?


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > The hijab is not religious headwear.  It is a symbol of hatred against Western culture.  It should not be allowed in Congress.  Nor should Islam be allowed anywhere in the Western Hemisphere.
> ...


Doesn’t matter. No matter how many times he tries, it will still come out stupid.


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


Oh? Which religion are they promoting above all others? Why can’t you say?


----------



## OldLady (Dec 3, 2018)

The Purge said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


Back to your OP, you seem to think the Muslims are being given preference, when the Congress opens with a prayer and there is a Chaplain.
I don't get why you feel anyone is being slighted by this.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Fuck you .

You're promoting dot head shit 

.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > It's huge and this girl is going down she is promoting a religion
> ...


It is about accepting Islam in Congress

No brainer


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...




We are going to laugh at your hypocrisy..

This is a huge gift ..


.


----------



## Lysistrata (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...



What a stupid comment. Go look up the word "promote." She could be sitting next to a guy wearing a yarmulke. And I'm not a Hindu, moron, not that there is any problem with being Hindu.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




We thought dot heads Founded This country according to the Messiah?


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The hypocrisy you still can’t demonstrate?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


Nope...they are getting rid of a hat-wearing restriction.....so this guy is ok:  

  as is this guy:   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  and these women:


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...




Bullshit..

It's against the law for her to wear her dot head shit in Congress..


Congress shall establishe no religion .

If you don't think lawyers don't ghost read this your crazy..

The left is trying to end Christianity.


----------



## Dana7360 (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> I am going to have a field day with this one..
> 
> 
> You tards want separation of church and state and allow this?
> ...





Why don't you have a problem with people who wear christian crosses? 

That's a religious symbol but christians wear it every day in our congress. They have crosses as lapel pins and as charms on necklaces, earrings and bracelets.

Yet a muslim can't wear a head scarf.

Seems to me it's you who is violating the first amendment. 

If christians can wear a cross, a muslim can wear a head scarf. if that woman can't wear her head scarf then all those christians shouldn't be allowed to wear a cross. By allowing that cross and not the head scarf, the government is putting christianity above other religions and violating the first amendment.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Death Angel said:
> ...


Freedom of fashion?  Thank Goodness Congressional women don't really believe in equality and equal rights and go around as topless as men, in public venues.


----------



## The Purge (Dec 3, 2018)

OldLady said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...


Was there a Muslim that helped in the founding of America...there was a jew! Haym Solomon


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

deanrd said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




Damn your triggered..


Once again separation of church and state .


Yet you want some dot head promoting her religion in Congress.


.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 3, 2018)

This is nothing more than the continued identity politics of the radical leftist anarchists that own the Democrat party.  Don't give in to it.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...




Let us guess your a dot head ?


.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...


Ted Cruz isn't Jewish, is he?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > I am going to have a field day with this one..
> ...




You have proof?



I don't remember seeing anyone wearing one 

.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

OldLady said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




To ask that question proves my point.


.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 3, 2018)

The Purge said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


What has that got to do with anything?  Answer my question, please:
_Congress opens with a prayer and there is a Chaplain.
I don't get why you feel anyone is being slighted by this._


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

The left changed the rules to let a dot head flaunt her religion ..


Bottom line .


The left are pure assholes..



.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 3, 2018)

Well it's been fun, but I think it's time for me to stop feeding the troll.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Dec 3, 2018)

*At first the Islamist only want their oppressed women to cover their heads, but eventually they will demand that all women wear hijabs. This is how Islamization happens.
*


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


LOL

You dumbfuck, *there is no such law*







... don’t you ever tire of making an imbecile of yourself??


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Well it's been fun, but I think it's time for me to stop feeding the troll.




We know it's lunch time and you have to do your dot head shit..



.


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > I am going to have a field day with this one..
> ...


5 yard penalty for using logic on a conservative.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




So what's this shit about separation of church and state, you fucking dot head?


Lmfao


*Karthik Balakrishnan, Illegal Dot Head dies during first solo skydive - Pulled his turban instead of his parachute rip cord*





_*Company offers the family a 1/2 refund on trip price. "We did get him up in the air, it's not our fault how he landed*_!"







Karthik Balakrishnan was to return to his native India next week to help support his parents.

But before he left, the software engineer wanted to follow his passion and parachute solo for the first time.

“None of us liked it because we knew the dangers involved,” said his brother-in-law, Rajalingam Arunachalam. “But he was very passionate about it.”

His worst fears were realized when the 30-year-old Balakrishman died Sunday after encountering trouble shortly after his chute opened in the skies over downstate Ottawa. Witnesses say Balakrishnan went into "several radical turns" before he lost control and slammed to the ground, according to the LaSalle County sheriff's office.

Balakrishnan had skydived several times, but always in tandem with an instructor, Arnachalam said. Sunday was his first solo outing.

.


----------



## Lysistrata (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...



You are very mixed up. There is a country called "India," which is in Asia. The predominant religion there is Hinduism. Look for it on a globe. Columbus got confused when he bumped into North America on his way to India and he thought that the people he found living in North America must be "Indians." They were really Native Americans, but the name stuck. 

BTW: What the House changed was a House rule, not a law. 

What are they teaching you folks out there?


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Holyfuckingshit! 

How many times do you need to be taught the difference between “your” and “you’re?”

*Your* ignorance is showing.

*You’re* a moron.

Savvy?


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


LOLOL 

Oh look, turns out bear513 likes shavedlongcock. Well that explains a lot.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 3, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



Try, just TRY to leave the religion component out of it for a moment.  

I know it is hard, but just TRY.


http://emilypost.com/advice/hats-off-hat-etiquette-for-everyone/
"In public buildings such as a school, library, courthouse, or town hall"

Respect that culture of the nation you are in, or go home.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Still want to say their is no separation of church and state , dot head?


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




How many times do we have to teach you to pee I the urinal and shit in the toilet?


Dot head?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...




One is flaunting one is not


----------



## Dana7360 (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...






Just because you don't remember it doesn't men it doesn't happen every day.

It does.

Men wear it on their lapel as a pin and women wear it as jewelry.

I've seen it many times.

Plus, they start the day every day with a christian prayer given by a christian minister.

So. If christian prayers by christian ministers can be said in congress, if crosses can be worn in congress, then a head scarf can be worn in congress.

It doesn't matter what you think. You don't matter to anyone. 

What matters is what congress does and our constitution says. 

By the way, democrats can't change anything in our congress. They are the minority. The change is being done by republicans who control our congress right now.

So stop lying and being such a hypocrite. What you say and want means absolutely nothing to everyone. She will wear her head scarf to our congress and she will create laws you have to follow. 

She has power. You have nothing. LOL. Republicans who control our government right now voted to allow head scarfs. 

Deal with it.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Lysistrata said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




All dot heads to me..

The left is changing the laws while trying to fight simple Christianity which this country was founded on 


.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...



Dot head?  Are you confused again Bear?

Do we need to call the people at the home?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...



*She will wear her head scarf to our congress and she will create laws you have to follow. *



You don't know how this works do you?


Go back to school idiot..


.


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


You really are one of the dumbest posters here. You almost make me feel guilty for laughing at you.

Still, no law is changed and Christianity is not compromised. Sadly, bigots like you are simply too retarded to even know what you’re outraged about.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




This has to be the most funniest retarded / ignorant post of the day



*She will wear her head scarf to our congress and she will create laws you have to follow. 
*


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...




So in your world you think one dumb dot head writes laws and the president signs them ?

.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




Says the Illegal dot head .

.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...


Not only did they not anticipate a Muslim being elected, they never anticipated a woman being elected


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

I am enjoying the hell out of this thread. 


This is so amusing to me..I am peeing in my pants over the hypocrisy of the left









.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2018)

All this thread is moot anyway

The Democrats will change the rule once they take over the House


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



No shit the left hates women..


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> I am enjoying the hell out of this thread.
> 
> 
> This is so amusing to me..I am peeing in my pants over the hypocrisy of the left
> ...


I am amazed at the pettiness of the right.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> The left is picking a religion..
> 
> 
> End of story..




What do you have against freedom of religion?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> All this thread is moot anyway
> 
> The Democrats will change the rule once they take over the House




Bullshit, the left are a bunch of twats and never do a damn thing.

.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Dot head?

WTF are you babbling about?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > The left is picking a religion..
> ...




What do you have against pointing out bullshit?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




You mad dot head?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

Cosmos said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


Islam isn't a religion?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

This is so bigly..


I love it 





.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

Cosmos said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...


Are you saying that they should not have been allowed to?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

She is going to be a poster girl for this





 


A huge supreme court fight on the docket..






Yes!


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


Poor little boy....so frightened by a woman wearing a hijab.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Dec 3, 2018)

deanrd said:


>



Yep.  A REPUBLICAN.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Remember the moron in Alabama who believed that all government officials HAVE TO swear on a bible?


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > All this thread is moot anyway
> ...


I would wager there are even conservatives here who are embarrassed by you.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...


Where DO you get this stuff?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> View attachment 232496
> 
> 
> She is going to be a poster girl for this
> ...




I know my shit 



Supreme Court's latest church-state conundrum: Must a 'peace cross' memorial to World War I vets come down?




*Supreme Court's latest church-state conundrum: Must a 'peace cross' memorial to World War I vets come down?*

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether a 93-year-old memorial to World War I veterans must be removed from public land in Maryland because it is shaped like a cross.


The latest church-state skirmishto come before the justices pits veterans organizations against the American Humanist Association, which represents atheists, agnostics and other secular groups. Its motto is "Good Without a God."

For the past few decades, the Supreme Court generally has carved out protections for religious groups and individuals. In recent years, it ruled that a Missouri church could receive federal funds, private corporations could avoid federal health regulations regarding contraceptives, and a New York town could open meetings with Christian prayers.

The 40-foot cross was built in 1925 by the American Legion and "a group of bereaved mothers," according to the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, which wants it left alone. Honoring 49 men from Prince George's County who died in the war, it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



It doesn't matter.  Why should you care?


----------



## The Purge (Dec 3, 2018)

OldLady said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


Perhaps you dont realize that AMERICA was founded as a Christian country...I do realize that you ABNORMALS do not give a hoot about culture  tradition, and over 200 years of a rich history!


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Anyone wonder why they are trumpanzees?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

The Purge said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


No it wasn't .....   nice try tho.  In fact the Founders made sure to put the 1st Amendment in because the Puritans were such tyrants.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



No, they did not.  Also, you have no standing as it is a House rule.


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

The Purge said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


LOLOL

Had it actually been, the founders wouldn’t have disallowed establishment of religion in our treasured Constitution.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Poor little boy....so frightened by a woman wearing a hijab.



Poor little dumbass.....
so frightened by good citizens legally carrying firearms
so frightened by unborn babies
so frightened by Christians



PS...you and the other dipshits that can't figure it out.....
*It's not the Hijab....it's radical Islam*
Al-Shabaab Executes 2 Christians After Forcing Bus Passengers to Recite Islamic Statement of Faith

ISIS burns three women who refused to slaughter civilians | Daily Mail Online


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


She scares him a lot.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




What law?  It is a House rule that was changed.  How can that be flaunting it?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...



No you want your cake and eat it too, she has no right to parade around Congress in religious bullshit..


..


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2018)

Cosmos said:


> The hijab is not religious headwear.  It is a symbol of hatred against Western culture.  It should not be allowed in Congress.  Nor should Islam be allowed anywhere in the Western Hemisphere.



Bullshit.  

Please grow up!


----------



## The Purge (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...


To combat the lies of our commie  subversives ABNORMALS....Any other stupid questions, send them to AOC!


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Poor little boy....so frightened by a woman wearing a hijab.
> ...


Will, this is an interesting point.

I have firearms....not afraid of them in the least.
I am not afraid of unborn babies, NOR am I afraid of letting women make their own choices about their own bodies.
And I'm not afraid of christians....some of my best friends and relatives are christians.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

The Purge said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


  So precious!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...



Why do you keep using the term "dot head"?  Are you so stupid you do not know that does not apply to Muslims?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...




How cute a dot head trying to say there is no freedom from religion you look so cute doing that


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Why not?  She's paying for it, not us as tax-payers.  Sorry to hear that you and your faith are so very fragile.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Quoting your own post?  Pathetic.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...




Your a dot head also..


Dot head


Dot head

Dot head


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




Says the retard teacher who couldn't figure out they had a past .


.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 3, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > The hijab is not religious headwear.  It is a symbol of hatred against Western culture.  It should not be allowed in Congress.  Nor should Islam be allowed anywhere in the Western Hemisphere.
> ...



Dot head.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



"Your"......brilliant!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...



Once again, where do you find this law?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...




Dress standards?


It's flauting religious crap and you know it .we will tear her down .


----------



## The Purge (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


I should know that you didnt recognize this...

What politicians mean when they say the United States was founded as a Christian nation - The ...
Washington Post › news › 2017/07/04
Jul 4, 2017 · When conservatives recall the country's past, what they're really talking about is America's future.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

The Purge said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


So what?  We are not a christian nation at all....we are, however, a nation with a majority of christians in it....of over a hundred denominations.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...




What I have to educate a teacher now?

And to think I am just a dumbass ass half polack/ German born in Chicago




*U.S. Supreme Court Decisions *
*(arranged by date)*
_Reynolds v. United States_, 98 U.S. 145 (1879)

Court finds that the federal antibigamy statute does not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion.

_Everson v. Board of Education_, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

Court finds that a New Jersey law which included students of Catholic schools in reimbursements to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

_McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71_, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

_Burstyn v. Wilson_, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)

Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

_Torcaso v. Watkins_, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

_Engel v. Vitale_, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

_Abington School District v. Schempp_, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and _Murray v. Curlett_, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

_Epperson v. Arkansas_, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

_Lemon v. Kurtzman_, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

_Stone v. Graham_, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

_Wallace v. Jaffree_, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

_Edwards v. Aquillard_, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

_Allegheny County v. ACLU_, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

_Lee v. Weisman_, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

_Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah_, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)

City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.



.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> I am enjoying the hell out of this thread.
> 
> 
> This is so amusing to me..I am peeing in my pants over the hypocrisy of the left
> ...



We are enjoying you make a complete ass out of yourself, and you have no clue what a "dot head" is, do you?


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 3, 2018)

deanrd said:


> They don't know much about different religions because they simply don't know much about anything at all.
> 
> These are people who believe the earth is thousands of years old and we were shimmered into being from dirt. If you believe that, you can be brainwashed into believing anything.



No shit?  So if you asked a muslim when the earth was created, what would he tell you?


----------



## The Purge (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


There you go!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



It is freedom of religion.  That's not bullshit you fucking hypocrite!


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Keeping religious headwear out of the Congress applied to everyone just fine for decades, no matter how stupid and bigoted you are.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2018)

Cosmos said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > They don't know much about different religions because they simply don't know much about anything at all.
> ...



The same thing as would a devout Jew or a Christian, since they all originate from the same source.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


*


Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause*.


That's what she is doing violating the establishment clause as a public official..


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Hell no.  It's a hostile racist authoritarian ideology determined to spread itself by force.  Much like a virus.  It should be wiped out.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > I am enjoying the hell out of this thread.
> ...


You _are?_


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

Cosmos said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > They don't know much about different religions because they simply don't know much about anything at all.
> ...


Probably some silliness like we hear from the other two patriarchal religions.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



What would be the difference if I wanted to wear a cross on the lapel of my suit?


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 3, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > deanrd said:
> ...



I wasn't asking you.  I was asking the bonehead who stated none of us know anything about other religions.  I noticed he's to much of a coward to answer.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

Cosmos said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


Well, you'd better get started then, eh?


----------



## mdk (Dec 3, 2018)

It is a shame we cannot harness _ignorance_ as an energy source. This thread would offer an almost infinite source.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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.
> 
> ...


I think this is nonsense. If I were a congressperon, I would wear a huge sombrero on my head with lights and bells and, maybe, a dancing monkey on it.  I would wear it every day and force the other Congresspeople to explain why I can't.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



Not in a Government institution, you dot head..

It violates the establishment clause..


.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

Cosmos said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


"to much"....


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...




They did in Idaho and the left MSM told you to have a shit fit








Oh wait you already forgot about it clown


.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




So what is a dot head?  You don't know why you are using it, do you?

Come on Bear!  Admit that you are stupid!  We all know it!


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Only if:  1) the government paid for members to wear hijabs and/or 2) the government required religious wear.    Is that the case?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> They did in Idaho and the left MSM told you to have a shit fit


Uh, what? Spare me your irrelevant pap. I only chose "sombrero" because it is big. Feel free to substitute "stovepipe top hat", or "pope hat", if it triggers you less.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


It's Idaho....no surprise.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Well, if you want to bow down and worship the evil ranting of some insane medieval warlord and child molester,  that's your choice but not mine.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




And you forgot also..how convenient..


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > They did in Idaho and the left MSM told you to have a shit fit
> ...




News and politics is not your forte..yea we know..


.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 3, 2018)

Cosmos said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


WHAT religious headgear are you referring to?  What other group insists on head gear in public except the Amish, who don't run for Congress?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Dumbass!  Those are court decisions, not laws!

Go back to school and learn the difference.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Following a discussion doesn't seem to be yours.  Weird, considering you lurk on message boards.  One would think you would accidentally learn, at some point...


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

Cosmos said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


Who said I'd want to do that?   I'm not a fan of nor a member of any of the patriarchal religions.......I AM a fan of the 1st Amendment and the rest of the Constitution, tho.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



Ah...so you're just an idiot.  I suspected as much.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Dumbass! Those are court decisions, not laws!


But it is still relevant, as a law had to be passed in order to do an end-around of the precedents.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2018)

Cosmos said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



No, he would be "too" much of a coward.  Check yourself before you wreck yourself!


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


----------



## OldLady (Dec 3, 2018)

Goddamnit--
       IS TED CRUZ JEWISH?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

This is so awesome so many clowns don't know the law just to post obsecure crap based on emotions





.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Orthodox Jews expect it in their men and make women wear ugly wigs


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I don't believe that.  When has any leftist ever in history respected the "free exercise" portion of the 1st Amendment?  This would be a first.  And it was done specifically to accommodate a Muslim leftist.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


Okay, but that is not an example of headwear in Congress.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Actually, I didn't forget....however, I didn't melt down like you are doing over a Congresswoman wearing a hijab.  Things don't scare me as easily as they do you.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Allowing something does not establish it.  Previously, the rule violated freedom of religion.

You need to do some studying before spouting off shit you apparently know nothing about.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 3, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Why don't you hang up and put on YoungLady.  I don't think you're cut out for this.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


If a Sikh was elected, it would be.  (Keep in mind, the House is only one half of Congress....the Senate has never had any rule against headware)


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 3, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



Ah....so you're just an idiot too.  Come back when you have something to say, dolt.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Cosmos said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...




Exactly, that's why I am trolling them



It's hilarious..



It's fun watching them make fools of themselves



.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> If a Sikh was elected, it would be.


No, not unless we passed a law allowing it. Oops, that just happened. And I disagree with that law.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> This is so awesome so many clowns don't know the law just to post obsecure crap based on emotions
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You just can't keep from talking about yourself!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2018)

Cosmos said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



How about you come back when you learn some language arts and stop being a psychopath?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Nikki was..


God are you dumb





.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 3, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



Dumbass.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Nikki was..


No. Nikki Haley is a Christian.  Just ask her.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Nikki Haley was NEVER a member of Congress, you stupid twit!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2018)

Cosmos said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Can't debate, so you insult.  Great talent!


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > If a Sikh was elected, it would be.
> ...


Actually, no law was passed at all.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 3, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



You know nothing so you look for typing errors.  Great talent.  I bet you can go fuck yourself and suck your thumb at the same time too!


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Nikki was..
> ...



I did at a Clemson game last year and she told me to tell you you're an asshole


.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Right, a rule change.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


More likely she had her security keep you 20 feet from her.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Oh...Sikh women wear headgear?  And I love the Irony in your post.  Here's a pic of her with her parents:   


  Is her mother wearing a turban?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > This is so awesome so many clowns don't know the law just to post obsecure crap based on emotions
> ...




But it's so enjoyable you making a complete fool out of yourself defending not a separation of church and state.




This is priceless..

.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




So you gave up in that sombrero thing after I told you MSNBC said it was wrong?


----------



## OldLady (Dec 3, 2018)

Cosmos said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


Why?  Just because I don't stick my nose into what religion someone is?  I finally googled it since no one was decent enough to tell me, and he's a Southern Baptist, which is what I thought.  Although who cares.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




What if MSNBC told you it was ok?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


You didn't demonstrate anything about it being wrong. I was speaking specifically to a large hat, as I already clarified for you. And wearing it on the floor of congress. Damn man, put aside your infantile little tantrums for one thread, please.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...




Wait someone picking on you ?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




Dude I burned your ass..


You don't have a clue or knowledge to take me on .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


You didn't burn anyone. You are delusional, bear. And you missed the point entirely. Your tantrum is freakish.


----------



## HenryBHough (Dec 3, 2018)

I could see why Pelosi might want to wear a ski mask.....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

So, back to my point:

I would wear the most garish, attention getting headgear i could dream of every day. Make them make me remove it, and make them explain why. Make them explain, to the American public, that headgear is fine, as long as I claim my religion dictates it. Then we can have an honest discussion about it.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Actually, the dropping of a rule....not the creation of one.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

HenryBHough said:


> I could see why Pelosi might want to wear a ski mask.....


Or Trump, a spray tan and eyebrow dye...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Gotcha. A bad decision, either way.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


Yeah, go beat her up for me, wouldja?


----------



## OldLady (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


What's so ugly about them?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

OldLady said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...




No problem I always have your back .


.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Nope....makes perfect sense now.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Make sure to sit directly in front of the shortest woman you can find there, too.  Story of my life when I go to the movies.  Back in the days of the bubble cut, man oh man, I missed the bottom half of the screen a lot.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Wrong, it's a bad decision.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Why didn't you sit on his lap, he would of thought it was cute 


.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Dec 3, 2018)

She'll be doodling swastikas during meetings I am sure.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> he would of thought


would HAVE thought

would HAVE thought

Good grief man, learn your native tongue.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


A strange woman with a bubble cut?  I kinda doubt it.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> This rule change is not special just for Muslims.


Really? What an incredible coincidence that just as a Muslim woman is elected to the House the nearly two hundred year old rule vanishes.
Who else does this change benefit if not this woman? You must be real, real dim if you think your story is being bought.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Dec 3, 2018)

Sunni Man said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> > ....are Muslims truly a peaceful, tolerant people or are they just getting a foothold in America so that they can eventually unleash Sharia Law?
> ...



/——/ What will be sworn in on— a bible? 


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

Cellblock2429 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > BasicHumanUnit said:
> ...


No, a Koran. And pence will be doing it,  I think. That will be special.


----------



## elongobardi (Dec 3, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



We are changing our country for the worse and why so we don’t hurt foreigners feeling.   If you live in the US, you go by our rules.   If you don’t like it leave.    I am sick of seeing instructions in 10 different languages.     As for your politically correct bullshit.      Shove it up your ass.    I say Merry Christmas, I own guns, eat bacon,  and everything else you don’t like us saying or doing.     


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > This rule change is not special just for Muslims.
> ...


It benefits our country to not be pricks towards religions the RW does not like


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > he would of thought
> ...


I believe someone is working hard to show us how ignorant the Right is.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...


Well, goodie two shoes for you....you want a medal?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> It benefits our country to not be pricks towards religions the RW does not like


Oh, right. I forgot you fellas just love the religion that hates the Jews, keeps women on a short leash and tosses gays off rooftops (in addition to all the other killing they do). 
I'm sorry but following the long established rules does not make one a prick, except to clowns on the left. 

How does it benefit the country to creep towards Shariah law, as far as away as it might be at this moment?
Ilhan Omar, the lady who now can wear her hijab in Congress married her brother, doesn't think parents that practice female genital mutilation on their daughters should be punished and supports the BDS movement (boycott, divest, sanctions) that intends to put an end to Israel. 
Let's be clear who the real pricks are.


----------



## elongobardi (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



Liberals are brainwashed and can’t think for yourselves.      Go read another article.    Don’t need a medal.   I have enough.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Death Angel (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Ok, point out where I am wrong.


Islam allows for  murdering unbelievers, kidnapping women for "marriage" and slavery.

Most other preChristian cultures do not recognize the basic rights of human beings as Christianity does. Atheistic religions certainly don't.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

Death Angel said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, point out where I am wrong.
> ...


And christians don't do that too?   Or haven't done that too?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...


Did you buy them?  Stolen Valor?


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > This rule change is not special just for Muslims.
> ...


Dumbfuck, I didn’t say she wasn’t the catalyst for the change, now did I? I said the rule change is not special just for Muslims; and it’s not. It’s applicable to any faith which includes wearing something on their head.

Is English not your first language?


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...


Ummm... members of Congress are U.S. citizens.


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > It benefits our country to not be pricks towards religions the RW does not like
> ...


Get real. Sharia law is not creeping in. Not one Sharia law trumps U.S. law.


----------



## Faun (Dec 3, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...


Yeah, and it’s pinned to your forehead.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> Get real. Sharia law is not creeping in. Not one Sharia law trumps U.S. law.


As I already said this isn't a problem we need to worry about today. But in time, as Muslims gain more political power
in areas like Michigan and Minnesota, it may become a problem.
That's how the slippery slope is....incremental change until eventually you started with a chihuahua and wind up with a German Shepard.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> As I already said this isn't a problem we need to worry about today. But in time, as Muslims gain more political power
> in areas like Michigan and Minnesota, it may become a problem.


How?  Even then, they have the Statehouse and federal code to contend with. Even the Mormons in Utah got checked by federal law, and they pretty much own the State.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Get real. Sharia law is not creeping in. Not one Sharia law trumps U.S. law.
> ...


How do you envision Sharia law eclipsing the Constitution?


----------



## Dana7360 (Dec 3, 2018)

Cosmos said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...





Your problem is with the republicans who control our congress.

The republicans brought it to the floor. Republicans had to vote yes to pass it because there's not enough democrats to pass it.

If you have a problem with republicans changing the rules then complain to the republicans who changed the rules.

It's interesting to see how you're so full of hate that you can't follow our constitution. We have religious freedom here in America so all your whining means absolutely nothing. Especially to republicans you voted for. They changed the rule.

Lastly, you're advocating genocide on people just because you don't like their religion. Do you understand what you're saying and advocating?

It's disturbing to see anyone advocate genocide, even more disturbing to see it coming from an American.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 3, 2018)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> What places are there in the world where Islam is peacefully co-mingled with other religions where Muslims are the overwhelming majority?  Which Muslim countries could I freely walk around wearing a cross and carrying a Bible without fear?
> 
> IOW....are Muslims truly a peaceful, tolerant people or are they just getting a foothold in America so that they can eventually unleash Sharia Law?
> 
> ...




Ihan Omar....the newest member of the democrat party....the party of racism, anti-semitism and misogyny.......


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> Dumbfuck, I didn’t say she wasn’t the catalyst for the change, now did I? I said the rule change is not special just for Muslims; and it’s not.


Hey, asshole.... until some other politician is elected to the House of Representatives with a turban or mitre, this change was made exclusively for one person...Ilhan Omar. That's how it shakes out in reality, jackass.



> It’s applicable to any faith which includes wearing something on their head.
> Is English not your first language?


My English is exceptionally proficient, you smug prick.
In reality, as already explained, this exemption to a 181 year old rule was for one person and one religion only!


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> How do you envision Sharia law eclipsing the Constitution?


Incrementally over a long period of time.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> How? Even then, they have the Statehouse and federal code to contend with. Even the Mormons in Utah got checked by federal law, and they pretty much own the State.


Islam already has a sponsor party (democrats) and Ilhan Omar hasn't spent a single second in Congress and she already has them making special exemptions for her.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > How? Even then, they have the Statehouse and federal code to contend with. Even the Mormons in Utah got checked by federal law, and they pretty much own the State.
> ...


Well, that sure is a bit hyperbolic. I don't think it goes that far.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 3, 2018)

To retaliate

Republicans will allow their representatives to wear their KKK hoods


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well, that sure is a bit hyperbolic. I don't think it goes that far.


I haven't stated false information.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that sure is a bit hyperbolic. I don't think it goes that far.
> ...


Right, just your opinion.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Right, just your opinion.


What party is  Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Keith Ellison in? I won't even bring up Barack Obama but there is no doubt
he sided with Islam on a variety of issues that broke from traditional American policy.
That's fact! Not opinion and that the democrats have backed Omar over 181 years of House rules is fact too.

You seem delusional.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 3, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> To retaliate
> 
> Republicans will allow their representatives to wear their KKK hoods


Or their MAGA hats.  Waiting to see those.  We know they are religious in nature.


----------



## Borillar (Dec 3, 2018)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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.
> 
> ...


OMG! It's the end of the world as we know it! Muslims can wear head scarves, Jews can wear yarmulkes, Catholics can wear funny hats, Mormons can wear magic underwear.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Right, just your opinion.
> ...


No, you are. None of that is sponsorship 9f Islamic beliefs.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, you are. None of that is sponsorship 9f Islamic beliefs.


But it is a sponsorship of Muslim voters and interests. And on some issues democrat and Muslim interests are one and the same...probably why Ilhan Omar is a democrat.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > No, you are. None of that is sponsorship 9f Islamic beliefs.
> ...


On what isuue are Muslim and democratic platforms the same? Huh? You have the wrong party, my man. Subjugation and control of women and theocracy can be found over there with the GOP -->


----------



## elongobardi (Dec 3, 2018)

bodecea said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Yeah yeah.    Brain dead moron.    What would you know of valor.   You’d wet your pants.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> On what isuue are Muslim and democratic platforms the same? Huh? You have the wrong party, my man. Subjugation and control of women and theocracy can be found over there with the GOP -->


For one thing, something you can hopefully understand, look at support for Israel. Look at how Obama pushed Israel away and distanced himself and then look at how Trump has pulled them back in. Look at the democrat's support for Obama's giveaway to Iran deal.
I doubt you can properly process this information, however.


----------



## elongobardi (Dec 3, 2018)

Faun said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



L is for liberal.    Liberal scum.      Another  pussy who would wet his pants.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Look at how Obama pushed Israel away and distanced himself and then look at how Trump has pulled them back in.


By "them", you mean the right wing in israel. Obama never eschewed the alliance or gave any inkling of the undermining of the umbrella. In fact, he took care to make sure this was known. So you are really over reaching , there .


----------



## jillian (Dec 3, 2018)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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.
> 
> ...


And?

Would you like a tissue, loser boi?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> By "them", you mean the right wing in israel. Obama never eschewed the alliance or gave any inkling of the undermining of the umbrella. In fact, he took care to make sure this was known. So you are really over reaching , there .


I don't think so.
Why Obama gives Netanyahu the cold shoulder
You may rationalize by claiming it was only the right wing that Obama did not like but the Netanyahu government was
the leadership for Israel so you can't really separate one from the other.

And Obama wanted all sorts of concessions to Palestine and his inexplicable cozying up to Iran was seen by Israel, and many Western sources, as an existential threat to Israel itself. Who can blame them? It's only their future Obama wanted to fuck with.
The democrats all fell in line behind Barry Obama.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > By "them", you mean the right wing in israel. Obama never eschewed the alliance or gave any inkling of the undermining of the umbrella. In fact, he took care to make sure this was known. So you are really over reaching , there .
> ...


Oh bullshit, nobody saw it as an existential threat. That's all overwrought, politically fueled rhetoric. Obama would have rolled the tanks for Israel just like any other president.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh bullshit, nobody saw it as an existential threat. That's all overwrought, politically fueled rhetoric. Obama would have rolled the tanks for Israel just like any other president.


Easy to claim. Not so easy to rationalize all the ways in which Obama supported the Muslim world at the expense of the single solitary state of Israel.
Your claim "no one" saw any threats to Israel and their ability to function in their region of the world is just laughable.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Oh bullshit, nobody saw it as an existential threat. That's all overwrought, politically fueled rhetoric. Obama would have rolled the tanks for Israel just like any other president.
> ...


He did no such thing. The Iran nuke agreement was an absolute necessity. This is even based on analysis from Israel, where they saw only a soon-to-come bombing campaign as the only solution over stoppage of their nuke program.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> He did no such thing.


False. 


> The Iran nuke agreement was an absolute necessity.


False.



> This is even based on analysis from Israel, where they saw only a soon-to-come bombing campaign as the only solution over stoppage of their nuke program.


False and the most ridiculous claim of all. You are a hoot! I'll give you that.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > He did no such thing.
> ...


Then you are freakishly delusional... Israel did bomb them and was going to bomb them again, escalating each time.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2018)

Cosmos said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



 I would appreciate something to counter, but you have nothing to discuss because you are the newest and biggest dumbass on this message board.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




It is much funnier for you to oppose freedom of religion because that is exactly what you are doing.  Allowing religious headgear is not a separation of church and state issue or Sikhs would not be allowed to wear turbans and have beard in the US Army.

Army Allows Sikhs Permanent Exemptions to Wear Beards and Turbans

Now, sit down, shut up and learn something!


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Liar.


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Congratulations. YOu understand the meaning of the word "if".


Your dodge of my point is noted. 


My point stands. Lefties have different rules for different folks.


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...




In this shit world you libs are making, he deserves one. 

Merry fucking Christmas to you.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 4, 2018)

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Name calling


----------



## bodecea (Dec 4, 2018)

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...


More name calling


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Nope. He has been caught lying many times and it is likely that his claim is a lie.


My point is not to insult him as a substitute for actual dialog.


But to point out that his statement claiming tolerance does not fit his normal behavior and is almost certainly a lie, and thus should be dismissed, unless he can make a compelling counter argument as to why THIS time, he is telling the truth.



You really don't understand ANYTHING, do you?


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




No, it wasn't....


Every single time you do this, you demonstrate that you understand nothing.


I ADDRESSED THE POINT THAT LIB MADE. Far more seriously than he addressed elongbardi's.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 4, 2018)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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.
> 
> ...



Now you assfucks can wear your KKK robes.  Cheer up.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 4, 2018)

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


And now you're upset.


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

RealDave said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...




And you can shove your race baiting up your ass.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 4, 2018)

Correll said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


Even more name-calling.


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



lol!!

Your inability to understand simple ideas, does not upset me.


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




My God, you don't get ANYTHING do you?


MY COMPLAINT WAS THAT LIBS USE NAME CALLING TO SUPPRESS DEBATE AND MARGINALIZE PEOPLE AND IDEAS.




Realdave did nothing there, but call me an asshole, so I basically did the same back.


THe only difference is that my comment was true, and he was spewing shit from his face anus.


EVERY TIME you do this, all you are doing is showing how dim you are.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 4, 2018)

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


  Wow, a Trumpette complaining about name calling.  You can get more ridiculous than that.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 4, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > No, you are. None of that is sponsorship 9f Islamic beliefs.
> ...


Have some examples?


----------



## RealDave (Dec 4, 2018)

Correll said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


 KKK is a race?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 4, 2018)

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Wrong again Klan Boy. You have such a low IQ

You have ushered in the era of Trump where silly names and insults substitute for political debate. Trump campaigned on ending PC

You reap what you sow


----------



## bodecea (Dec 4, 2018)

RealDave said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Apparently it is now.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Dec 4, 2018)

The Purge said:


> Hey, if the rule has been changed I see no reason that this shouldn't  be ok...




I'm offended!

How DARE you put a Trump hate on a  liberal atheist, evil tyrant (who started the war of northern aggression trying to deny freedom loving conservative christians their RIGHT to own black slaves).!


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 4, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Have some examples?


Andre Carson, Keith Ellison, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, to name four examples that come instantly to mind.
Increasing the Muslim population through immigration so that a voting block that is dependently democrat
is obvious. And a solid Muslim base has core Muslim values such as moving away from Israel
towards Islamic views. Who screamed when Donald Trump put a temporary travel ban on people from certain Muslim nations in the interests of security? Democrats, of course.

Empirically we see Tlaib and Omar coming into Congress as democrats. They must think their values will be better served by democrats and of course they are right.


----------



## anynameyouwish (Dec 4, 2018)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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 law was ridiculous.

Personally I think NOBODY should be allowed to wear a hat,
Period.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 4, 2018)

anynameyouwish said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...



How many times do you morons have to be told?  It was NOT a law!

Get off your damned high horse!


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

RealDave said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...





Errr, yeah, Welcome to the Bodecia's Club of Utter Lack of Comprehension.


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

RealDave said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...





Your idiocy is just as dismissed as your assholeness is.


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




You fucktards have been doing that for decades, every time you call a republican a "racist" or, for a more time example, "klan boy".


Trump is our answer TO you and your successful avoidance of substantial political debate.


You are reaping what YOU sowed. 

So, fuck off, asshole.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 4, 2018)

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


And now you add yelling to your name-calling.


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




In context, I was obvious using caps to speak loudly and slowly as though to a dim witted child.


Seriously. l don't believe you when you pretend to be too stupid to know that.


So, you are a liar.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 4, 2018)

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


And you continue to be upset and name-call.


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




I made a point. 


And you couldn't deal with it.


And that demonstrates what I was talking about before, when you didn't get it them, dimbulb.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 4, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Then you are freakishly delusional... Israel did bomb them and was going to bomb them again, escalating each time.


Israel had a variety of ways of halting Iran's secret nuclear weapons program such as killing scientists identified as key members of their project or cyber attacks on Iranian computers.
Anything to stop Iran from gaining their bombs and creating a real honest existential threat to Israel itself.
On the other hand Obama and Kerry wanted to give the insane theocrats in Iran a big
boost and bring them into the nuclear circle after enriching Iran and rewarding them
for their behavior which made them one of the globe's real bad actors.

One of Trump's best moves has been to smash that deal. For that alone his presidency has been a blessing.


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Get real. Sharia law is not creeping in. Not one Sharia law trumps U.S. law.
> ...


The Constitution protects us from the nonsense you’re afraid of.


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Dumbfuck, I didn’t say she wasn’t the catalyst for the change, now did I? I said the rule change is not special just for Muslims; and it’s not.
> ...


LOL 

If you comprehended English as well as you claim, you wouldn’t have confused, _”this rule change is not special just for Muslims,”_ with, _”who else does this change benefit if not this woman?”_


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > How do you envision Sharia law eclipsing the Constitution?
> ...


LOL 

Then you should flee America now before Sharia law doesn’t allow you to escape.


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that sure is a bit hyperbolic. I don't think it goes that far.
> ...


No, you made statements based on your own hallucinations.

There have already been cases where the Constition bitchslapped Sharia law. It’s not creeping in, I don’t care how delusional your paranoia makes you.


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > No, you are. None of that is sponsorship 9f Islamic beliefs.
> ...


Name a compelling interest for disallowing religious head ware in the House....


----------



## bodecea (Dec 4, 2018)

Faun said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


The good news is that FINALLY we are starting to bitch-slap christian sharia law too.


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

Faun said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




The Constitution you lefties consider an "living document". ie toilet paper.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 4, 2018)

Faun said:


> Name a compelling interest for disallowing religious head ware in the House....


We live in a secular nation, not an Islamic one, and I don't understand why a member of the House, who hasn't even sat in her place for a single day yet, takes precedence over one hundred and eighty-one years of House rules.
Actually, I do....female, democrat, Muslim. Why shouldn't the system yield to this one person?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 4, 2018)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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.
> 
> ...



I have to say, I don't actually have a problem with it.  If an Orthodox Jew were to be elected to the House, I wouldn't expect him to remove his _yarmulke_.  There's a difference between a fashion statement and a religious requirement.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 4, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Banning hats in Congress is a big deal?



It is when the hats in question are worn for reasons of religious observance.


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...




A yarmulke is religious headwear.

Allowing it would violate the rule.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 4, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...



I'm sorry, what the hell is that supposed to mean, "Your [sic] in the US deal with it"?  Did the US stop being a country that respects freedom of religious expression?  Because I feel sure someone would have sent me a memo.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 4, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



You say that as though it's a bad thing that we're doing something other countries don't, rather than a point of pride that we are more respectful of personal freedom than anyone else.

For someone who apparently spends a lot of time spouting about aggressive national pride, you don't seem to value the most important aspect of America.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 4, 2018)

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> If you comprehended English as well as you claim, you wouldn’t have confused, _”this rule change is not special just for Muslims,”_ with, _”who else does this change benefit if not this woman?”_


Take up stamp collecting or bird watching...something where your limited intellectual capacity doesn't clog up threads with your tripe.
I understood the question and replied appropriately...what may be true in principle is not true in practice. 
Have a nice day.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 4, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...



Yes, I know, which is why I don't have a problem with changing the rules to accommodate religious and cultural requirements that aren't actually affecting anyone adversely.

At the moment, it is not currently a question that needs addressing, since we don't have any Orthodox Jewish Congressmembers.  We DO, however, have two Muslim members who observe certain religious and cultural requirements.  I am even-handed enough to say that I'm willing to approach their issue in exactly the same way I would want it approached if it were someone with whom I am more closely aligned religiously and philosophically.


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...





This is more than respecting religious expression. This is giving way to a the newcomer. We don't get to define our community anymore.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 4, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...



This is NOT more than respecting religious expression.  The House of Representatives is a specific community.  You and I actually are not part of that community, but these two new Representatives are.  They have every right to request a reasonable accommodation for their First Amendment rights, just as you and I would in communities of which we are a part.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 4, 2018)

Faun said:


> No, you made statements based on your own hallucinations.


No. Not remotely true.



> There have already been cases where the Constition bitchslapped Sharia law. It’s not creeping in, I don’t care how delusional your paranoia makes you.


Shariah law is an ultimate goal of all Islamists like Ilhan Omar and
Linda Sarsour and it will be incrementally implemented to the degree they are able and their leftist pals are able to 
smooth the road out for them and help make it possible. 
Because someone is cancer free today doesn't mean they will never be struck with that insidious disease.
Wake the fuck up, or at least get out of the way.


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




It wasn't considered reasonable for 181 years, but now suddenly a newcomer asks and we change the rules for her.


LIke I said. We don't get to define our community anymore.


That's the point.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Dec 4, 2018)

Correll said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Where is Valerie when we really need her, anyway?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 4, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...


Fascinating......having a deplorable trumpanzee call the Constitution "toilet paper"..........I would be lying if I said it surprised me.


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




My God, you really are desperate.


That was really, really sad.


Also, you are an asshole.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 4, 2018)

It's amusing to watch deplorable trumpanzees lose their minds over this.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 4, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



You know why it wasn't "considered reasonable" for 181 years?  Because we didn't elect anyone who had religious requirements involving headwear in 181 years.

Like I said, WE are not part of THAT community.  THEY are.

That's the point.

Haven't got a clue why you feel so threatened by this.  The chambers of Congress change their operational rules all the time, on a variety of things, as it suits them.  What is your major investment in "No one should ever wear a hat in the House!  NEVER!  Aaaaagh!!"?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 4, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


FEAR


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> It's amusing to watch deplorable trumpanzees lose their minds over this.





It's amusing to watch you try to put on airs, when your primary debating tactic is to call people you don't like, monkeys.


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




Newcomers should expect to have to conform to the standards of the community they are joining. 


THe other way around, is going to cause US great harm. Is already causing US great harm.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 4, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



They DO have to conform to standards of the community they are joining.  However, there is no world in which I would consider it reasonable to be expected to conform to the point of violating my religious beliefs, so I do not expect that from others.

And I'm sorry, but a frigging hat is doing no one any harm.  You need to take a freaking breath and get a sense of perspective.  The United States has always been about accommodating the personal freedoms of a variety of individuals, so long as it doesn't conflict with the rights of others.  I'd be interested to have you tell me what conflict with the rights of others is involved regarded a woman's headwear.  It's HER head, after all.  What's it to you?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 4, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> This is NOT more than respecting religious expression. The House of Representatives is a specific community. You and I actually are not part of that community, but these two new Representatives are. They have every right to request a reasonable accommodation for their First Amendment rights, just as you and I would in communities of which we are a part.


We have a secular government. If Ilhan Omar wants to express her religion let her do it in a mosque.
Roy Moore was removed from office merely for having a replica of the Ten Commandments in his office and this Omar business is precisely the sort of incremental Muslim creep people worry about. 
She must conform to our principles (progressive leftists that espouse a secular government in any other context notwithstanding).
We shouldn't be yielding to hers. I assume Roy Moore is rightly pissed off about this all.


----------



## elongobardi (Dec 4, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Well maybe when you moron liberals stop attacking some of what you say American greatnesses.   You guys talk out of the back of your heads.    Leave the second amendment alone      


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Dec 4, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > This is NOT more than respecting religious expression. The House of Representatives is a specific community. You and I actually are not part of that community, but these two new Representatives are. They have every right to request a reasonable accommodation for their First Amendment rights, just as you and I would in communities of which we are a part.
> ...


These leftists have no actual principles. All they know is that they are required to support Islam.

They don't care whether or not they are the biggest hypocrites in the world regarding the separation of church and state. They attack Roy Moore with all the same fervor that they defend the Islamists.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 4, 2018)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



If Roy Moore, your hero, wore a scarf with the Ten Commandments on it, would it have been a problem?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 4, 2018)

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > It's amusing to watch deplorable trumpanzees lose their minds over this.
> ...


"try to put on airs"   Oh?    And I call no one a monkey.  Why do you lie so glibly?


----------



## RealDave (Dec 4, 2018)

How many wear a cross lapel pin?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 4, 2018)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


It's amusing to watch deplorable trumpanzees equate supporting the 1st Amendment with being all in for islam.   

And yes, when it comes to Roy Moore, I have a thing against pedophiles..........don't you?   Or is that another thing that today's American fundie "christian" supports?


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...





bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




Your sophist word games are noted and dismissed.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Dec 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...


I know you like to use that word over and over because you lack anything approaching an intellect, but I did not vote for Trump.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Dec 4, 2018)

RealDave said:


> How many wear a cross lapel pin?


Covering their entire head?

Right off hand I would say none.


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

Dogmaphobe said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Dogmaphobe said:
> ...




He uses that word a lot, because he is an asshole.


----------



## elongobardi (Dec 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...



We support the second amendment and you assholes want to step all of it.    Your hypocrisy is insulting.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Dec 4, 2018)

RealDave said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...


Roy Moore is not my hero, twit 

If I had one. It would be Teddy Rooseveldt. Wildlife conservation and monopoly busting were great accomplishments .


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 4, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...



Cecilie a liberal?  

This board often leaves me wondering what it's like to view the world through a prism of conservative vs liberal, in which anyone who disagrees with you on any subject must be from the 'other side'.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Dec 4, 2018)

Correll said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


That's a he?  


I always thought it was a teenage girl .


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 4, 2018)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Is anyone who is willing to accept this change in policy in the House a leftist?


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 4, 2018)

Dogmaphobe said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > How many wear a cross lapel pin?
> ...



Do you oppose religious symbols that cover a person's head?


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...


What a pity you think the Constitution is toilet paper.


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




And now we have a leftie pretending to be too stupid to understand the meaning of the word "you".


ON some level, doesn't it bother you to be so pathetic?


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Name a compelling interest for disallowing religious head ware in the House....
> ...


I don’t see that as a compelling interest to deny a U.S. citizen their Constitutional right to observe their religion. And it’s nothing but a rule. A rule which remains in place for all non-religious head coverings.

Are you pissed because MAGA hats will still be banned?


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...


Hence, the rule change.


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > LOL
> ...


LOL

Had you actually understood, you wouldn’t have replied the way you did. Your reply reveals you didn’t understand what I said.


----------



## Correll (Dec 4, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




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


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > No, you made statements based on your own hallucinations.
> ...


Who cares what their ultimate goals are? Their laws do not supersede ours. Again, this has been tested in our courts and the Constitution prevailed every time.


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


You don’t speak for lefties, you speak only for yourself. And you called the Constitution, “toilet paper.” I always knew you hate America.


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Dumbfuck, with the lone exception of running for president of the United States of America, a citizen with “generations of American-ness” behind them are entitled to ALL the same rights and privileges as a citizen who was naturalized.

Just admit it, you hate Muslims and it’s driving you apeshit that a Muslim is going to get to wear a hijab in Congress.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 4, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Still all confused about that separation of church and state thing?

Well it's obvious to us your a dot head.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 4, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Dogmaphobe said:
> ...


Oh really?  I am very supportive of the 2nd amendment and own (and know how to use) several guns.   You want to try again?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 4, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Poor confused trumpanzee....


----------



## Skylar (Dec 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I've got only two. Though I'm saving lunch money for the Sig P226 fullsize. I love them 9mm.


----------



## elongobardi (Dec 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



You are the one in a million of liberals that have guns.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Skylar (Dec 4, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...



Oh, there are plenty of people that lean left that have guns. I have two and am eye humping a third.


----------



## elongobardi (Dec 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Coming from a liberal piece of shit that’s a compliment 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Pete7469 (Dec 4, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Oh really?  I am very supportive of the 2nd amendment and own (and know how to use) several guns.   You want to try again?



Moonbats often enjoy suppressing other people's rights while exercising more liberty than they would allow.


.


----------



## elongobardi (Dec 4, 2018)

Skylar said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Well your people are trying to ban them so you might want to get them on board.        


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 4, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > This is NOT more than respecting religious expression. The House of Representatives is a specific community. You and I actually are not part of that community, but these two new Representatives are. They have every right to request a reasonable accommodation for their First Amendment rights, just as you and I would in communities of which we are a part.
> ...



Excuse me, but "secular government" does not mean "require the individual people who work there to pretend to be secular".  At no place in the First Amendment does it say, "Free exercise thereof _in the places Eric considers appropriate_".  At the point that assholes like you get to tell people when, where, and how they may follow their religious beliefs, it stops being freedom of religion entirely. 

If you can't tell the difference between wearing a hijab on one's own person and putting up a big-ass monument in a public building, then I really don't know if I can dumb my posts down far enough for you to understand them.

She doesn't have to "conform to your principles" at all, asshat.  See above re: freedom of religion.  That's what it MEANS.  It means she doesn't get to tell you who to be, and you don't get to tell her.  To put it bluntly, mind your own damned business.  You're not "yielding" to fuck-all by doing so.  If it's really such a damned hardship for you to allow other people to choose their own damned clothing, then I respectfully suggest that you get yourself a life.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 4, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> Well your people are trying to ban them


Nah, thats wingnut fantasy. Not a shred of evidence shows that any significant portion of America wants to ban all guns.


----------



## Pete7469 (Dec 4, 2018)

Skylar said:


> Oh, there are plenty of people that lean left that have guns. I have two and am eye humping a third.



Just thank God the moonbat schools insert hoplophobia in their programming, so the poor little shits who get their frontal lobes paralyzed and end up rioting with antifa are afraid of guns. The kids who resist being dumbed down don't get led into riots and usually can become trustworthy adults.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 4, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...



Ass kitten, I'm not a liberal.  Disabuse yourself of the notion that you are a conservative, or that any of the shit spewing from your facehole is conservative, and that people telling you that you're an ignorant, bigoted, meddling, nosy dimwit are doing so because they're liberals.  I am so conservative I make you look like a third-grader who just saw the word in the dictionary for the first time.  That's why I am espousing conservative principles like freedom of religion, minding your own business, and leaving other people the hell alone if they're not doing anything to you, and YOU are sounding like one of the idiot leftists who want to outlaw Big Gulps because they're bad for you.

I defend the Second Amendment all the time, newbie shitforbrains Klan boy.  Too bad you can't say the same in regards to the rest of the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Pete7469 (Dec 4, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > Well your people are trying to ban them
> ...




You don't represent a significant portion of America either dipshit. Lunatics like you are just loud mouth malcontents who like to hear the echo of your own voice and pretend it's people agreeing with you.

.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 4, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Sophist word games?  You mean, using words according to their actual meaning in order to communicate ideas?  Would those be the games you mean?

If you don't like being told that what you said is a load of shit, maybe you should put more thought into what you say.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 4, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...



Left leaning gun owners are looking for what most Americans are looking for and what the NRA opposes: Common sense gun regulation.

Say, universal background checks.

I also support federal studies on gun violence. And bans on bumpstocks. I also don't think anyone needs military grade firepower. Or automatic weapons.

But my bolt action 223 for hunting? A handgun like a Glock 17? Or the sexing fucking Sig Sauer TACOP P226 fullsize?

Oh, definitely.


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


No, not at all. If it’s a separation of church and state issue, how can the Senate allow it?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 4, 2018)

Skylar said:


> Left leaning gun owners are looking for what most Americans are looking for and what the NRA opposes: Common sense gun regulation.


But, which the NRA used to support, before they figured out that whipping a bunch of wingnuts into a rabid fear frenzy brought the money rolling in.


----------



## Pete7469 (Dec 4, 2018)

I think it's funny people give that much of a shit about some broad wearing her headgear. Lets see if one tries a Burqa next. Too bad we couldn't get Mooch or hitlery to wear one.


----------



## elongobardi (Dec 4, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Wow.    Big mouth for a little boy spewing shot out of his mouth.     Come talk to this third grader to see where it gets you.     Another pussy with a big mouth and no balls, and definitely no brains.      You couldn’t walk a day in my shoes pussy.    You would piss yourself.     


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 4, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...


But...wouldn't the gun freak be the real "pussy"? So scared, has to carry a penis extension cannon on his hip...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 4, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Thank you.

And I would like to point out, for the sake of future conversations where some leftist tries to tell me that it's okay for him to be a hypocritical partisan douche weasel because "the right doesn't call its people out, either", that I am just as happy to beat nominal right-wingers like pinatas when I think they're wrong.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 4, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...



One assumes all the leftist members of the House accepted it.  I would personally hope the members on the right did.  I would hate to think that elected officials from my own side of the aisle acted like reactionary, 19th century bigots.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 4, 2018)

Faun said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Recognizing for a moment that agreeing with you on something makes me throw up a little in my mouth, you're correct.  When this rule was made 181 years ago, it was 1837.  The Civil War hadn't happened yet, every single member of the House of Representatives was a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant male, hats were considered just a fashion accessory, and it was the height of bad manners and disrespect for a man to wear one in a building at all, let alone on the floor of the House of Representatives.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 4, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Well, at least you're honest that your objection is hypocritical.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 4, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...



I expect leftists not to be able to tell boys from girls, but I hold alleged right-wingers to a higher standard.  Know a lot of guys named Cecilie, do you, Oh Great White Hope?

As for your aggression and hints at violence, I'm very sorry to hear about your tiny penis.  And my balls may only be metaphorical, but they're still bigger than yours, twinkie.


----------



## Faun (Dec 4, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...


Trust me, the feeling is mutual. Regardless, I couldn't help but agree with you and even tossed you some gratitude, as painful as that was.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 4, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...



And even there, I believe at least one of the articles on this thread's subject mentioned that the rule was controversial when passed.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 4, 2018)

Dogmaphobe said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > How many wear a cross lapel pin?
> ...



Religious symbols are ok on the lapel but not on the head.

What a stupid rule.


----------



## elongobardi (Dec 4, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Gun no.   I use my hands.   Much more fun.     


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## elongobardi (Dec 4, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...



I would love to see that.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 5, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...



Huh?

You were doing so well and then you went off the rails!

What does THAT mean?


----------



## Correll (Dec 5, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




It is one thing to disagree with what I say, as I spoke for lefties.


It is another to take in another step and pretend that thought I was speaking for myself.


Specifically it is the act of lying. YOu are a liar. Nothing you say, should ever be trusted or given any credibility other than it's own internal logic. Which it generally has none.

I repeat my question. Doesn't it bother you to be so pathetic?


----------



## Correll (Dec 5, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




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.


----------



## Correll (Dec 5, 2018)

bodecea said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




He made a point, and all you had was name calling. 


That's what I'm talking about, loser.


----------



## Correll (Dec 5, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Bodecea's style of debate IS to call people names. It seems to be all she has. What are you talking about?


----------



## Correll (Dec 5, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




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


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 5, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



I'm curious, are you also as upset or offended by the fact that the Senate changed their rules about family members on the floor to accommodate a representative (Tammy Duckworth) with a newborn she needed to breast feed?

Sen. Tammy Duckworth Can Now Breastfeed on Senate Floor Due to Rule Change


----------



## OldLady (Dec 5, 2018)

bodecea said:


> It's amusing to watch deplorable trumpanzees lose their minds over this.


I can't believe this is still going on.  I wonder if hijabs will be the next "trannies in the bathroom" topic that USMB will never tire of.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 5, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Omar has lived in the US for more than 20 years and been a citizen for 18 years.  I don't know that "newcomer" is really an apt term.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 5, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


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?


----------



## RealDave (Dec 5, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



So we should just allow old rules to stay in effect forever.  Great thinking.  Sometimes it is one case that pushes reform.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 5, 2018)

Wearing religious garb to Congress is not about religious freedom. Nobody takes the alleged conservatives or the right wing seriously about morals. 

Women should be consistent about equality; not just in the non-porn sector when heavy work is involved.


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Of course you were speaking for yourself, you don’t speak for lefties.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



This I don't know.  But apparently, it was originally passed with the intention of differentiating our legislature from that of Great Britain's, where they apparently wear some sort of uniform that involves a hat.  Not really clear on that.

Regardless, it's an insignificant rule that appears not to have mattered all that much at the time, and matters not at all now.  I doubt any of the people screeching that it's "the coming end of the Republic!" even knew this rule existed five minutes before they heard that it was going to be changed.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

elongobardi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



You're not bright enough to recognize it if it fell on you, let alone just when you see it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Deciding which rules we want to change and who we want to accommodate and why IS a privilege that Americans have.  And the Americans whose rule this is and who are actually affected by it have exercised this privilege.  The only people pissed off about it are people who, noticeably, are butting into something that really doesn't concern them.

Remember what you were saying earlier about "defining our community"?  The fact still applies that the two Muslim women in question are actually members of the community in question, having been duly elected to Congress, and you and I are NOT members of that community, having not even run for office.  Which means THEY have far more legitimate right to have input into the rules of that community than either of us do.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Ah, didn't see her post in the thread.  I have her on ignore.  I only saw my post and your response, and didn't realize she had also said something.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Pretty damned hypocritical, when there's not a chance in Hell we would make a similar adoption if the roles were reversed.

Also, insignificant conduct rules that affect nothing of importance to most people and are based on fashion styles and etiquette that fell out of fashion over fifty years ago are hardly "our ways" that we need to demand conformity to.

Please remember that we're talking about an article of personal dress, not animal sacrifice on the steps of the Capitol.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I suspect that would depend on whether or not she's a Democrat.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Well, my family has been in this country since before this rule was put in place.  And I still think it's ridiculous to get all worked up about this.  So there's that.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 5, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



sorta true-------but not.    None of those rules should have
        been changed----even the breast feeding.   There are
        a myriad of ways to "cover" one's head without announcing
        one's religious proclivities.   There are a myriad of ways to
        deal with breast feeding without the distraction of having
        a baby in arms. -------  "there's that...." ??   do you have
        background in India?     Idiom in the USA would be a resounding
*SO THERE!!!!!!*


----------



## bodecea (Dec 5, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Oh?   And what name have I called YOU?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Excuse me, but "secular government" does not mean "require the individual people who work there to pretend to be secular". At no place in the First Amendment does it say, "Free exercise thereof _in the places Eric considers appropriate_". At the point that assholes like you get to tell people when, where, and how they may follow their religious beliefs, it stops being freedom of religion entirely.


No one is asking Ilhan Omar to "pretend" to be secular, so only an asshole like you would claim that. Are all her beliefs and religious ideals contained in her magic hijab? Don't be an idiot!
She is just as free as Roy Moore is to be what she wants to be...but Roy Moore doesn't have the right to display
his faith in public but now Ilhan Omar does, thanks to fucking clowns like you (not that I care particularly about Roy Moore). It's creeping shariah.

And this isn't about what *I* consider appropriate, since I wasn't around 181 years ago to help the House draft their rule about head covering in the House. Stop being a moron.
It's about bending rules and eliminating them in order to appease a religious minority the left is sponsoring and backing.
You claim you know what secularism is yet you are too stupid or deluded to see this point.



> If you can't tell the difference between wearing a hijab on one's own person and putting up a big-ass monument in a public building, then I really don't know if I can dumb my posts down far enough for you to understand them.


Can you dumb them down enough so YOU can understand them?
There actually is NO difference in principal, but of course a smug ass like yourself can't figure that out. They are both
religious symbols but only one of them, the hijab, is deemed somehow not a problem while the ten commandments plaque is deemed an anathema to our secular nation. Exceptions for Islamic head wear (a symbol of their treatment of women as possessions okay...exceptions for statements of  Christian-Judeo ethics strictly verboten!).
The old duplicitous, hypocritical leftist double standard strikes again. Fuck off!




> She doesn't have to "conform to your principles" at all, asshat. See above re: freedom of religion. That's what it MEANS. It means she doesn't get to tell you who to be, and you don't get to tell her. To put it bluntly, mind your own damned business. You're not "yielding" to fuck-all by doing so. If it's really such a damned hardship for you to allow other people to choose their own damned clothing, then I respectfully suggest that you get yourself a life.


The slippery slope is my business, moron! And if tomorrow some super Catholic wanted to wear a Pope hat and robes in the House of Representatives I don't believe for a nano second that dopes like you wouldn't have a cow over that show of public religious display in a nation where the ACLU practically parachutes in teams of lawyers to remote mountain tops to tear down small crosses that are put up in memorials.
Take your repugnant hypocrisy and shove it!


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> This I don't know. But apparently, it was originally passed with the intention of differentiating our legislature from that of Great Britain's, where they apparently wear some sort of uniform that involves a hat. Not really clear on that.
> 
> Regardless, it's an insignificant rule that appears not to have mattered all that much at the time, and matters not at all now. I doubt any of the people screeching that it's "the coming end of the Republic!" even knew this rule existed five minutes before they heard that it was going to be changed.


But you did...right?
What matters is not the rule itself, which was instituted to prevent people from wearing wigs and hats in Congress which were considered an English custom showing allegiance to the crown  (US House Reverses 181-Year-Old-Rule To Appease Newly Elected Muslim) but how democrats are eager to yield and serve Muslim interests wherever possible.

No, this single incident of collusion will not cause the union to collapse but it is illustrative of how someone like Roy Moore lost his office over his religious identification while Ilhan Omar is being catered to, praised and has idiots defending her "rights" while denying and vilifying Moore for his very same wish to keep his religious identity.

We should come out and declare Islam a protected class. And by "we" I mean the leftist dolts who bow and scrape to serve them.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Excuse me, but "secular government" does not mean "require the individual people who work there to pretend to be secular". At no place in the First Amendment does it say, "Free exercise thereof _in the places Eric considers appropriate_". At the point that assholes like you get to tell people when, where, and how they may follow their religious beliefs, it stops being freedom of religion entirely.
> ...



sheeeesh   -----a little too flamboyant-----but  I AGREE IN 
PRINCIPLE.   ------a congressman should not WEAR HIS 
RELIGION ON HIS HEAD-----whilst acting as a congressman 
   (in English that includes women)   Even Sikhs can get around
   their turbans when it is seemly to do so


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Excuse me, but "secular government" does not mean "require the individual people who work there to pretend to be secular". At no place in the First Amendment does it say, "Free exercise thereof _in the places Eric considers appropriate_". At the point that assholes like you get to tell people when, where, and how they may follow their religious beliefs, it stops being freedom of religion entirely.
> ...



No, you're asking something worse than "pretending to be secular".  You're asking her to directly violate her religious practices.  And for what?  To conform to an utterly unimportant, obscure, and outdated rule for no reason other than to satisfy YOUR personal whims?  

Here's a newsflash, Sparky.  Ms. Omar is under no more obligation to explain or justify her religious beliefs and practices for your approval than anyone else is.  Despite your erroneous belief that America is about being a an insular, xenophobic, sheet-wearing, redneck cousin-dater like yourself, it is ACTUALLY about individuals being able to live their own lives and follow the dictates of their own beliefs and consiences in peace, even if they have the unspeakably bad manners to be different from you.

In other words, it's none of your frigging business what the hijab means to her, because whether or not she wears doesn't affect you and is therefore NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Roy Moore has exactly the same right to display his beliefs in public that she does, which means that he can wear any religious clothing that strikes his fancy and she can't erect monuments in public buildings.  I can see where the complicated difference between articles of clothing and large freestanding art constructions is still giving you some trouble.

You can whine to me about "creeping shariah" when we're talking about something you're being forced to do beyond minding your own business.



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> And this isn't about what *I* consider appropriate, since I wasn't around 181 years ago to help the House draft their rule about head covering in the House. Stop being a moron.
> It's about bending rules and eliminating them in order to appease a religious minority the left is sponsoring and backing.
> You claim you know what secularism is yet you are too stupid or deluded to see this point.



This is about what you consider appropriate because you're around NOW when the House is drafting a change to the rules, and you're pissing and moaning about the deep importance of maintaining a rule that affects nothing and the existence of which you weren't even aware of until five minutes ago.

I'd tell you to stop being a moron, but demanding the impossible from you would just be cruel.

It's about changing rules to accommodate the needs of the members, which is something every organization does on a regular basis, INCLUDING the House.  Also, I really doubt this whole "Minority groups should be utterly ignored and forced to conform!  Majority or silence!" attitude ever crosses your mind when YOU are a member of the minority group in question. 

You claim you know what making a point is, yet you are too stupid and deluded to actually make one./QUOTE]




Eric Arthur Blair said:


> If you can't tell the difference between wearing a hijab on one's own person and putting up a big-ass monument in a public building, then I really don't know if I can dumb my posts down far enough for you to understand them.


Can you dumb them down enough so YOU can understand them?
There actually is NO difference in principal, but of course a smug ass like yourself can't figure that out. They are both
religious symbols but only one of them, the hijab, is deemed somehow not a problem while the ten commandments plaque is deemed an anathema to our secular nation. Exceptions for Islamic head wear (a symbol of their treatment of women as possessions okay...exceptions for statements of  Christian-Judeo ethics strictly verboten!).
The old duplicitous, hypocritical leftist double standard strikes again. Fuck off!/QUOTE]

There's a huge difference in principle (amazing how Mr. American Pride can't even use his own language correctly) and in fact between a piece of clothing worn on an individual's body and a monument permanently standing in and changing a public building.  There is no number of times that you are going to insist that they're exactly the same that is going to make you sound any less like a mouthbreathing dumbass.  One is a small, completely personal choice affecting only the wearer; the other is A BIG FUCKING STATUE AFFECTING A PUBLIC BUILDING.  Individual body - building.  Ponder the difference.

Once again, your ignorant, redneck bigotry is not conservatism, and I'm not a leftist for recognizing that you're a three-toothed moronic hick who tries to cloak his racism is the flag.  I remain far more conservative than you are by the same margin I remain vastly more intelligent than you are.



> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > She doesn't have to "conform to your principles" at all, asshat. See above re: freedom of religion. That's what it MEANS. It means she doesn't get to tell you who to be, and you don't get to tell her. To put it bluntly, mind your own damned business. You're not "yielding" to fuck-all by doing so. If it's really such a damned hardship for you to allow other people to choose their own damned clothing, then I respectfully suggest that you get yourself a life.
> ...



There's no slippery slope here, Jethro.  She's a duly-elected member of the House of Representatives; you aren't.  She actually has a say in the rules of conduct of the House; you don't.  Her wardrobe is her business, not yours.

Also, if your goal here is to convince someone other than yourself that you have enough brain wattage to power a light bulb, you might consider crafting analogies that actually make some sort of sense.  "OMG, we can't change the rules because some Catholic might decide to dress like the Pope!"  I mean, really?  Do I actually need to dignify this as if it were a serious argument by pointing out the difference between the common religious observance of wearing a hijab and the not-even-remotely-ever-required-in-the-history-of-mankind "religious observance" of dressing like the Pope when you aren't the Pope?

Well, yeah, I probably do.  A backwoods cousin-dater who can't tell the difference between personal clothing and monuments probably isn't going to be able the tell the difference between real religious behavior and wild hypotheticals.

Take your condemnations of hypocrisy based on my imagined reaction to a "religious observance" you made up which would actually be sacrilegious and blasphemous to anyone who is actually Catholic and fuck off yourself, Jethro . . . instead of fucking your cousin, as backwater hick redneck Klan jackwads like yourself are wont to do.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Excuse me, but "secular government" does not mean "require the individual people who work there to pretend to be secular". At no place in the First Amendment does it say, "Free exercise thereof _in the places Eric considers appropriate_". At the point that assholes like you get to tell people when, where, and how they may follow their religious beliefs, it stops being freedom of religion entirely.
> ...


_It's about bending rules and eliminating them in order to appease a religious minority the left is sponsoring and backing._
I think it's more about embracing all religions instead of just one.  That's the point--no religion gets top billing.  Allowing the hijab simply allows a Muslim woman to comfortably perform her job in public, in the halls of Congress the way she would anywhere else.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > This I don't know. But apparently, it was originally passed with the intention of differentiating our legislature from that of Great Britain's, where they apparently wear some sort of uniform that involves a hat. Not really clear on that.
> ...



No, like everyone else, I had no clue there was ever any such conduct rule.  Unlike the blindly racist doofuses here (and I AM looking at you), I can see how that indicates the complete insignificance of the rule and whether or not it's changed.

I realize that you can't look past "Muslim!!!  Aaaaahhh!!  Must attack!!!" but the Democrats for once are not doing anything particularly out-of-the-ordinary.  Rules change packages when a new majority party takes power are not at all uncommon, nor are they common to just Democrats.  If I remember correctly, when the Republicans took control of the House under Newt Gingrich in the 90s, they proposed a rules change package that included abolishing three committees and 25 sub-committees and cutting the number of committee staffers.  The Democrats are proposing changes to the dress code and allowing a new mother to nurse her infant.  

I'm not saying Gingrich was wrong; I'm saying that, by comparison, this isn't exactly radical, let alone a threat to the future of the Republic.

Furthermore, the Republican Party elected the first woman to the House of Representatives in 1917.  Do you suppose they might have proposed a few rules changes to accommodate HER into a place that had always previously been occupied by males?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I wouldn't have put it as "embracing", so much as "letting people peacefully live their lives without interfering".

For the life of me, I will never understand the compulsion so many people feel today to get emotionally invested and outraged about things that have nothing to do with them.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 5, 2018)

But I thought you dumb liberals wanted a separation of Church and State?

This is the sort of trap you find yourself in when you are a mindless idiot who supports stupidity.

Who gives a shit if this woman wears a hijjab or not?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> But I thought you dumb liberals wanted a separation of Church and State?
> 
> This is the sort of trap you find yourself in when you are a mindless idiot who supports stupidity.
> 
> Who gives a shit if this woman wears a hijjab or not?



Yeah, uh, I have no idea who and what you're responding to.  That's why the message board has a "Quote" and a "Reply" function.

Also, the people objecting to her wearing the _hijab _on the House floor aren't liberals.  They aren't especially conservative, but they're at least nominally right-wing.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 5, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > But I thought you dumb liberals wanted a separation of Church and State?
> ...




I was speaking to liberals in general, hence not quoting anyone in particular. But now I'm talking to you specifically.

You're obviously an idiot. My point was simple , if you ACTUALLY believed in a separation of church and state you would tell this woman "I"m sorry, but you must keep your religion out of Congress, PERIOD" but liberals never actually believe in anything, that's why they get caught by their own lack of principles so often.

Myself, I don't care if a Christian prays in his Congressional office, so having principles I also can't care if a Muslim wears a hijjab.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...



You were speaking to liberals in general about something they aren't actually espousing.  Now you're speaking to me specifically about something I haven't, and don't, espouse.

All things considered, noob, I don't think you're qualified to be calling anyone else an idiot.

Myself, I actually read threads and take the time to figure out who's who and what they're saying before I barge in and start arrogantly making pronouncements and criticizing total strangers for things I ASSUME they say and believe.

I guess that's why you're an asshole and I'm not.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 5, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I AM an asshole, but this doesn't change the fact that you are apparently not literate enough to understand my posts.

Do liberals scream "separation of church and state" at every occasion?" Yes, well apparently unless it's a Muslim who wants to wear her hijjab while doing her government job, then suddenly she has that right..........


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 5, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> But I thought you dumb liberals wanted a separation of Church and State?
> 
> This is the sort of trap you find yourself in when you are a mindless idiot who supports stupidity.
> 
> Who gives a shit if this woman wears a hijjab or not?


it should be about equality and equal rights; not merely being a "right winger".


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


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


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



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.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 5, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




Could a member of Congress carry a gun into a session of Congress?

The answer is no, rendering your argument that she has a Constitutional right to wear her hijjab as stupid as you are.


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...



Don't flatter yourself, twinkie.  Your posts aren't exactly "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" in the original Old English.

Contemplate the possibility that I'm not criticizing you because "your brilliance is too much for me", but because you made a jackass out of yourself by not bothering to learn how the board functions work, or how board etiquette works, AND you didn't read the thread before you started shooting off your flapping facehole.

As far as literacy and reading comprehension goes, you appear to be the one who hasn't understood anything that's been.  I didn't dispute that liberals complain about "separation of church and state", newbie shitforbrains; I pointed out that it's not the liberals objecting to the _hijab_.

You're not just an asshole, you're a DUMB asshole.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



No, absolutely NO member of Congress - or staffer, or anyone else who isn't law enforcement - can carry a gun in the Capitol.  What the fuck that has to do with changing the dress code so she can wear her _hijab _is beyond anyone rational.

Seriously, between you and Eric, I have to wonder if the local mental hospital didn't just get a new computer in the dayroom or something.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 5, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




What does "Congress can restrict the second amendment " have to do with congress restricting the first amendment?

God damn you really are stupid, aren't you?  Good day.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...



Well, I'm not the one who brought up the Second Amendment in a thread involving the First Amendment, so it's not really my place to address this question.

So I assume this means you're not only an illiterate, ill-mannered boor, but also a coward.  Run in, make an ass of yourself by posting without reading first, and then run away with your tail between your legs the instant it's pointed out to you.

If you had bothered to read some of the board before you started babbling, you would know that everyone here recognizes "You're stupid, good day" as universal surrender.

Tiny penises and big mouths seem to be the order of the day for ignorant newbies around here.


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> But I thought you dumb liberals wanted a separation of Church and State?
> 
> This is the sort of trap you find yourself in when you are a mindless idiot who supports stupidity.
> 
> Who gives a shit if this woman wears a hijjab or not?


Great to see you’re on board with the new rule change.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > This I don't know. But apparently, it was originally passed with the intention of differentiating our legislature from that of Great Britain's, where they apparently wear some sort of uniform that involves a hat. Not really clear on that.
> ...



To be clear, Roy Moore was removed from office for defying the order of a federal judge who ordered that a 2 and a half ton granite 10 commandments monument be removed from the courthouse.  It wasn't simply some personal item Moore kept with him or brought into his office or anything like that.  It certainly was a far cry from a hijab.

Short History of the Battle Over the Ten Commandments in Alabama


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


No, not at every turn. But absolutely when it’s the government establishing religion, which violates the First Amendment.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Faun said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > But I thought you dumb liberals wanted a separation of Church and State?
> ...



Now if he were only on board with making some kind of sense and knowing who's saying what.


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Well, no. Safety in Congress is a compelling interest to keep guns out. There is no compelleling interest from what I can see to not allow a female Muslim to wear a hijab, or a male Jew from wearing a yarmulke.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Faun said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Well, I don't know about "establishing religion".  It's not like the rule was put in place for a reason that had anything to do with religion.  The effect on Ms. Omar's religious observances was an unintended consequence in a future that couldn't possibly be foreseen.

But yeah, when we discover that a citizen's First Amendment rights are being violated with no compelling reason - or no real reason at all, in this case - the obvious action is to put a stop to it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Faun said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Also, I don't know of any member of Congress, or any employee of the Capitol building, who is objecting to the rule about guns.  They all seem pretty okay with it.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 5, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...




what does that have to do with anything dipshit? If Congress can restrict rights, they can restrict rights , whether people object or not.

Damn you are a simple minded moron.


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


I’m not saying this rule establishes religion. I’m saying it doesn’t. It’s allowing religious members to practice their faiths. As opposed to Moore setting up a monument of the Ten Commandments, which does establish religion and is not a case of an individual practicing their religion. That’s why it was unconstitutional for Moore to do what he did while it’s not unconstitutional to allow House members to wear religious headwear. Which is also why this issue is not hypocritical on the part of Democrats.

I also can’t help but notice how no one against this is pushing for the Senate to ban such headwear, where their rules already allow for it.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 5, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Donovan, when you are going to answer a poster, hit "reply" in the bottom right corner of the post you are responding to, so the rest of us know who in hell you're talking to (or about).  If you like, practice on this one.

Thank you.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 5, 2018)

OldLady said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



That's what I've been doing?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



It has to do with the fact that we're not talking about a law here, Gomer.  On either point.  We're talking about rules of behavior in the Capitol building, their workplace.  If they all agree that they're okay with not exercising their Second Amendment rights in that place, then there's not actually anything to discuss.

Ms. Omar is obviously NOT okay with not exercising her First Amendment rights.

Also, as Faun pointed out, there is absolutely no compelling reason to restrict or violate her First Amendment rights.  As far as anyone can tell, there's no reason for it at all, compelling or otherwise.  And Congress DEFINITELY cannot restrict or violate any rights without a reason, just for the Hell of it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you started off by saying you didn't see a reason for her not to wear a _hijab_, and casting aspersions at the liberals for opposing it, even though they aren't.  And NOW you're arguing against her wearing it, simply because you're pissed off that I pointed out how much you had stepped on your own johnson.

SOMEONE is certainly simple-minded, anyway.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 5, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You are stupid. 

The claim was made that preventing her from wearing her hijjab would violate her first amendment right, I rightfully pointed out that no it wouldn't  just as not allowing a person to carry a gun doesn't violate that person's second amendment right.

I've NO doubt that you would not be on here making the argument that its okay to change the rules because she has a right if she wanted to carry a gun.

You truly are a simpleton, a drink of bleach is what you need.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Faun said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Mind you, I didn't have any particular problem with the monument, and didn't consider it the business of anyone who didn't actually live in that community.

But it's undeniable that a personal article of clothing and a big-ass monument erected in a public building aren't even remotely similar.

I can only assume none of these doofuses (doofi?) are mentioning the Senate because A) they have no idea what the rules of conduct are for either chamber of Congress unless and until it hits the news, and B) there aren't actually any Muslim women in the Senate to bitch about at the moment.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

OldLady said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Yeah, I tried that already.

Be expecting him to attack you as though you just pointed at his tiny penis and laughed.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> No, like everyone else, I had no clue there was ever any such conduct rule. Unlike the blindly racist doofuses here (and I AM looking at you), I can see how that indicates the complete insignificance of the rule and whether or not it's changed.


You throw around the word "racist" here as if it has any meaning when you use it. It does not.
Let me repeat for the hard of hearing (looking back at you) that, yes, the rule changed was insignificant. But no, as long as Roy Moore (someone I have no investment in outside of this principled issue) gets removed from office for expression of his religious conviction but Ihhan Omar has doors opened for and is able to ignore long standing rules (the rules must change for her...she doesn't have to yield to them) so she can express her religious convictions, you'll remain as ignorant and biased as any back woods red neck. 
And of course massively hypocritical, but that's a given for your type.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...



Preventing her from wearing her _hijab _IS violating her First Amendment right.  She wants to exercise her religion by wearing it; the rule told her she couldn't.

You ignorantly tried to draw a parallel between carrying weapons in a federal building and wearing a head scarf.  It's not quite as ridiculous as your long-lost-twin's attempt to draw a parallel between a multi-ton monument and a head scarf, but you're still in the competition.

I've NO doubt you have no fucking clue what I would or wouldn't say about a gun, because as I've pointed out multiple times, you are too much of an arrogant, obnoxious ass to bother reading the message board and finding out what's going on before barging in and sounding off as though you're God's personal messenger boy.  In your eyes, I'm a liberal, the people opposing the hijab are liberals, anyone and everyone who says something you don't agree with is automatically a liberal, simply because you mistakenly believe every half-assed thought that wanders through your diseased head MUST be the paramount representation of conservatism.

How you even manage to notice that other people are talking at all over the racket of all the voices in your head telling you who we are, what we think, and how brilliantly "conservative" you are is a mystery.

And all that's really happening here is that you made a fool out of yourself, you got called on it, and now you're trying to go on the offensive to cover for it because you're too immature and chickenshit to admit that you screwed up.

A dose of maturity and masculinity is what you need.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> To be clear, Roy Moore was removed from office for defying the order of a federal judge who ordered that a 2 and a half ton granite 10 commandments monument be removed from the courthouse. It wasn't simply some personal item Moore kept with him or brought into his office or anything like that. It certainly was a far cry from a hijab.


To be even more clear the object of Moore's religious expression is absolutely immaterial. So it wasn't comparable to a hijab....so what? The point is Ilhan Omar has her religious convictions validated and the House of Representatives yields to her while Roy Moore has his outlawed and forbidden.
Where is equal application of the law here? It simply doesn't exist and if Moore had a hat made with the Ten Commandments written on it would that make any difference to the hypocrites who think one object of religious significance for a protected religion is okay but not another for Judeo-Christian ethics?
No fcking way!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > No, like everyone else, I had no clue there was ever any such conduct rule. Unlike the blindly racist doofuses here (and I AM looking at you), I can see how that indicates the complete insignificance of the rule and whether or not it's changed.
> ...



No, ass hat, I don't "throw around" the word.  I apply it as I apply all words:  specifically, concisely, and correctly.  It not only has a meaning, I am using it competely accurately when I say that the ONLY real reason you are shitting your frillies over Ms. Omar's _hijab _is because she is a Muslim, and you hate Muslims, and you are determined that we will by God make those damned Muslims knuckle under and be exactly like us, OR ELSE.

Let me repeat for the hard-of-thinking (and EVERYONE is looking at you now):  the moment you bring up Roy Moore, you have lost the argument, and everyone has stopped reading because they're too busy laughing at your lame-ass reaching for a justification.

A big-ass multi-ton monument in a public building is not at all comparable to a headscarf.  Not the first time you strained for the comparison, not now, not ever.  

And while we're on the subject of words being used correctly according to their meaning, the word "hypocrite" is not defined as "someone who says something I disagree with", nor does it mean "someone who mocks me for sounding like an ass napkin", nor does it have anything to do with what you "just know" I think on an issue, despite the fact that you just showed up here five minutes ago.  If you want to make judgements about my actions, make them based on MY ACTUAL ACTIONS, not your asinine assumptions about what my actions would be.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

OldLady said:


> _It's about bending rules and eliminating them in order to appease a religious minority the left is sponsoring and backing._
> I think it's more about embracing all religions instead of just one. That's the point--no religion gets top billing. Allowing the hijab simply allows a Muslim woman to comfortably perform her job in public, in the halls of Congress the way she would anywhere else.


But all religions are NOT embraced and Roy Moore was removed from office for daring to express his Christian beliefs.
So for you say that yielding to this one Muslim member of congress, when Moore is kicked to the curb, is not giving one protected religion top billing is simply idiotic babble. It's bullshit. It's nonsense. 
It's stupefying in it's ignorance.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > To be clear, Roy Moore was removed from office for defying the order of a federal judge who ordered that a 2 and a half ton granite 10 commandments monument be removed from the courthouse. It wasn't simply some personal item Moore kept with him or brought into his office or anything like that. It certainly was a far cry from a hijab.
> ...


You know...if Roy Moore had wanted to dress like Moses and carry around his own copy of the 10 Suggestions, that would have been ok.   If he had any kind of clothing with the 10 Suggestions on it, that would have been fine.

But no.

Roy Moore have a very heavy stone monument SNUCK into the State Courthouse and BOLTED to the floor in the dead of night.   You find that acceptable?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > To be clear, Roy Moore was removed from office for defying the order of a federal judge who ordered that a 2 and a half ton granite 10 commandments monument be removed from the courthouse. It wasn't simply some personal item Moore kept with him or brought into his office or anything like that. It certainly was a far cry from a hijab.
> ...



"So it had nothing to do wth the topic of the thread, and had no point in being brought up.  So what?"

The point is that there's nothing wrong with her having her personal religious convictions validated, if by "validated" you mean "not interfered with".

And there is literally no sense to be found in the sentence, "So you can't compare Roy Moore to Ilhan Omar.  The point is, compare the two anyway!"  WTF, mouthbreather?  In the English language, "not comparable" actually means "so stop trying to compare them, you fucking moron".  Just to clarify.

Equal application of the law here would be in APPLYING IT TO THINGS THAT ARE ACTUALLY EQUAL, you driveling ancephalic twit.  In other words, things that are not a headscarf and a big-ass fucking monument built in a public building.

If Roy Moore had wanted to wear a jacket with the Ten Commandments embroidered on it, THAT would have been comparable.  But the monument isn't comparable; it wasn't comparable when you started yammering inanely about it; it will not be comparable the 321658498 time you continue to try to talk about it despite being told that you're talking out of your ass and making a fool of yourself.

Roy Moore - irrelevant to this thread.  Period.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> No, ass hat, I don't "throw around" the word. I apply it as I apply all words: specifically, concisely, and correctly. It not only has a meaning, I am using it competely accurately when I say that the ONLY real reason you are shitting your frillies over Ms. Omar's _hijab _is because she is a Muslim, and you hate Muslims, and you are determined that we will by God make those damned Muslims knuckle under and be exactly like us, OR ELSE.


The religion of Islam is not a race, ass hat! It's a religion and talking about racism in that context lets me know right off the bat that your low powered intellect is as defective as hell.


Cecilie1200 said:


> Let me repeat for the hard-of-thinking (and EVERYONE is looking at you now): the moment you bring up Roy Moore, you have lost the argument, and everyone has stopped reading because they're too busy laughing at your lame-ass reaching for a justification.
> 
> A big-ass multi-ton monument in a public building is not at all comparable to a headscarf. Not the first time you strained for the comparison, not now, not ever.


I'm sorry but once more your low powered brain has let you down. The issue is religious expression while working on the public's behalf. Not whether a hijab is like a stone monument or not but as predicted you are too much a light weight to
compare concepts and thoughts and someone as dumb as you are in over your head so you can't get over how a hijab is not like a monument (totally ignoring what those two things have in common). You are dumber than a box of rocks.


Cecilie1200 said:


> And while we're on the subject of words being used correctly according to their meaning, the word "hypocrite" is not defined as "someone who says something I disagree with", nor does it mean "someone who mocks me for sounding like an ass napkin", nor does it have anything to do with what you "just know" I think on an issue, despite the fact that you just showed up here five minutes ago. If you want to make judgements about my actions, make them based on MY ACTUAL ACTIONS, not your asinine assumptions about what my actions would be.


You mean your actual actions like finding no problems with Ilhan Omar's hijab (because she must be free and empowered to express her religion) but Roy Moore doesn't get the same permission from
hypocrites like you? You are the very embodiment of a brain dead smug hypocrite!
And of course you are too dumb to see.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > No, ass hat, I don't "throw around" the word. I apply it as I apply all words: specifically, concisely, and correctly. It not only has a meaning, I am using it competely accurately when I say that the ONLY real reason you are shitting your frillies over Ms. Omar's _hijab _is because she is a Muslim, and you hate Muslims, and you are determined that we will by God make those damned Muslims knuckle under and be exactly like us, OR ELSE.
> ...



Ignoring the obvious physical differences between the monument and the hijab; ignoring the fact that Roy Moore defied a judge's order (one which was upheld on appeal) while Ilhan Omar has not defied any order; ignoring the fact that Roy Moore was almost certainly allowed to express his religious belief through worn apparel while in office, just as Omar has asked to do; do you truly not see the difference between a personal item of clothing as a form of religious expression and a multi-ton monument made part of a state building?  The hijab is a personal expression which is limited to Ms. Omar's person.  The monument, even if you wish to describe it as a personal expression of Moore's faith, was made a part of a public courthouse.  It was not limited to Mr. Moore's person, could not be moved or removed without great effort and the use of equipment, and in effect became an expression of faith of the courthouse, thereby an expression of faith by an organization of the US government.

I can't tell if you're suffering from cognitive dissonance, willfully ignoring the obvious differences, incapable of understanding those obvious differences, or just trolling.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> "So it had nothing to do wth the topic of the thread, and had no point in being brought up. So what?"
> 
> The point is that there's nothing wrong with her having her personal religious convictions validated, if by "validated" you mean "not interfered with".


Ilhan Omar shouldn't have her personal religious convictions interfered with
but not Roy Moore. Why not?
That's okay. I know your stance is ignorant and hypocritical and you can't justify it. Just want to let you know
others see your red ass glowing brightly like a siren of stupidity.



> And there is literally no sense to be found in the sentence, "So you can't compare Roy Moore to Ilhan Omar. The point is, compare the two anyway!" WTF, mouthbreather? In the English language, "not comparable" actually means "so stop trying to compare them, you fucking moron". Just to clarify.


Your foulmouthed anger is simply
an indicator of your inability to to justify your hypocrisy. I feel for the ignorant dilemma you find yourself in that causes you to lose your little mind.



> Equal application of the law here would be in APPLYING IT TO THINGS THAT ARE ACTUALLY EQUAL, you driveling ancephalic twit. In other words, things that are not a headscarf and a big-ass fucking monument built in a public building.


They are both symbols of religious expression. I can't help it if you aren't bright enough to compare two things that are not exactly alike but are the same (i.e. a monkey and a giraffe...two animals that are otherwise dissimilar).
What is your IQ anyway? Most smart people can think conceptually. I'm sorry you can't, and it makes you angry.



> If Roy Moore had wanted to wear a jacket with the Ten Commandments embroidered on it, THAT would have been comparable. But the monument isn't comparable; it wasn't comparable when you started yammering inanely about it; it will not be comparable the 321658498 time you continue to try to talk about it despite being told that you're talking out of your ass and making a fool of yourself.
> 
> Roy Moore - irrelevant to this thread. Period.


Keep ranting and revealing what a light weight you are.
It amuses me.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > "So it had nothing to do wth the topic of the thread, and had no point in being brought up. So what?"
> ...



You know that just because they are both animals does not mean using a monkey and a giraffe in a comparison is always valid, don't you?

It would be like someone deciding that a monkey exhibit at the zoo should be closed because of a Yellow Fever outbreak, and you arguing that that's unfair because the giraffe exhibit isn't also being closed.  Sure, giraffes don't contract or carry Yellow Fever, but giraffes and monkeys are both animals!


----------



## RealDave (Dec 5, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


So you are for discriminating against certain religions?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

bodecea said:


> You know...if Roy Moore had wanted to dress like Moses and carry around his own copy of the 10 Suggestions, that would have been ok. If he had any kind of clothing with the 10 Suggestions on it, that would have been fine.
> 
> But no.
> 
> Roy Moore have a very heavy stone monument SNUCK into the State Courthouse and BOLTED to the floor in the dead of night. You find that acceptable?


Frankly no, but that's not the issue (assuming you are correctly characterizing things, which may be a stretch).
Ilhan Omar's green light to go ahead and espouse and proselytize for her religion by dint of her hijab, when no one
else could similarly do so, for 181 years, and cannot do so now, is the issue.

It amounts to a de facto federal endorsement of Islam. Another long held liberal belief, this one in our secular government, goes down the drain. The hypocrisy of the left is stunning and completely unsurprising.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> You know that just because they are both animals does not mean using a monkey and a giraffe in a comparison is always valid, don't you?


No. What makes you think you do?
The comparison is *very* valid in the context I compared the two: two things that are not similar in appearance yet very similar in another sense.



> It would be like someone deciding that a monkey exhibit at the zoo should be closed because of a Yellow Fever outbreak, and you arguing that that's unfair because the giraffe exhibit isn't also being closed. Sure, giraffes don't contract or carry Yellow Fever, but giraffes and monkeys are both animals!


That's incredibly obtuse and absurd.
I think you have baffled yourself.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > No, ass hat, I don't "throw around" the word. I apply it as I apply all words: specifically, concisely, and correctly. It not only has a meaning, I am using it competely accurately when I say that the ONLY real reason you are shitting your frillies over Ms. Omar's _hijab _is because she is a Muslim, and you hate Muslims, and you are determined that we will by God make those damned Muslims knuckle under and be exactly like us, OR ELSE.
> ...



"So it wasn't comparable to a hijab....so what?" - Eric the Idiot

Roy Moore - irrelevant to this thread. Period.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I can at least answer your confusion at the end:  he's suffering from an excess of in-breeding in his family.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> "So it wasn't comparable to a hijab....so what?" - Eric the Idiot
> 
> Roy Moore - irrelevant to this thread. Period.


More angry name calling and unsupported claims. I'd almost forgotten how absurd your posts were.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

RealDave said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...



How, precisely, did you draw that conclusion from her post?  What part of "embracing all religions - no religion gets top billing" sounded like "for discriminating against certain religions" to you?

Honestly, first I'm agreeing with Faun, now I'm defending OldLady.  I can't decide if it's the Christmas spirit, or if I just dropped through the looking glass.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I can at least answer your confusion at the end: he's suffering from an excess of in-breeding in his family.


Ouch! More childish name calling. It makes your posts look so good.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > You know...if Roy Moore had wanted to dress like Moses and carry around his own copy of the 10 Suggestions, that would have been ok. If he had any kind of clothing with the 10 Suggestions on it, that would have been fine.
> ...



Now she's "proselytizing for her religion" simply by observing its requirements?  How many times were you dropped on your head as a baby, and from how high up?

You seem to be under the misapprehension that the "no hat" rule had something to do with "preventing proselytization by being seen to have beliefs", instead of just, "Hey, let's be different from those Brits".  Or that the suspension for religious headwear from which she is now benefiting somehow does not also apply to anyone and everyone else who might need it.

It amounts to a recognition that there are a lot of different types of citizens in this country besides WASPs.  Your insane overreaction to it amounts to bigotry.  And don't even get me started on your asinine belief that dress codes and individual clothing choices have fuck-all to do with government, secular or otherwise.  "Secular government", pinhead, means that the laws and official policies will be separate from religion, not that the officeholders are required to.

Hypocrisy STILL doesn't mean "Doing the opposite of what I IMAGINE you think".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > You know that just because they are both animals does not mean using a monkey and a giraffe in a comparison is always valid, don't you?
> ...



Made perfect sense to me.  Of course, _I _don't have a two-digit IQ, the way you do.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > "So it wasn't comparable to a hijab....so what?" - Eric the Idiot
> ...



Really?  You forgot your lame attempts to assume superiority in the space of a couple of hours?

I guess the brain damage extended to your memory.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > I can at least answer your confusion at the end: he's suffering from an excess of in-breeding in his family.
> ...



My indifference to your opinion could not be greater without rewriting the laws of physics.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Made perfect sense to me. Of course, _I _don't have a two-digit IQ, the way you do.


When I see you make a point that isn't just insulting or is perceptive I'll let you know. Otherwise I wouldn't expect
me to take your poisoned bait. I could put you on ignore but that would be letting a nasty tampered ass win.
And you don't have nearly the grasp on the issue it takes to win anything.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Made perfect sense to me. Of course, _I _don't have a two-digit IQ, the way you do.


LOL. Of course it makes sense.... to you. 
(sorry, this was so stupid I couldn't resist responding...carry on)


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Made perfect sense to me. Of course, _I _don't have a two-digit IQ, the way you do.
> ...



When you see anything but what you want to see, it'll probably be a miracle right up there with parting the Red Sea.

And honey, the only people here who don't think I stomped you like a vat of grapes are you and your long-lost twin, Dandy.

We're done here.  The debate is over, and if my arguments didn't convince everyone that only three-toothed sheet-wearing bigots object to a simple change in the House dress code, your display of BEING a three-toothed sheet-wearing bigot finished the job.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > You know that just because they are both animals does not mean using a monkey and a giraffe in a comparison is always valid, don't you?
> ...



The comparison is not valid for a number of reasons, most of which have been pointed out to you.  One instance is a matter of religious garb, the other was a large monument displayed in a government building.  One instance is being put forth in the proscribed manner to be voted on, the other involved an individual defying a federal judge's order.  One instance involves one of the chambers of Congress adopting the same rule that is already in effect in the other chamber of Congress; the other involved a man going against the rulings of the courts.

You can repeat your claim that, because both the hijab and the Ten Commandments monument are religious displays, both of these incidents are the same, but that does not make it true.  Being similar in one way does not make them similar in all ways, nor does being similar in one way mean the two incidents should be treated or viewed the same.

Let me put it another way: If Roy Moore had commissioned a 1:1 replica of the Christ the Redeemer statue from Rio de Janeiro and had it built on the courthouse lawn, would you consider that the same kind of situation as Ms. Omar wearing a hijab?

Personal display =/= public display.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > You know...if Roy Moore had wanted to dress like Moses and carry around his own copy of the 10 Suggestions, that would have been ok. If he had any kind of clothing with the 10 Suggestions on it, that would have been fine.
> ...



Who says no one else can wear a hijab now?  First of all, I don't believe the new rule is actually in effect yet.  Second, not only would the rule almost certainly allow others to wear a hijab, it would probably allow yarmulkes, turbans, or other religious headwear.  So, no, it certainly does not amount "to a de facto federal endorsement of Islam."  You might have a point if the rule were limited to Muslims.

Besides, when the rule was made 181 years ago, there were no women representatives, and so far as I know no Muslim representatives.  Having a female Muslim in the House is a new thing, and one almost certainly not contemplated by the men who made the rule.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> When you see anything but what you want to see, it'll probably be a miracle right up there with parting the Red Sea.
> 
> And honey, the only people here who don't think I stomped you like a vat of grapes are you and your long-lost twin, Dandy.


Oh, you declared yourself the "winner". That's the mark of debate masters alright!
If sheer unsupported denial and gutter level name calling is the standard you judge yourself on I agree with you.



> We're done here. The debate is over, and if my arguments didn't convince everyone that only three-toothed sheet-wearing bigots object to a simple change in the House dress code, your display of BEING a three-toothed sheet-wearing bigot finished the job.


There is no debate. A debate is an exchange of ideas and rationales supporting a point of view. There was none of that from you.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 5, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Hell, they would have had coronaries over most of these Democrat people being in the House:


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> The comparison is not valid for a number of reasons, which have been pointed out to you. One instance is a matter of religious garb, the other was a large monument displayed in a government building. One instance is being put forth in the proscribed manner to be voted on, the other involved an individual defying a federal judge's order. One instance involves one of the chambers of Congress adopting the same rule that is already in effect in the other chamber of Congress; the other involved a man going against the rulings of the courts.


The rulings of the courts that found posting of the Ten Commandments to be contrary to our secular system of government? And what is the hijab if not an anti secular symbol of Islam...oh, but that's different.

No one denies Roy Moore was told not to do something and he did it anyway but that's beside the point. In fact it makes the point for me: Hijab good.....ten commandments bad. 


Montrovant said:


> You can repeat your claim that, because both the hijab and the Ten Commandments monument are religious displays, both of these incidents are the same, but that does not make it true. Being similar in one way does not make them similar in all ways, nor does being similar in one way mean the two incidents should be treated or viewed the same.


The ten commandments is not the same as the hijab except in the way that is relevant: Both are religious expressions
of public servants yet one is okay and one is not. Pure hypocrisy.


Montrovant said:


> Let me put it another way: If Roy Moore had commissioned a 1:1 replica of the Christ the Redeemer statue from Rio de Janeiro and had it built on the courthouse lawn, would you consider that the same kind of situation as Ms. Omar wearing a hijab?
> 
> Personal display =/= public display.


No. Not at all except in the relevant way that they would both be expressions of religious beliefs of Omar and Moore. Muslin hijab is cool....the Judeo-Christian expressions of Roy Moore are not. It's a double standard.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > The comparison is not valid for a number of reasons, which have been pointed out to you. One instance is a matter of religious garb, the other was a large monument displayed in a government building. One instance is being put forth in the proscribed manner to be voted on, the other involved an individual defying a federal judge's order. One instance involves one of the chambers of Congress adopting the same rule that is already in effect in the other chamber of Congress; the other involved a man going against the rulings of the courts.
> ...



Roy Moore only used it because it didn't say Thou Shalt Not  Lust after Little Girls.


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > No, like everyone else, I had no clue there was ever any such conduct rule. Unlike the blindly racist doofuses here (and I AM looking at you), I can see how that indicates the complete insignificance of the rule and whether or not it's changed.
> ...


The issue over the Ten Commandments was that displaying such a monument was a display of religion — it wasn’t exercising anyone’s religion. And displaying it on public grounds promoted religion.

Whereas an individual wearing something on their head in accordance with their faith IS exercising their religion, which is Constitutionally protected.


----------



## Death Angel (Dec 5, 2018)

RealDave said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


And you guys cry every time anyone still brings up the hag Hillary.


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > _It's about bending rules and eliminating them in order to appease a religious minority the left is sponsoring and backing._
> ...


There’s your problem. You don’t know the difference between express and exercise.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



I believe I mentioned before that the entire House was WASP men 181 years ago, so . . .


----------



## Coyote (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > The comparison is not valid for a number of reasons, which have been pointed out to you. One instance is a matter of religious garb, the other was a large monument displayed in a government building. One instance is being put forth in the proscribed manner to be voted on, the other involved an individual defying a federal judge's order. One instance involves one of the chambers of Congress adopting the same rule that is already in effect in the other chamber of Congress; the other involved a man going against the rulings of the courts.
> ...



Wearing something is not the same as posting something in a building.


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > No, ass hat, I don't "throw around" the word. I apply it as I apply all words: specifically, concisely, and correctly. It not only has a meaning, I am using it competely accurately when I say that the ONLY real reason you are shitting your frillies over Ms. Omar's _hijab _is because she is a Muslim, and you hate Muslims, and you are determined that we will by God make those damned Muslims knuckle under and be exactly like us, OR ELSE.
> ...


Where does the Bible state, though shalt erect a monument of the Ten Commandments?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Wearing something is not the same as posting something in a building.


That's right.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Faun said:


> Where does the Bible state, though shalt erect a monument of the Ten Commandments?


Where does the Koran state thou shalt wear a hijab?


----------



## Coyote (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Where does the Bible state, though shalt erect a monument of the Ten Commandments?
> ...


Does it need to?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Faun said:


> The issue over the Ten Commandments was that displaying such a monument was a display of religion — it wasn’t exercising anyone’s religion. And displaying it on public grounds promoted religion.
> 
> Whereas an individual wearing something on their head in accordance with their faith IS exercising their religion, which is Constitutionally protected.


Document that. A Ten Commandments display is not an exercise of religion? What is it then? A Sesame Street exercise in counting objects?
And exercising your religion is constitutionally protected....unless it is done in a public manner or place that can be construed as a government endorsement of a particular religion....like say, oh, Islam for instance!

Truly an LOL...the ACLU will sue your ass off if they discover a tiny popsickle stick cross
in an ad hoc memorial on a distant mountain side.
How is Ilhan Omar going about her business as a member of Congress in her religiously
prescribed hijab any less a public statement of religion in a secular institution?
Let's see if the ACLU files suit now (they won't, of course...they are fucking hypocrites and cowards).


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > The comparison is not valid for a number of reasons, which have been pointed out to you. One instance is a matter of religious garb, the other was a large monument displayed in a government building. One instance is being put forth in the proscribed manner to be voted on, the other involved an individual defying a federal judge's order. One instance involves one of the chambers of Congress adopting the same rule that is already in effect in the other chamber of Congress; the other involved a man going against the rulings of the courts.
> ...


Maybe you’ll understand this....

While Roy Moore was not allowed to display a monument of the Ten Commandments on public grounds, had he been Jewish, he would have been allowed to wear a yarmulke on public grounds.

Savvy?


----------



## Coyote (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The issue over the Ten Commandments was that displaying such a monument was a display of religion — it wasn’t exercising anyone’s religion. And displaying it on public grounds promoted religion.
> ...



A public building is not a private person or private space. The Constitutional protection of religious rights applies to people's rights and personal space.  I have no right to exercise my religious "rights" by planting a giant statue of Herne the Hunter in the middle of the Court House.


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Where does the Bible state, though shalt erect a monument of the Ten Commandments?
> ...



Say to the believing men to lower their gazes and guard their chastity… (An-Nur: 30) And tell the believing women to lower their eyes, and guard their modesty, and that they display not their ornaments except what appears of them.(An-Nur: 31)


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Faun said:


> Say to the believing men to lower their gazes and guard their chastity… (An-Nur: 30) And tell the believing women to lower their eyes, and guard their modesty, and that they display not their ornaments except what appears of them.(An-Nur: 31)


And where is a hijab specifically mentioned? I don't see it.


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The issue over the Ten Commandments was that displaying such a monument was a display of religion — it wasn’t exercising anyone’s religion. And displaying it on public grounds promoted religion.
> ...


Displaying it is an expression of faith. It’s not exercising one’s faith.


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Say to the believing men to lower their gazes and guard their chastity… (An-Nur: 30) And tell the believing women to lower their eyes, and guard their modesty, and that they display not their ornaments except what appears of them.(An-Nur: 31)
> ...


Of course you don’t. You’re blind.

A hijab conceals their “ornaments,” as instructed by the Qur’an


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Coyote said:


> A public building is not a private person or private space. The Constitutional protection of religious rights applies to people's rights and personal space. I have no right to exercise my religious "rights" by planting a giant statue of Herne the Hunter in the middle of the Court House.


Nor by wearing a Muslim prescribed head covering on the floor of Congress. Wearing robes of the Pope and his mitre
would be just as inappropriate and illegal according to the Supreme Court.
Or has the democrat controlled House now invalidated Supreme Court rulings on separation of church and state?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Faun said:


> Of course you don’t. You’re blind.
> 
> A hijab conceals their “ornaments,” as instructed by the Qur’an


So does a burka. I don't see the Koran specifically commanding that either.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Faun said:


> Displaying it is an expression of faith. It’s not exercising one’s faith.


That's pathetic parsing of words. The two are one in the same. Give me a fuckin' break.


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you don’t. You’re blind.
> ...


LOLOL 

So your beef is with what they cover their hair, and not the fact that they cover it according to their faith.

They can wear a scarf, if they choose, as long as they cover their hair.


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Displaying it is an expression of faith. It’s not exercising one’s faith.
> ...


LOLOL

Idiot.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > A public building is not a private person or private space. The Constitutional protection of religious rights applies to people's rights and personal space. I have no right to exercise my religious "rights" by planting a giant statue of Herne the Hunter in the middle of the Court House.
> ...



I seriously doubt that.  The Supreme Court and our laws have always allowed for a reasonable accommodation for religious rights.   This has been upheld many times.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Faun said:


> LOLOL
> 
> Idiot.


Great comeback. You really taught me something (you are an obnoxious know nothing).


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Coyote said:


> I seriously doubt that. The Supreme Court and our laws have always allowed for a reasonable accommodation for religious rights. This has been upheld many times.


Then let the Supreme Court decide if separation of church and state allows for someone to wear their religious vestments on the floor of Congress. And if so, how that's not tacit
endorsement of that religion.


----------



## Coyote (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you don’t. You’re blind.
> ...



Does it have to?


----------



## Coyote (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I seriously doubt that. The Supreme Court and our laws have always allowed for a reasonable accommodation for religious rights. This has been upheld many times.
> ...


 
What one wears on their person is not a legislative endorsement of a religion.  I can't think of any cases where that alone made a case for endorsement in a court of law.  On the other hand I can think of many cases where the legal right to wear articles of clothing as a requirement of their faith have been won.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 5, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


"Reasonable accommodation"...when the deplorables are losing their minds over this?


----------



## Coyote (Dec 5, 2018)

Why is it so important that a person not be allowed to where any emblems or requirements of their faith on their person's?  We are a diverse society, with a variety of faith's - why is it such a big deal?

So some want to change a century old law initiated when men wore hats.  Suddenly that law has become sacred to some.  How dare it be changed?


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I seriously doubt that. The Supreme Court and our laws have always allowed for a reasonable accommodation for religious rights. This has been upheld many times.
> ...



Does that mean you believe that religious jewelry should be banned in Congress?


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > LOLOL
> ...


If you didn’t learn something from that, it’s because you’re an idiot.

*express* to show, manifest, or reveal

*exercise* something done or performed as a means of practice​The two words have different meanings, even if you are too dumb to comprehend the distinction.


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I seriously doubt that. The Supreme Court and our laws have always allowed for a reasonable accommodation for religious rights. This has been upheld many times.
> ...


If this were an issue for the Supreme Court, they would have reviewed years ago since the Senate has the same rule the House is about to make.


----------



## Olde Europe (Dec 5, 2018)

Coyote said:


> Why is it so important that a person not be allowed to where any emblems or requirements of their faith on their person's?  We are a diverse society, with a variety of faith's - why is it such a big deal?
> 
> So some want to change a century old law initiated when men wore hats.  Suddenly that law has become sacred to some.  How dare it be changed?



It's not a law, just a Congressional rule.

Why that rule became "sacred" is a good question.  I'd try my answer with alt-right, White-identity politics: insecure, disempowered, on-the-decline Whites (and White males in particular), have invested their self-esteem, their very identity in the symbols and procedures of White rule.  Whatever changes are being made to accommodate "them", undermines that identification, and thus threatens their personality, their position in the world, their self-worth.  Hence they fight tooth and nail to prevent it.

Another theory is one of "shared psychosis", briefly explained here.  It explains that those closely associated with a mentally sick person, suffering from manifest personality disorders (think Trump), adopt the symptoms of the sick person.  Hence Trump's raging xenophobia (as a symptom of an insecure personality) is being transferred to his most ardent acolytes.  

Or some such.  No matter what, it's manifestly unhealthy.  Just look at how they are making of this rule-change a slippery slope which leads right into a U.S. of A. under sharia despotism.


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > A public building is not a private person or private space. The Constitutional protection of religious rights applies to people's rights and personal space. I have no right to exercise my religious "rights" by planting a giant statue of Herne the Hunter in the middle of the Court House.
> ...


The *current rules* have been in place in the House for the last 181 years. The *current rules* allow a Muslim Congresswoman to wear a hijab on public grounds. She can wear it in the Oval Office if she were to visit. Anywhere in the White House. She can wear it in the Capitol building in meeting rooms, the rotunda, pretty much everywhere except for the House Gallery.

And those are the rules that have been in place for the last 181 years. So how the fuck is that considered proselytizing when she will soon be allowed to wear it in the one room previously forbidden when she could wear it anywhere else on any public grounds??


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...


Now, now. That presumes they have a mind to begin with. You offer them more credit than they demonstrate.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Faun said:


> If you didn’t learn something from that, it’s because you’re an idiot.
> 
> *express* to show, manifest, or reveal
> 
> ...


Right. Two different words that fit well together. Like when I express my religious views through my hijab, I am exercising
my freedom of religion. Capiche?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Faun said:


> If this were an issue for the Supreme Court, they would have reviewed years ago since the Senate has the same rule the House is about to make.


First someone has to wear a hijab while performing their duties and then someone has to raise the issue for the court to rule on. But nice try.


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > If you didn’t learn something from that, it’s because you’re an idiot.
> ...


Great, then explain how Roy Moore was exercising his religion by displaying a monument of the 10 Commandments when there’s nothing in the Bible that says you need to display the 10 Commandments


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 5, 2018)

Faun said:


> Great, then explain how Roy Moore was exercising his religion by displaying a monument of the 10 Commandments when there’s nothing in the Bible that says you need to display the 10 Commandments


Seriously? I mean, really? What's more religious than the Ten Commandments? 
How can you LOL anyone else when you post something so epically dumb?


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > If this were an issue for the Supreme Court, they would have reviewed years ago since the Senate has the same rule the House is about to make.
> ...


LOLOL 

Putz, it’s not just hijabs. Yarmulkes too. And the Supreme Court has never been called on to review it.


----------



## Faun (Dec 5, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Great, then explain how Roy Moore was exercising his religion by displaying a monument of the 10 Commandments when there’s nothing in the Bible that says you need to display the 10 Commandments
> ...


LOLOL

Good boy, avoiding the question was obviously your only way out.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 5, 2018)

Faun said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Apparently, his beef is that it's only an exercise of religion if they justify it in his eyes.  For some odd reason, we're all supposed to vet our obedience to our gods through him, and if he says it meets his approval, THEN it's covered by the First Amendment.

You know why Muslim women wear _hijabs_?  Because THEY believe Allah wants them to.  It's between them and Allah, and anyone who isn't one of those two people doesn't get a vote.

I say it all the time about Christianity, and now I'm saying it about Islam:  no one has to explain, justify, or defend their beliefs to anyone else.  If you're asking, "Prove to me . . ." then the correct answer is always, "It's none of your business."

It drives me nuts that everyone in this country appears to have turned into Gladys Kravitz, the nosy neighbor from _Bewitched_, peering in windows and thinking they have to have opinions on everything.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



When you get elected to the House, you can vote to change the rules.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



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


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Have you not yet figured out why your use of the term "dot head" is misusing a slur because it has nothing to do with Muslims?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2018)

irosie91 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...




How many Muslim women were in Congress when that rule was enacted?

Zero.

You don't get to decide what religious freedoms are allowed or not.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...



That's not freedom of religion.  That is freedom FROM religion.  Read your 1st Amendment please!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Whose rights are they restricting by ALLOWING freedom of religion?

You are arguing against yourself there noob!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...



They didn't restrict her rights!  They removed the restriction, dumbass!

Congress could just as easily make it a rule that members of the House  can bring firearms on the House floor!


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 6, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



there are many religions that use CHARACTERISTIC forms of dress--------none belong in the senate or house.     The Hijab is not "religion"-----It is a DECLARATION-----I AM A MUSLIMAH----the
issue is covering the hair------lots of ways to cover ones hair without
wearing religion on top------<<<<<Dat's da point.   You have not been around-----I have encountered muslim women who DO IT----in a manner not  IN YOUR FACE.      Even Sikhs find ways.   It is a matter
of decorum


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

irosie91 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


LOL 

Who the fuck are you to tell others how to practice their religion??


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



I am a kind, sympathetic, helpful person.    Letting persons from other lands know about little rules of decorum in the USA-----is one of the nice things I do.     Where do you see   "telling people how to practice
their religion"?       are you fucking delusional?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 6, 2018)

How much is this "concession to the right wing" going to set back women's equal rights movement?


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

irosie91 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


You said you don’t want them wearing things like hijabs in Congress. That’s a form of practicing their religion. It’s not up to you how they cover their hair. Are you so demented, you don’t know what you say?


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



wrong again----the religion advocates covering the hair------it does
not demand a SPECIFIC SYMBOLIC OF ISLAM  kind of hair
covering.  There is an issue of DECORUM-----which is why when you go into a mosque you should not wear a giant crucifix but should have the decency to put on at least a beanie or kerchief. -------you should also keep your dinner napkin on your lap when you go out for supper.     Simple etiquette       The good news is that WHITE GLOVES are no longer mandatory in church


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Here is the point, some on the left have with it.  It is not about freedom, equality, or equal rights.  It is about Men not being able to "behave themselves" allegedly, unless women cover up.  That is simply not true.   And, women should not be "bearing the burden" of Men, not being able to practice equality or equal rights with women, regardless of any clothing.  

Clothing, does not a moral person make.  

Stop being Lazy right wingers.  Women should be able to walk around nude and still be taken seriously in serious venues.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

irosie91 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


Again, that’s not your call to make. You don’t get to tell others how they should practice their religion.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




It's on public property.


.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


you need a valid argument, silly.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


So what? Religious people have always been allowed to cover their hair on public property. On all public property except for the House gallery.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


That was.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


nothing but fallacy?  are you on the right wing.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


Sorry--You are apparently replying to someone I have on ignore.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...




I can definitely see why you would have said poster on ignore.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > _It's about bending rules and eliminating them in order to appease a religious minority the left is sponsoring and backing._
> ...


Congress opens with a prayer by a Congressional Chaplain.  No one is being ignored.   Roy Moore was removed from office for directly defying a Court Order.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...




This is correct, in fact the very first person the First Continental Congress hired was a Congressional Chaplain. He was hired even before we hired a General of the Continental Army. Putting to bed of course the stupid argument that the Founding Fathers meant for their to be a complete separation of church and state. 

As for the Roy Moore comparison, it's valid because we all can reasonably imagine that many liberals would be in an uproar if they came to find out that a court ordered a Muslim politician to remove some sign of their faith from their office. And the stupid thing is, if that were the case, the liberals would be right in that instance. Just as conservatives who are outraged over Christians being told they can't have things like a plaque of the ten commandments in their court room or whatever. Both are outrageous. It's outrageous that anyone outside of those who actually sit in Congress would give one shit about their rules on head wear.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...


_we all can reasonably imagine that many liberals would be in an uproar if they came to find out that a court ordered a Muslim politician to remove some sign of their faith from their office._
You make two mistakes there:  First, you cannot "reasonably" imagine how liberals would react if a Muslim mayor decided to put up a Muslim monument (I'm not sure there is such a thing) in front of City Hall.  You are not a liberal and you like to play fast and loose with what you "think" a liberal would say or do.  Second, Roy Moore didn't have a "sign of his faith" in his office.  He put a huge monument on public government property, on display like a giant billboard, advertising his religion.  That's a no no, according to the Court and the big no no was ignoring the Court's Order not to.


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Well, as a native born American, she is not an immigrant demanding that we adapt to her, so not really relevant to the point I made.


But well I am not "upset"  about it, I do disagree with it. Hand the kid off to someone for Christ's sake.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



Are you really going to argue that a vast majority of liberals wouldn't defend a Muslim under similar circumstances? That's hogwash and you know it. I would contend that a great many of them would defend the Muslim simply because they are assholes, but many of them would defend the Muslim because they have no actual principles.

Let me give a clear example of liberals having no principles and so they defend one group for doing exactly what they condemned another group for doing and explain the difference between them and me. And I'll even stipulate that there are some liberals out there who actually have principles but they are few and far between.

Do you know of ANY liberals who defend say a baker's right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Me either.

But I know quite a few liberals who defend a restaraunt owner's right to ask a Trump supporter to leave.

Those two positions are completely in congruent and frankly you'd have to be retarded and or completely dishonest to hold both positions, yet most liberals have no problem doing so and will twist themselves up into the most pretzel like positions trying to defend their "logic"

Meanwhile, the reality is in this country if you own a business you damn well should be able to serve whomever you want, and no one should be able to force you to do business with them.

Now, perhaps you are naive to think that when it came to putting up religious statues liberals would suddenly become logical and principled , but I'm more jaded and tend to believe most would put politics above principles, based on the fact that I've watched them do it over and over and over again for many many years.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here rather than assuming you know I'm right and are simply being dishonest.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...




Leave her alone..

You fuck with her liberal views you going to have to fuck with me and my conservative views..


.


.


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




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


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

RealDave said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




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.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

bear513 said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...




What on Earth are you going on about?


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





But I did. You can challenge me on that, or dispute my claim about what lefties say, 


but pretending I said it speaking for myself, is just you being a dishonest asshole.


You lost this one, Move on, you are just making a fool of yourself, and everyone already knows that, so  wasting time.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


Okay, you've sunk into the Swamp of Stereotypes and are doing nothing but flinging worthless balls of poo.  
It is an utter waste of time to argue a hypothetical with someone who has no intentions but to make liberals look dishonest, hypocritical, hateful, etc. etc.
So I won't.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


I dont make liberals look dishonest , hypocritical, hateful, etc etc. Their own actions do. Notice you posted that but you didn't even bother to try to deny that I am right.

And of course I'm talking about a stereotype and as with all stereotypes A) they exist for a reason and B) their existence doesnt mean EVERYONE in that group fits that mold. But most do.

I'll make it easier 

how do you personally feel about bakers refusing service to gays?

how do you personally feel about restaurants refusing service to Trump supporters?

There are three opinions. Two I could respect, one I can't.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 6, 2018)

bear513 said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


It's okay, bear.  I think I've got this, for now, anyway.  I appreciate the thought though.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 6, 2018)

Why can't some of these newbies be a LIBERAL for once?


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




You put forth a scenario where the community was able to discuss this rule and have input freely and seriously and honestly.


I doubt that. 


I don't know it the dems held a vote or not, but any input opposing this would have been demagogued to the Nth degree, thus your claim of "input" is, imo, NOT TRUE.


These changes are not something we as a community are choosing to do, it is being forced on us.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...




Oh, it's YOU he's talking about. I thought it was the poster you had on ignore he was talking about LOL

Well bear513 I actually have been in a couple of threads with OldLady and I thought we have had some good discussions. I've no problems whatsoever with her and so not sure why you feel the ned to white knight, but okay.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Why can't some of these newbies be a LIBERAL for once?



Because liberals are too busy burning down their own neighborhood to protest Trump eating two scoops of ice cream to join a message board 

LOL


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




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 bitch 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.


----------



## mdk (Dec 6, 2018)

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


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...





"deplorable trumpanzees", right above, for one example, why do you ask? Did you forget?


I certainly don't recall you making anything resembling a point, any time recently.


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




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


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

mdk said:


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




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


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




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.


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




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.


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




Dude. He crushed you.


----------



## mdk (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Twenty-six pages of panty staining hysterics. How delightful.
> ...



I wish people got this steamed about our crushing debt and bloated ass government.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




The point though is they didn't have to change, they chose to.  Just like IF the Republicans win the House back they can choose to change the rule again and if they do, this woman will have to comply.  Seriously this isn't that big of a deal.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

mdk said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



Or about that bitch Melania wearing high heels when she's gardening . LOL


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



No, I would not be able to. NO one would dare bring forth a motion to change them back. The PC mob would destroy them.


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




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.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


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


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

I mean the obvious solution here is House Republicans should all get MAGA hats if they wish to protest this.


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




The republicans won't dare. They would be vilified by the Media and Pop Culture as Evul and Racist.


We are NOT free to make changes. Some changes are forced down our throats and any resistance or attempt to change them back is met with massive resistance.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Twenty-six pages of panty staining hysterics. How delightful.
> ...


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.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



What's your point?  Please show me the place in the First Amendment where it says, "free exercise thereof . . . unless you're on public property".  No one in this country forfeits their right to personal religious exercise by stepping onto public property.  Sidewalks are public property.  Do you forfeit your right to freedom of speech because you're standing on a sidewalk?  Streets are public property.  Do you forfeit your right of protection against unreasonable search and seizure if the cop pulls you over while your car is on a public street?  No, I don't think so.  I defy you to find me any legal precedent that says Constitutional rights are forfeited simply by virtue of being on public property.


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...





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?


----------



## OldLady (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> I mean the obvious solution here is House Republicans should all get MAGA hats if they wish to protest this.


Trumpism has become a religion now?  I read that only religious headgear is allowed.


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...




Why is it sad?


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



Now the full head coverings, there are real security concerns there. A sad testament to our times, but we have to face reality, People who cover their faces are often times up to no good and so that can't be allowed. But wearing what amounts to a religious hoodie? Who gives a shit?


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > I mean the obvious solution here is House Republicans should all get MAGA hats if they wish to protest this.
> ...



Oh, I hadn't read that. Only religious headgear? That seems a weird rule to have in Congress. What happened to separation of church and state?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Why?  It really affects no one but her, and breast-feeding doesn't always make that as practically possible as bottle-feeding.

And what the hell does "native-born" versus immigrant have to do with anything?  Not to mention there's no more "adapting" involved in simply ignoring someone else's clothing than there is in ignoring someone breast-feeding a child.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


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


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...




All rules are out the window, when dems are in charge and the person is question checks off enough diversity boxes.


A female black muslim? Rules? What rules? lol. If she was gay or trans, they would make of her a GOD.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Congress opens with a prayer by a Congressional Chaplain. No one is being ignored. Roy Moore was removed from office for directly defying a Court Order.


Indeed, but why is Moore forbidden to express his religious faith but Ilhan Omar is not only not stopped from expressing hers, but she has democrats backing her and helping by getting rid of a 181 year old rule.
Double standard at work and Congress is backing one religion while another is forbidden to show it's face, so to speak.
In what way is this secular?


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...





My wife breast fed and worked.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...




So that judge who was ordered to remove the ten commandments from his court room wasn't peacefully practicing his religion?

See , this is what happens when people pick and choose which liberties they will defend rather than defending ALL liberty.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


There are actually not a lot of religions that still require a head covering in public, but if someone is a member of such a religion, it would give them the choice of either not participating in Congress or not complying with their religious tenets.  Not a very "fair" position to be in, is it?  I see the rule change (which already exists in the Senate, btw) as simply accommodating another religion that had never been represented in the House before.

The new House rule is at the bottom of page 11.  It doesn't give the specific language.  There is a WaPo article on it, too, but there's a paywall, so I can't get into it.
House Democrats hope to change 181-year-old rule barring hats to include exemption for religious headwear


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> LOLOL
> 
> Good boy, avoiding the question was obviously your only way out.


Your question was so fucking stupid it deserves no reply. It was really, really, really fucking stupid!
It made no sense. It's literally nonsense. It's as dumb as saying the bible said nothing about painting pictures of Jesus suffering on the cross so therefore how can such a thing be religious.

It makes me feel 50% more stupid myself  just because I've had to deal with this bullshit! "Your only way out"....I swear, that's extra special idiocy!  And you brought it up again as if you had a real point!  _LOLOL your ass!_


----------



## OldLady (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Hanging up a plaque advertising your religion in a government space is not the same as abiding by a rule of your religion.  There is no rule saying that every Christian will hang a religious plaque in their home or place of business.  Pretty sure about that.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


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

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


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



That's it?     it is outlawed BECAUSE it is "muslim" ?       no other reason  possible in your minimind?     Are children or teachers permitted to attend school wearing a DHOTI in France?    My understanding of French schools is they have all kinds of strict
rules regarding deportment and dress.    I learned that from a French
woman whose cultural background was INDIAN-----The girls in her school wore uniforms-------pink  or blue----alternating weeks--a kind of shirt waist dress.  ---that was public school----VERY CONTROLLED re hem length  etc  etc---
and even fingernail length.    Hindus did not complain of OPPRESSION.    Ask anyone you know with background in Korea----
even more CONTROLLED.    Are you dead set against ALL dress codes in school and public jobs and public places?


----------



## Taz (Dec 6, 2018)

The hijab is a sign of a woman’s submission to a man’s religion. Plus, she looks stupid.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


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


So peacefully practice it at home and not in a supposedly secular environment. What's good for all other religions is good for Islam too. Ilhan Omar's expression of her religion is out of place in a political body that professes to believe in separation of church and state. Or are we just burying that essential basic aspect of America?


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




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


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



wearing the clothing of Medieval days in Arabia is not a religious
requirement of any religion.     That clothing is a COSTUME


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


I always found the RW lack of long term memory interesting.  They can't remember what religion they are unless there are crosses everywhere.  They can't remember their reason for Christmas unless there are creches everywhere and people are saying "Merry Christmas" ONLY.  They can't remember the 10 Suggestions unless they are posted everywhere.  They forget about the Civil War unless there are statues everywhere.   They're like cats....no large frontal lobe for long term memory.   No wonder we have to keep repeating things over and over to them.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Shits the idiot who thinks the Constitution is there for him to wipe his ass.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


"We have to adjust to them"?      We are being made to wear hijabs now?   Where is THAT rule?


----------



## BoSoxGal (Dec 6, 2018)

Will you all be just as outraged when the congressperson is a Sikh man whose religion requires he wear a turban?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



I have no reason to believe that the proposed rules change package didn't get every bit as much discussion as any rules change package does when the majority changes hands.  If you can show me otherwise, go ahead.

I suspect you know even less about how rules changes are put in place than I do, and you're just running off half-cocked to pitch a fit over something you just noticed for the first time.

These changes are not something that has anything to do with any community WE are a part of, so not one damned thing is being "forced" on YOU at all.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Congress opens with a prayer by a Congressional Chaplain. No one is being ignored. Roy Moore was removed from office for directly defying a Court Order.
> ...


How is an opening prayer by a Chaplain "forbidding" your religion "to show its face?"  I am not getting this.  Stop ignoring that.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> There are actually not a lot of religions that still require a head covering in public, but if someone is a member of such a religion, it would give them the choice of either not participating in Congress or not complying with their religious tenets. Not a very "fair" position to be in, is it? I see the rule change (which already exists in the Senate, btw) as simply accommodating another religion that had never been represented in the House before.
> 
> The new House rule is at the bottom of page 11. It doesn't give the specific language. There is a WaPo article on it, too, but there's a paywall, so I can't get into it.
> House Democrats hope to change 181-year-old rule barring hats to include exemption for religious headwear


Rashida Tlaib is also entering Congress as a Muslim woman along with Omar. She doesn't bother wearing a hijab.
Is she somehow less Muslim than Omar?

It's comical that you speak of "fairness" knowing that Roy Moore was removed from his position on the bench because he could not express the same religious convictions you insist Ilhan Omar is owed. Well, not comical exactly. It's actually sick!


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

irosie91 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


And who is it who gets to make that determination?    Would you think having a Scot wearing a kilt is a costume?


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



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"?


----------



## OldLady (Dec 6, 2018)

irosie91 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


Isn't Sharia Law part of the Muslim faith?  Why is it that in Muslim countries that are not secular, women are REQUIRED to wear a headscarf?
Are you SURE it is not a rule of the religion?  Or at least some branches of it?


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


LOL

She will miss no sessions because of her hijab. Your rules are meaningless. She abides by House rules, not yours and House rules will allow her to wear it.

And I note again, you still haven’t found any compelling reasons for why House members should be denied their First Amendment rights. _“She wasn’t born here”_ is not a compelling reason.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



How is whether or not someone is native born relevant to the idea that "Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have"?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > There are actually not a lot of religions that still require a head covering in public, but if someone is a member of such a religion, it would give them the choice of either not participating in Congress or not complying with their religious tenets. Not a very "fair" position to be in, is it? I see the rule change (which already exists in the Senate, btw) as simply accommodating another religion that had never been represented in the House before.
> ...


There are different sects of Islam just like Christianity and Judaism....the more orthodox Jewish men wear a yalmuke.....not all do.   Are you going after them next?


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



In the USA  it is a costume.    It would not have been tolerated
as regular dress in my public High School for either students or
teachers.      It might be considered a problem in Ireland for teachers
or students of  policemen


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> How is an opening prayer by a Chaplain "forbidding" your religion "to show its face?" I am not getting this. Stop ignoring that.


Opening prayers in Congress have been made by all sorts of faiths. These prayers are non denominational and in order to remain secular are not an endorsement or statement of faith for any singular specific religion, unlike the hijab which is a Muslim device that reminds us all of how women in that religion wear a hijab to show they are deferential to men and Allah.
It's a great message for little girls to get from Omar and the DNC. 

The ball is back in your court.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

irosie91 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


That is incorrect.  It is not a costume, it is cultural dress and MOST schools (those who don't have issues with different people) allow it.  In fact, a male in a full dress kilt is awesome looking.   Those schools that don't allow it are bit by bit being sued for discrimination based on cultural identity as they should be.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



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?!


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> There are different sects of Islam just like Christianity and Judaism....the more orthodox Jewish men wear a yalmuke.....not all do. Are you going after them next?


That's an asinine question. Jews have served in Congress without feeling the need to wear their yarmulke or change
long standing House rules. You can do better than that...or perhaps not.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



Here's the problem with your point: Assuming this change passes, it will have gone through the process already in place for changing rules.  In effect, those proposing it will be following the rules for making changes.  If rules truly were meaningless, the Reps pushing this wouldn't have bothered and Omar would simply have worn her hijab without worrying about any rule that said otherwise.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Unless you are/were a member of the House of Representatives, every one of their rules has been "forced down our throats."  Of course, that's not exactly true, because unless you are/were a member of the House, those rules don't actually affect you.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



I happen to know the shariah rules.    Women must cover their hair if they are muslim.     These rules are more or less enforced in different
places.    I have also CORRECTLY stated that covering ones hair does not NECESSITATE   "in the style of seventh century Arabia"   Did you know that there are interpretations of Shariah law that render it a CRIME for non muslim women to use the same style of head covering used by muslim women?      You want that one too in order to fulfill the NEEDS of muslim women----and men?   There are muslim lands in which non muslims -----for the sake of ISLAM----cannot walk on the steps of a mosque------do we have a right to VIOLATE muslim law in the USA-----it impinges on the rights of muslims to do so.    Did you know that in some muslim lands ---EATING during Ramadan daytime is a crime?     Hindus working in those lands do not even mention food.     Do you impose your miserable religion on muslims thus violating their rights?


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


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.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > There are actually not a lot of religions that still require a head covering in public, but if someone is a member of such a religion, it would give them the choice of either not participating in Congress or not complying with their religious tenets. Not a very "fair" position to be in, is it? I see the rule change (which already exists in the Senate, btw) as simply accommodating another religion that had never been represented in the House before.
> ...




Get ready gentlemen, OL is gonna cuss:
FUCK ROY MOORE and the goddamned nag he rode in on.

A woman quietly going about her business and wearing a head covering as required by her faith is NOT the same as putting up a Christian monument on public government property.  Her wearing a hijab is the same as .... NOT cheating on your wife or something--it is a personal choice based in your faith that is not interfering with anyone else and has nothing to do with proselytizing for Islam.   It is a head scarf.  That is all it is.  Keep that geezer Moore out of it because it is a false equivalence and I'm getting tired of hearing it.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 6, 2018)

Taz said:


> The hijab is a sign of a woman’s submission to a man’s religion. Plus, she looks stupid.


Some men allege, women have to cover up, because there is not enough moral fortitude to go around.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



where?    in England? ------that would make sense.    In the USA in my very liberal public High School-----boys and men would not be allowed to wear a kilt to school-----even those named Scot MacDonald


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

NM.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


That’s how it’s been in the Senate. Where was your outrage?


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Congress opens with a prayer by a Congressional Chaplain. No one is being ignored. Roy Moore was removed from office for directly defying a Court Order.
> ...



Roy Moore is not and was not forbidden to express his religious faith.  He was forbidden from having a multi-ton granite monument placed and kept on display in a courthouse.  No one told him he could not wear any Christian clothing or jewelry that I've ever heard of, which would be what would need to have happened for his situation to be directly comparable to Omar's.  Either that, or Omar would have to have had some sort of Islamic monument put on display in the House and then refused to have it removed despite an order from a federal judge.

I suspect you know this and refuse to admit it.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...




I have no outrage have you even read the thread? I've defended this woman wearing her hajib as I don't give a shit one way or the other.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



"Completely reasonable" in what sense?  Because it serves a useful purpose meaningful to the greater purposes and goals of the House?  Or because you're going to put that damned Muslim in her place and show her that she has to be just like you?


----------



## OldLady (Dec 6, 2018)

irosie91 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


_Women must cover their hair if they are muslim. These rules are more or less enforced in different places._
Thanks, Rosie.  That's all I wanted to know.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Get ready gentlemen, OL is gonna cuss:
> FUCK ROY MOORE and the goddamned nag he rode in on.
> 
> A woman quietly going about her business and wearing a head covering as required by her faith is NOT the same as putting up a Christian monument on public government property. Her wearing a hijab is the same as .... NOT cheating on your wife or something--it is a personal choice based in your faith that is not interfering with anyone else and has nothing to do with proselytizing for Islam. It is a head scarf. That is all it is. Keep that geezer Moore out of it because it is a false equivalence and I'm getting tired of hearing it.


Well get ready to fucking swear some more because Roy Moore's right to express his religious convictions is just as important as Ilhan Omar's (at least if the democrats haven't changed the Constitution lately in order to accommodate
Omar). That this slab of rock is not exactly like a head scarf is absolutely immaterial and irrelevant.
If Moore is wrong that so is Omar, in principle (which I know leftists generally ignore when it suits their agenda).

Your continuing argument is as dumb as bringing Tammy Duckworth and her breast feeding child into this....as if 
a baby sucking teat is equivalent to the Constitutional concept of separation of church and state as first stated by Thomas Jefferson. IF we truly have a secular nation THEN Ilhan Omar's hijab should be just as offensive as Roy Moore's ten commandments. But of course no one likes Roy Moore and he's not a female Muslim democrat.
That makes his rights irrelevant!


----------



## Taz (Dec 6, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > The hijab is a sign of a woman’s submission to a man’s religion. Plus, she looks stupid.
> ...


Isn't that what the camels are for?


----------



## OldLady (Dec 6, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > The hijab is a sign of a woman’s submission to a man’s religion. Plus, she looks stupid.
> ...


Yes, Daniel, Muslim men have sex on the brain more than any religion I ever saw.  Almost all their rules have to do with keeping their women from straying or from other men stealing them.   lol


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Congress opens with a prayer by a Congressional Chaplain. No one is being ignored. Roy Moore was removed from office for directly defying a Court Order.
> ...


LOLOL 

You still can’t discern the difference between exercising and expressing, huh? Omar is *exercising*, i.e., practicing her religion by wearing a hijab in public. Moore was not exercising his religion by putting up a monument of the Ten Commandments.

Savvy?


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 6, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > The hijab is a sign of a woman’s submission to a man’s religion. Plus, she looks stupid.
> ...



the   HIJAB---which is nothing more than a scarf is actually more
cultural than  "religious"      In ancient Rome,  Greece and Israel----
all respectable women-----especially those married-----wore some
sort of  scarf on their heads when in public.    In the USA----quaker and amish and puritan girls did not go about with their hair hanging out---they wore some kind of cap or bonnet.  Loose hair was a kind of symbol of Licentiousness.   Even Indian women have various customs involving pulling their saris over their heads for this or that circumstance involving public or-----men around.  Another hair custom is that  mature girls-----had to bind it up -----not let it ALL HANG OUT.     Muslims have   LATELY    transformed that whole idea into a  FETISH for the sake of   GROUP CONSCIOUSNESS.   That group
consciousness also dictates the ARABIAN STYLE of the head covering--------it is more  "uniform"   than religion.   Linda Sarsour
imagines that she became a NEW RACE  when she pulled a rag
onto her head-------she became the erstwhile never described race----
                            PERSON OF COLOR    (I will try not to laugh)


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > How is an opening prayer by a Chaplain "forbidding" your religion "to show its face?" I am not getting this. Stop ignoring that.
> ...


When the House has opened with prayers from non-christian faiths, there are some poor sport christians who whine about it.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...




And in fact , most Muslim sects would forbid this woman from being a politician anyway. She's a Muslim when it's convenient for her, which isn't that unusual for religious people, but certainly takes away from the argument that this change HAD to be made so she didn't violate her religion, since her religion actually forbids her from serving anything except dinner anyway.


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 6, 2018)

The apparel concerned is not a requirement of the named religion. It is a symbol of the repression of women implicit in that religion.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Taz (Dec 6, 2018)

Where was she running? In Pakistan?


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 6, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



because it serves a useful purpose meaningful to the greater purposes and goals of the House<<<<< yes.  

It creates an aura of DECORUM  by eliminating opened PRACTICE OF this or that RELIGION IN THE HOUSE.    Catholics do  "MASS" 
regularly-----I would suggest that a  MASS  ritual not be held during
the proceedings of the house.   ------also----that Hindus not bring in
statues and donate various foods or flowers to them ----in the House. 
ETC ETC


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Get ready gentlemen, OL is gonna cuss:
> ...



Tammy Duckworth was brought into this because another poster complained about rules being changed to accommodate an individual.  It's kind of odd that someone who thinks putting a large monument on display in a courthouse is the same as wearing a hijab would suddenly fail to see any points of similarity in another comparison. 

The problem with the Moore situation wasn't the 10 commandments, it was having those commandments put on public display in a courthouse in the form of a large monument.  I believe another poster mentioned that Moore would have been allowed to wear a shirt with the commandments printed on them, which seems like a glaringly obvious way to point out the fallacy of your argument.  It is not the content of Moore's expression of religious conviction that was the problem, instead it was the form that expression took.

Your entire argument seems to be based on the false premise that any form of religious expression is the same as any other form.  As I've stated previously, personal expression =/= public expression.  Religious clothing or jewelry is a personal expression.  A multi-ton monument placed in a courthouse is a public expression, and one that can be seen as part of the government.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Roy Moore is not and was not forbidden to express his religious faith. He was forbidden from having a multi-ton granite monument placed and kept on display in a courthouse. No one told him he could not wear any Christian clothing or jewelry that I've ever heard of, which would be what would need to have happened for his situation to be directly comparable to Omar's. Either that, or Omar would have to have had some sort of Islamic monument put on display in the House and then refused to have it removed despite an order from a federal judge.
> 
> I suspect you know this and refuse to admit it.


I know that a slab of stone is not the same as a head scarf, except in the respect that they are both symbols of religious devotion and I have only stated this about fifty times by now. How many more times should I state this?
The idea that Roy Moore would have to directly mimic or closely mirror Omar's hijab (like wearing a bloody crown of thorns
or something similarly ridiculous) in order to have an argument of disparate treatment for Moore and Omar is just 
fallacious b.s.! It's nonsense and I can't get past the feeling that so many people are just literal simplistic thinkers and they can't possibly wrap their minds around a concept that compares two seemingly different things that are really the same in principle.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > LOLOL
> ...


*”Your question was so fucking stupid it deserves no reply. It was really, really, really fucking stupid!”*

LOLOL 

You’re such a fucking idiot. You claim that Moore was merely doing the same as Omar. 

Omar is *exercising* her religion.

I ask you to explain how displaying a monument of the Ten Commandments is “exercising” his religion and you turn into a pussified bowl of jello.


----------



## Taz (Dec 6, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> No offense, but I don't accept anyone else's word for anything, ...



Can I tell your husband?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



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


----------



## OldLady (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


It's definitely a blend of culture and old religious laws.  She was no doubt raised that it is the proper thing to do.  It's like Rosie said, it wouldn't be lady-like to go around with her hair hanging out in public  What our mama taught us can stick with us forever, ya know.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

irosie91 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


No...hear.  We've even had some Scottish-American Societies like SAMS (Scottish-American Military Society) offer lawyers for teenage boys told they cannot wear kilts to their proms.   This is a sharp outfit:


----------



## Desperado (Dec 6, 2018)

So then it would be ok for Republican Reps wear MAGA Caps, Fair is Fair


----------



## Taz (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


The problem is that mooslims think that women who don't cover up, never mind wear a bikini in public, are whores. You, your mother, my mother, my grandmother... all whores.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...



Dude, all that means is "He agreed with me, so it was OBVIOUSLY a win."

And I'm not a dude.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



IMHO----a kilt for DA PROM is fine-------just as good as the
traditional idiotic PENGUIN suit that the other boys have to
wear.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Not to mention they'd be opening themselves to all manner of legal issues.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...




I mean I'm cool with it, I don't think it's something to get worked up about at all, but the fact remains she can't claim "my religion says I have to cover my head so change the rules" when her religion tells her she shouldn't be there in the first place........ 

Which is why I earlier was surprised that this was limited to religious head wear. 

The truth is, this is yet another subject that is neither worth defending nor attacking.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 6, 2018)

Taz said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


It is how they were raised, I guess.  But in this country, we got enough problems with American nonMuslim men who think all women are whores---or can be used/treated like one.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




No, I crushed your "Congress can't restrict her RIGHT" argument to pieces by pointing out that Congress doesn't permit it's members to carry firearms into chambers. That you are an idiot and didn't understand that point is of little concern to me..


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

there4eyeM said:


> The apparel concerned is not a requirement of the named religion. It is a symbol of the repression of women implicit in that religion.


This apparel:  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  is not a requirement of a certain religion.  It is a symbol of torture and the repression of all those not of the same religion.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 6, 2018)

Andy Warhol's gang in their "factory"-----made a wedding dress out of
toilet paper.      How about a  toilet paper swearing in ceremony costume-----male or female for  THE HOUSE?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


Totally agree....and with the rise of INCEL-like groups that actually commit acts of terrorism.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Roy Moore is not and was not forbidden to express his religious faith. He was forbidden from having a multi-ton granite monument placed and kept on display in a courthouse. No one told him he could not wear any Christian clothing or jewelry that I've ever heard of, which would be what would need to have happened for his situation to be directly comparable to Omar's. Either that, or Omar would have to have had some sort of Islamic monument put on display in the House and then refused to have it removed despite an order from a federal judge.
> ...



The two situations are different in principle as well as specifics.  One involves an individual wearing an item on their person.  The other involves a monument which becomes part of a government building.

If nothing else, think of this: when Omar leaves, the hijab leaves with her.  When Moore left the building, the monument remained.  It was part of the courthouse at all times.  Omar's hijab is never part of the House building, it is specific to her.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


It used to allow it....before the Civil War.  But maybe you should petition them to allow it again.  Might be an excellent idea, particularly for all the new women members considering the history of sexual harassment and assault with these politicians.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > The apparel concerned is not a requirement of the named religion. It is a symbol of the repression of women implicit in that religion.
> ...




LOL that you don't understand that the basis of Muslim women being required to wear head coverings is the repression of women is both hilarious and sad.

Or, and this is far more likely, you understand this you just don't care because liberals are to defend Islam at all costs.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


You make it sound as if she is picking and choosing which parts of her religion to (conveniently) follow, and that is being unfair to her, imo.  You don't know what her "religion" tells her by having read excerpts from the Koran anymore than you can discern how a Methodist in 2018 will live based on reading the Bible.


----------



## MrShangles (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Demographic shift is changing the face of the nation. And we are changing our rules to accommodate the newcomers.
> 
> 
> This is great. Unless you liked the nation you grew up in. Then it sucks for you.



Cause we wouldn’t want immigrants to assimilate to us, we gotta change for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



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.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




Why would I , when I don't care what rules they have for themselves ? I merely point out that you no more have  a right to wear a head covering as a member of Congress than you do to carry a gun.


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




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


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




You can challenge me on that, or dispute my claim about what lefties say,


but pretending I said it speaking for myself, is just you being a dishonest asshole.


You lost this one, Move on, you are just making a fool of yourself, and everyone already knows that, so  wasting time.


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




THe context is that the rule forbidding hats has been changed to adjust to this woman.


That you are pretending to be confused about and think that I am worried that I will be forced to wear a hijab, is just you pretending to be even stupider than you are, in order to be an asshole.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> I mean the obvious solution here is House Republicans should all get MAGA hats if they wish to protest this.



I haven't seen any evidence so far that any of them do, or that they even give a damn one way or the other.  It's entirely possible many of them didn't even realize this rule existed, since hats are largely out of fashion relative to the business wear common to Congressmembers on the floor.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Tammy Duckworth was brought into this because another poster complained about rules being changed to accommodate an individual. It's kind of odd that someone who thinks putting a large monument on display in a courthouse is the same as wearing a hijab would suddenly fail to see any points of similarity in another comparison.


Is it? Or are you just not able to deal with conceptual thinking?
Breastfeeding a child on the floor of Congress does not violate any Constitutional restrictions against government making a preference in treatment of one religion over another which is exactly what this Omar issue is all about.
Next time you want to compare things make sure you are comparing apple to apples instead of apples to oranges.
Hijab to ten commandments is apples to apples.Tammy Duckworth to hijab is breasts to apples. Your Duckworth comparison is not pertinent in any salient or important way.
I know, details details.



> The problem with the Moore situation wasn't the 10 commandments, it was having those commandments put on public display in a courthouse in the form of a large monument. I believe another poster mentioned that Moore would have been allowed to wear a shirt with the commandments printed on them, which seems like a glaringly obvious way to point out the fallacy of your argument. It is not the content of Moore's expression of religious conviction that was the problem, instead it was the form that expression took.


The claim that Roy Moore would be allowed to wear clothing with the ten commandments printed on them is pure imaginary hogwash! The ACLU would be suing him
so fast it would be breath taking  They won't allow little crosses put up on remote mountain top memorials but they would allow the ten commandments in Moore's courtroom? _Bullshit! _

If you are claiming people would be okay with Moore's proselytizing if only it weren't on a slab of stone then I have to conclude you haven't lived in America very long, if you indeed live here at all.
I'm not defending what Moore did, placing a slab of stone in his courthouse. But I'm defending the concept of equal treatment under the law and allowing Omar to have her way with regards to her religion but not Moore is a
fucking _in your face_ disparate application of the law.
Either people don't want to acknowledge that or they are just too damned dumb!




> Your entire argument seems to be based on the false premise that any form of religious expression is the same as any other form. As I've stated previously, personal expression =/= public expression. Religious clothing or jewelry is a personal expression. A multi-ton monument placed in a courthouse is a public expression, and one that can be seen as part of the government.


Except that's not a false premise! A Star of David is not the same as Omar's hijab but they are both undeniably symbols of religious faith. If the star was ten feet tall or merely a dashboard ornament the
comparison does not change. Try to wrap your brain around that!


----------



## OldLady (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Even if that were true, so what?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

MrShangles said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Demographic shift is changing the face of the nation. And we are changing our rules to accommodate the newcomers.
> ...


So....from your sarcasm, you want to prevent women thru-out the U.S. from wearing a hijab?


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...




It's not being unfair to her, it's merely stating facts , I even stated that it isn't that unusual for religious people . Do you know of any Muslim sects which require women to wear a head covering at all time, but also allow them to become politicians? I do not.

And you can't just ignore the fact that we KNOW Muslims, and others but in this thread we are talking about Muslims, use our country's laws , rules, and customs against us, so you MUST consider that this woman getting this rule changed is simply the first step in something much more sinister. That doesn't mean it is, that just means you have to consider it and take it seriously if you are even the least bit concerned about our country.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Tammy Duckworth was brought into this because another poster complained about rules being changed to accommodate an individual. It's kind of odd that someone who thinks putting a large monument on display in a courthouse is the same as wearing a hijab would suddenly fail to see any points of similarity in another comparison.
> ...


On what basis would the ACLU be able to sue Moore for a personal clothing choice?   Point out the precedent, please.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


Again, the fear, fear, fear of deplorables for a woman in a hijab.


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




This is an example of an the national mindset where it is on US to adjust to them instead of the other way around.


Plenty of changes are occurring that are effecting me and mine communities, and it is silly of you to pretend this is some isolated incident.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



I think it's more like the Republicans wouldn't bother, because who gives a shit?

You keep blathering about "we are not free to make changes", just as though you still labor under the mistaken idea that YOU have ever gotten to make changes in the day-to-day running of Congress.  YOU are not a member of Congress.  You are not a Congressional staffer.  You aren't even the Capitol building janitor.  This is 100% nothing to do with you and none of your business.  NOTHING is being "forced down your throat", because it doesn't affect you except to the extent that you want to sit around stewing and being outraged by the knowledge that some "black Muslim" - to quote your frequent phrase - is DARING to be in Congress without knuckling under to how you think she should be.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...




If you can't debate a point without resorting to childish remarks , and to make matters worse you didn't even debate the point, then you have no place in serious discussion.


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




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.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


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


She’s allowed to wear it now on public grounds.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...



Rather than simply abolish the rule, the Democrats proposed an exemption for religious wear.  If I had to guess, they want to head off some nutcase accidentally getting elected and showing up in a Scarlett O'Hara cartwheel sun hat to make some sort of point.

They don't want to conflict with religious exercise, but they don't want to open the door to the House floor becoming a circus.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


_Do you know of any Muslim sects which require women to wear a head covering at all time, but also allow them to become politicians? I do not._
Donovan, I don't know any practicing Muslims.  Do you?  How do you know so much about their faith?  Or are you just guessing?  Be honest.  What mosque are you active in, what Muslim families are you close with, to know how young women are raised in their faith in this country?

_Muslims, use our country's laws , rules, and customs against us, so you MUST consider that this woman getting this rule changed is simply the first step in something much more sinister._
Not buying that one.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> *”Your question was so fucking stupid it deserves no reply. It was really, really, really fucking stupid!”*
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> ...


Look, don't get butt hurt over your stupidity. It's not my fault and you are taking up my important time with your nonsense.
And if you think bringing out the word exercising makes a big difference, it does not!
In fact it's not a distinction at all, dumbass.
On ignore you go.


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




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.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...




That they might have gone though the motions, does not refute my point. 


The rules matter less than the need to pander to "diversity" and "political correctness".


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...




I've spent much time studying Muslims as part of my job. I can't and won't go into details in public about my work, but suffice to say I have studied Muslims for years.

And my dear if you don't believe that people who hate this country use our own laws, and governing rules, and customs against us you haven't been paying attention. The Chinese in particular have been doing exactly this for years.


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...




Your pretense that this is just about hats in the House is noted and dismissed.


My point stands. 


We are NOT free to make changes. Some changes are forced down our throats and any resistance or attempt to change them back is met with massive resistance.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Don't believe I ever said she couldn't.  I said breast-feeding has practical concerns and issues that bottle-feeding doesn't.  It's one of the reasons I didn't breast-feed with my kids.  And I would hope we can agree that being a member of Congress is rather different from reguar jobs.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




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.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> On what basis would the ACLU be able to sue Moore for a personal clothing choice? Point out the precedent, please.


Seriously? On the basis that Moore's clothing would constitute a government endorsement of a specific religion (exactly like Omar's hijab).
Have you heard of the Constitution, by any chance?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



No, he wasn't.  Making changes to a public building is not an exercise of your personal religion.  If you must exercise your religion by erecting a multi-ton statue, do it on your own property.

"This is what happens"?  You mean halfwits show up and blather nonsensically about false analogies despite being told 271 times in a 24-hour period exactly why it's false?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> 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.


Indeed! The system has been changed purely to accommodate one specific person. How is that living within our system?


----------



## Natural Citizen (Dec 6, 2018)

There's nothing about foreign policy on either of their sites. Just a bunch of progressive pablum, really.

I wonder how they'll vote in terms of middle eastern conflicts. There's been talk about making peace with the Taliban again. And the US is really is in need of some illusion of victory there.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


And exactly WHAT IS our society?    Please give us all the definitive rule book on what is culturally allowed in the U.S. and what is not.   TIA


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



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.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > On what basis would the ACLU be able to sue Moore for a personal clothing choice? Point out the precedent, please.
> ...


No...it's a personal choice on what to wear by a person......NOT a government endorsement.  I'm sorry that you are not up there yet in comprehension of the difference.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> And exactly WHAT IS our society? Please give us all the definitive rule book on what is culturally allowed in the U.S. and what is not. TIA


"Society" as defined by what is Constitutionally allowed.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


So.....now we get to the crux of the complaint.....you want a [sic] organization or group or community changing its rules just to make you happy too.     It's jealousy.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > And exactly WHAT IS our society? Please give us all the definitive rule book on what is culturally allowed in the U.S. and what is not. TIA
> ...



Wait....you think the Constitution tells us what we are allowed?  Don't you find that rather restrictive?


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




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


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> No...it's a personal choice on what to wear by a person......NOT a government endorsement. I'm sorry that you are not up there yet in comprehension of the difference.


A personal choice or not, so what? ALL clothing is a personal choice unless one is in the military or going to a
school with a dress code. So what?  Moore may not make a "personal choice" that would put him in conflict with the US Constitution. Have your mom explain things to you.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


The Lions Club, when they finally allowed women in.
The Senior Play stage crew in HS when they finally allowed girls in.
The NAS I was stationed at when they finally allowed black shoe junior officers to get off-base BAQ instead of just the aviators.

Just three off the top of my head.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > No...it's a personal choice on what to wear by a person......NOT a government endorsement. I'm sorry that you are not up there yet in comprehension of the difference.
> ...


And what personal choice COULD Moore make that would put him in conflict with the US Constitution?


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




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.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Get ready gentlemen, OL is gonna cuss:
> ...


LOLOL 

You poor thing. Bless your heart. 

Expressing one’s religion is not the same as exercising it.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Wait....you think the Constitution tells us what we are allowed? Don't you find that rather restrictive?


The Supreme Court has defined what is permissible when it comes to any governmental entity engaging in what is seen as endorsement of a specific religion over all others. Is that restrictive?


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




Or it could be as simple as no one has asked before.


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...




I said "destroy". That includes legalistic attacks. 


So, like I said, I would NOT be able to just bring forth a motion to change them back. 


That claim has been refuted. Thanks for your support on that.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Has there been occasion before this to change it?   

Ironically, I would not expect all this deplorable pearl clutching if the first had been a Sikh MAN......it's always the women who bear the brunt of RW whining over "but it's always been this way!!!!!"


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




I do not have to give a definitive account of all of our Society and Culture to assert that it has value and that conserving that is a valid goal.


Your request is moronic. And dishonest.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




Oh here we go with the "conservatives are misogynists" bullshit meanwhile at least 10 liberals are on this board right now calling Melania Trump a whore because she's married to Donald.


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




That is one possible interpretation. 


Or I could be just pointing out the fact that she received special treatment. 


D'uh.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> And what personal choice COULD Moore make that would put him in conflict with the US Constitution?


You claim he could wear a shirt with the Ten Commandments written all over it. Perhaps he could at home. 
But never at his work as a judge. That would be wrong in a hundred different ways. Are you playing dumb, or really are puzzled by the concept of separation of church and state?


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

Desperado said:


> So then it would be ok for Republican Reps wear MAGA Caps, Fair is Fair


Sure. All you have to do is get the Congress to allow it.


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...





So the rules were changed and THEN you joined.


You did not join, and then demand and receive changes for your convenience.


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 6, 2018)

If a person chooses to wear a symbol of female repression in public, that is protected expression. Wearing it in private, in a context of governmental function, can be considered as quite different.


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




I saw at least one reference to someone else asking and being denied.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


So....you cannot give a definitive account of all our Society and Culture.......and yet, here you try to stand in judgement of this new Representative...wagging your finger at her hijab.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Share that one with us.


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




Yes, there was. At least once.


So, shove your gender baiting.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > And what personal choice COULD Moore make that would put him in conflict with the US Constitution?
> ...


Why not as a judge?   It's gonna be covered by his robes anyways.


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...





Nope. I'm judging the weak fools that considered it important to change the rules for her.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Well then, you can link that "at least once" for us, right?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


We know.....because dropping this rule frightens you to no end.


----------



## Correll (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...




Why? Nothing I say will change your mind.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Taz said:


> The hijab is a sign of a woman’s submission to a man’s religion. Plus, she looks stupid.



Irrelevant.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Ah....and there we have it.   There was no such thing.   You lied.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

there4eyeM said:


> If a person chooses to wear a symbol of female repression in public, that is protected expression. Wearing it in private, in a context of governmental function, can be considered as quite different.




That's the hilarious thing. The head covering is meant to repress women , remind them that they are subservient to men. Which certainly explains why Democrats favor them. The party that really has a war against women.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


LOL 

You crushed nothing with that since there’s a compelling interest in not allowing firearms in Congress.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



My God you people are ignorant. If you had a RIGHT to either, Congress couldn't pass a rule/law against it. You do NOT have a right to either, so therefor changing the rule either way does not affect a right. Congress could change the rule about firearms in chambers TODAY if they wanted to. 

Rendering the argument that she has a right to wear her hijab in chambers moot, she has no such right. Argument DESTROYED.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


She has a right now....the House dropped the restriction.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


I think it would be fun to get rid of that restriction.  I'm surprised the NRA isn't all over that.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > If a person chooses to wear a symbol of female repression in public, that is protected expression. Wearing it in private, in a context of governmental function, can be considered as quite different.
> ...


Interesting....so when Catholic institutions such as the Vatican require women to be covered, that's repression.    Ok, good to know.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



This is about a woman in a _hijab_, because you think we need to demand that they change to be like us, rather than us simply making room for them to be different alongside us.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Dec 6, 2018)

Relevant reading...

_The first time a veil was worn on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, the wearer was not, as one would expect, a Muslim woman. Instead, it was a woman named Carolyn Maloney, a Democratic representative from New York. In October 2001, as the ruins of the Twin Towers were still smoldering, Maloney put on a blue burqa, the kind worn by women in Afghanistan, as part of a theatrical appeal to get representatives to vote for a war against the Taliban. “The veil is so thick, it is difficult to breathe,” Maloney declared as part of her plea for war against the Taliban whom she—incorrectly—blamed for the 9/11 attacks.
_
Continued - Two Muslim Women Are Headed to Congress


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > If a person chooses to wear a symbol of female repression in public, that is protected expression. Wearing it in private, in a context of governmental function, can be considered as quite different.
> ...


Interesting....so when Catholic institutions such as the Vatican require women to be covered, that's repression.    Ok, good to know.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Apparently, the House no-hats rule is an integral, foundational part of our democratic republic, despite the fact that hardly anyone even knew it existed until last week.


----------



## Taz (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


She is a cherry picker, because she doesn’t follow sharia law completely.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Why not as a judge? It's gonna be covered by his robes anyways.


Because is anyone ever saw the shirt beneath the robes, a court clerk, a bystander, anyone, then Moore would be wide open to all the censures that the court handed down to him due to his posting of the Ten Commandments in his courthouse which is what brought him such legal disdain to begin with. 
He isn't supposed to be bringing his religious fervor into the courthouse in any manner at all. It violates separation of church and state. 
But now that concept has been broken by the democrats on behalf of Ilhan Omar so perhaps we will see the Ten Commandments in the court room once more.


----------



## Taz (Dec 6, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > The hijab is a sign of a woman’s submission to a man’s religion. Plus, she looks stupid.
> ...


So are your dentures. Yet she still looks stupid and submitted.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



I think it's actually a red herring to discuss whether or not her religion officially requires the _hijab _as a tenet of their beliefs, for the simple reason that it STILL leads us down the path of requiring people to vet their personal exercise of religion through other people.

As a Christian, I believe that it would be a sin for me to deliberately choose not to do something that God wants me to do.  That applies even if it is not something that is universally and officially considered sinful by the church and other Christians.  The sin is in the deliberate choice to disobey God.

Therefore, it would be a violation of my free exercise of religion to require me to do the opposite of what God wants of me, because you would basically be forcing me to commit a sin.

I'm not going to violate someone else's rights by forcing them to do something they would consider disobedience to their god without an extremely compelling reason to do so.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



I believe I asked the same question, and have not yet received an answer.  If we at some point started to have one set of rights for native-born citizens and another set for naturalized citizens, no one told me.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 6, 2018)

Where is Versace when we need him!  It should be about, Muslim fashion.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > There are different sects of Islam just like Christianity and Judaism....the more orthodox Jewish men wear a yalmuke.....not all do. Are you going after them next?
> ...



Can you name a single Orthodox Jew who has served in the House?

Do you even know the difference between an Orthodox Jew and other sorts of Jews?

Do you know the definition of the word "orthodox"?


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Dec 6, 2018)

Over 940 posts on a topic of no importance. Right wing frothing at its very best.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Over 940 posts on a topic of no importance. Right wing frothing at its very best.


Frothing?   More like Fear.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



Yeah, or maybe her personal religious convictions are, y'know, personalized.

Christians practice their faith with an enormous spectrum of variety.  Doesn't make one "more Christian" than another; just means they each have a different view of what God requires from them.  And depending on the issue, they may actually all be right.

Likewise, not all Muslims are hardline fundamentalists, but even more . . . reformed, for lack of a better word, Muslim women still hold to a lot of the modesty requirements.

Bottom line, it's between her and Allah.  If you aren't either of those people, your judgement is irrelevant.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

The hijab is a wonderful example of submission and deference to the patriarchal culture that comprises Islam (and all the non believers that are all potential rape victims of it) and I imagine all the little girls who will be watching Ilhan Omar go about her business now will one day suddenly get the paradox of the DNC backing Omar and simultaneously pretending to be a champion of women's rights and a defender of their bodies in all ways.

What a great day that will be when the light bulb goes off in their heads.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

there4eyeM said:


> The apparel concerned is not a requirement of the named religion. It is a symbol of the repression of women implicit in that religion.



The decision in question is not yours to make, so your opinion is irrelevant.

All you need to know is that SHE considers it necessary, and that it affects you not in the slightest.


----------



## Taz (Dec 6, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


So if she thinks that chopping off a robber's hand is ok (as per sharia), that's ok with you?


----------



## Taz (Dec 6, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > The apparel concerned is not a requirement of the named religion. It is a symbol of the repression of women implicit in that religion.
> ...


So if SHE considers it necessary to worship a prophet who was a pedophile, and wants to marry off HER 9 year old daughter to an old guy, you're ok with that?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Taz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > No offense, but I don't accept anyone else's word for anything, ...
> ...



I don't know what sort of relationships YOU have, but my husband is not just "anyone".  He is a separate, unique, special entity; almost an entire different and more highly-evolved species unto himself.

And I still don't take his word for things sometimes.  And he's well aware of it.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Over 940 posts on a topic of no importance. Right wing frothing at its very best.


And now you have added your worthless opinion comprised of a mix of animal dung and ignorance.Well done.
Actually the issue is very important and filled with Constitutional issues but how could you possibly know that?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Desperado said:


> So then it would be ok for Republican Reps wear MAGA Caps, Fair is Fair



Not unless you can make a credible claim that your religious beliefs require it.  As much as I think some people worship Trump, I still doubt anyone will take it seriously.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Wait til an ultra-orthodox Jew is elected.....they will lose their minds!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...



The fact remains that YOU can't decide what she can and can't do.  Your whole post is predicated on the idea that someone else gets to be the arbiter of "Yes, your religious belief is correct" and "No, your religion doesn't really teach that".

The truth is, your understanding of Islam - or any other religion - is irrelevant to someone else's beliefs.  If SHE believes she can hold elected office but still needs to wear a hijab, then guess what?  HER beliefs are not up for a vote.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Why not as a judge? It's gonna be covered by his robes anyways.
> ...


Nope....but nice illustration of your fear fear FEAR!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



No, you THOUGHT you crushed it, because you THOUGHT you made a valid point.  Your opinion on that subject, like your opinion on whether or not Ms. Omar's beliefs are "real Islam", holds no weight.

That you are an idiot and refuse to hear anything but your own voice is of no concern to me whatsoever.

Your "brilliant" parallel of "a headscarf is JUST LIKE A GUN!" remains marginally less ludicrous than your long-lost twin Eric's attempt to equate a headscarf and a multi-ton statue, but that's literally the only good point about it.

Call me when you finally sack up enough to answer the question of, "What's the compelling interest in a woman's personal clothing beyond the fact that a handful of anti-Muslim bigots don't like it?"  Because if I really have to treat the emanations from your face sphincter as though they're serious, thoughtful, and intelligent, then let's do this thing and get it over with.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Over 940 posts on a topic of no importance. Right wing frothing at its very best.
> ...


It really isnt. You just hate muslims and dont want to accomodate them. It makes you look small and mean spirited.The nasty party.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Nope....but nice illustration of your fear fear FEAR!


You don't give me slightest suggestion to imagine you could possibly know what you are talking about. And you make no effort to rectify that.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...



"I merely point out that two very dissimilar things are exactly the same, and therefore there are no rights whatsoever that Congress can't simply ignore at will for no reason."


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

Tommy Tainant said:


> It really isnt. You just hate muslims and dont want to accomodate them. It makes you look small and mean spirited.The nasty party.


It really is and your ignorance about things you haven't the slightest clue about is really breathtaking.
I wouldn't dream of trying to butt in and pretend I know about your parliamentary nonsense but that doesn't seem to stop you when it comes to the Constitution. What colossal gall!
You are gift that keeps on giving...ignorance.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Taz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


Because her wearing a hijab is just like changing our laws on robbery/theft punishment criteria to match up with some ME theocracy.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Taz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...


Is marrying off her 9 year old daughter to Roy Moore legal in this country?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > It really isnt. You just hate muslims and dont want to accomodate them. It makes you look small and mean spirited.The nasty party.
> ...


Still very very frightened of an American woman wearing a hijab.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 6, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



you continue to make a fool of yourself.    NO ONE is demanding that she  NOT COVER HER HAIR-----the issue is how she does it.   Her  "god"  does not demand (if you want to go down that road) that she
WRAP HER HEAD IN A MEDIEVAL Arabian headdress.   ----it is, very simply,  a custom in the both the middle east and far east for thousands of years that grown women cover their hair in PUBLIC.  
They did it in Rome, in Greece ------probably not Egypt.  -----  In fact
women wore hats when my mother was a girl in New York City.   For the sake of decorum------of course women should be able to wear a discreet head covering when acting as a Representative of the USA or  a teacher in a public school if they consider it a requirement of their religion   Clothing SPECIFIC to a given religion may be curtailed for the sake of  DECORUM.    Similarly----if someone decides to decorate with a giant crucifix with a  "jesus" nailed on for a
congressional meeting-----I would consider that----RUDE and Disruptive  too.     ----also,  an Indian dhoti would seem out of place too-----Hindus are people with a culture too-----with all kinds of
symbolic decorations     I would expect an Indian Female in
congress to avoid showing up in a Sari----especially of the skimpy kind which does not seem risqué to people from India---would seem
overly sexy to some Baptists.    Ie---I support a reasonable, moderate
and secular, non-distracting  dress code.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > *”Your question was so fucking stupid it deserves no reply. It was really, really, really fucking stupid!”*
> ...


You must be retarded to think challenging you to demonstrate your claims is a “stupid question”...

... or a pussy who’s using that as an excuse to avoid answering the question to back your idiocies.

Or maybe you’re just both a retard AND a pussy. 

Either way, your idiocy is DOA since you can’t prove it.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


As stated, I did not ask you because nobody cares about you.


----------



## Taz (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


I'm asking if it's ok for her to hold sharia law above our Constitution like a LOT of mooselimbs do? And if it's okay for her to push sharia type legislation?


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 6, 2018)

She can wear an Indian headdress for all I care.  I won't even accuse her of "cultural appropriation".


----------



## Taz (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


So it's ok with you if that's one of her goals as a lawmaker?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Still very very frightened of an American woman wearing a hijab.


That's a straw man if ever there was one. Claiming someone is "frightened" of this openly un Constitutional move is just
b.s. and a cowardly way of ducking the real issue.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...




do YOU know what constitutes an  "ULTRA ORTHODOX JEW"?----
I got news-------I know lots.      NONE wear that traditional garb stuff
that you have pictured when they are functioning as judges or lawyers or plying a scapel in the operating room.    Those in such positions
ADAPT and blend for the sake of decorum


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


No, I’m pretty sure Melanie’s called a whore because she did porn before marrying trump.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 6, 2018)

Taz said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


But she lives in America, where we do not have Sharia Law.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



He's having trouble differentiating between "special treatment", where one person gets considerations not available to anyone else, and simply being the catalyst for a change which applies equally to everyone.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


Great, ^^^ another idiot ^^^ who doesn’t understand that even rights have restrictions.

Can you take your gun with you if you’re incarcerated? Can you scream “fire” in a crowded theater where there is no fire?

Thanks for admitting you’re too stupid to contribute coherently. Here ya go....


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Yeah, no.  If we were talking about us having to actually change something about ourselves, that would be one thing.  Since we're talking about us merely having to accommodate their presence and participation in our society without changing anything we ourselves do or don't do, you're way off-course.

Unless those "plenty of changes" you're talking about involve women wearing _hijabs _and actually have some detrimental effect - or ANY effect - on you personally, it's irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...



Ooh, the noob is now going to start handing down rules for message board behavior.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



I do actually know some practicing Muslim women.  They all wear hijabs, and since I know them from work, I would have to assume they're from a less-fundamental type of Islam which allows women to have jobs (and presumably to drive), but which still holds certain views about female modesty.  Can't say that I've ever questioned them that closely, because it would be invasive and rude.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

Taz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


That would violate U.S. law.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



So basically, that whole concept of universal Constitutional rights for all citizens is now bullshit if the citizens in question insist on being different from what you, in your almighty wisdom, have determined is "the only right way to be American"?

Never mind that centuries-long history of America accommodating a wide variety of cultures and religions, so long as there is no violation of other people's rights and the individuals abide by our laws and give the same respect to other people.

The new America is apparently "If your religion makes you look funny to me, no rights for you!"

"It is on them to figure out how to live in our society" = "You'd better change to be exactly like us"


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Still very very frightened of an American woman wearing a hijab.
> ...


LOLOLOL 

What the fuck is unconstitutional about allowing a U.S. citizen to exercise her religion??

You dumbfucks really do think the Constitution is nothing but toilet paper.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Taz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Define her "pushing sharia type legislation"......

Isn't it amazing how deplorables are so scared of an American woman in a hijab that they are now all bout cutting hands off, marrying 9 year old girls to old men like Roy Moore and other things that really and truly go against our Constitution and our laws.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Taz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Is it?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Still very very frightened of an American woman wearing a hijab.
> ...


You've been in frightened panic mode since you started posting on this thread.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


Tho I'll wager that those crying in fear the loudest against this new Congresswoman would have gladly voted for Roy Moore who has clearly stated by word and deed that he wants this country to live by christian sharia law.


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 6, 2018)

Taz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Inherently, by definition, beyond dispute, any one professing a religious belief must owe allegiance to its principles. It is either or.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Natural Citizen said:


> There's nothing about foreign policy on either of their sites. Just a bunch of progressive pablum, really.
> 
> I wonder how they'll vote in terms of middle eastern conflicts. There's been talk about making peace with the Taliban again. And the US is really is in need of some illusion of victory there.



I'd say that's a concern the voters who elected Ms. Omar and the other lady whose name I can never remember need very much to address for themselves.  I have my doubts as to how much realistic thought they gave to the issue during the election.


----------



## Taz (Dec 6, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


As a good mooselimb, she must advocate for sharia, and hold sharia above our Constitution. Otherwise, she might as well put a crown on her head and call herself Her Majesty.


----------



## Taz (Dec 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


But as a lawmaker, is it okay for her to believe in sharia above our Constitution? Because that's what real mooselimbs are supposed to do.


----------



## Taz (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Not scared of anything, just making a point. You're just scared that we won't allow carpet kissing in the Capitol Building.


----------



## Taz (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Would that be okay with you? Is the question.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

Taz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Of course she can believe whatever she wants. You advocating for mind control now?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Taz said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Who says she must?   Are you the one who tells muslims what they must and must not do?  Is the muslimsplainin'?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Taz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Nope....just like it's not ok for the likes of Roy Moore to have the goal of christian sharia as a lawmaker.   Would you have voted for him if you lived in Alabama?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Taz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


"carpet kissing".....  You are truly frightened to the point of almost hysteria.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...




By the same token, it's quite clear from your juvenile postings that you would NOT defend Roy Moore in the manner you are defending this woman. So STFU.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

there4eyeM said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Ah...is that why all those evangelical christians are owing their allegiance to a three time married adultery/sexual abusing liar?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


You are absolutely correct I would NOT defend a child fondler like I would a woman wearing a scarf on her head.   Very astute of you.


----------



## Taz (Dec 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


She can do that in a mooselimb country.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> Expressing one’s religion is not the same as exercising it.



This nonsense that you obviously read or heard somewhere and adopted as your own is pablum for the moron. Obviously expressing your religion is a form of exercising it. Stupid to even argue otherwise . You simpletons are hilarious.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> You've been in frightened panic mode since you started posting on this thread.


I admit your idiocy and transparently false arguments are frightening in that some people apparently think like you do.


----------



## Taz (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


Then it’s like hating hockey and walking around with a NY Rangers sweater on all the time. Mixed messages.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




What does Joe Biden have to do with this?  Oh that's right you are just stupid and dishonest. Obviously we were assuming all factors remained the same. You would not defend Roy Moore's right to wear a hat in Congress. You know this, I know this, the entire world knows this.

If you can't honestly debate a topic I'll just ignore your drivel from this point forward.


----------



## Taz (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


No.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




How stupid the both of you are. It is perfectly legal and okay for both of them to want their respective religions to be the law of the USA . What would NOT be right is either of them forcing their way on the rest of us.

Thankfully, neither have done so, or even tried to do so. You both are merely idiots who hate one religion or the other.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> This nonsense that you obviously read or heard somewhere and adopted as your own is pablum for the moron. Obviously expressing your religion is a form of exercising it. Stupid to even argue otherwise . You simpletons are hilarious.


I'm glad you noticed. _Shit for brains_ thinks he (she or it) really is on to something though I tried to get through about this point many posts ago. And that's not even the dumbest thing he (she/it) has said. Read what he (she or it) said about the Ten Commandments. It's hilarious!

I put that loser on ignore.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Ah...is that why all those evangelical christians are owing their allegiance to a three time married adultery/sexual abusing liar?


As opposed to who? Hillary the Hildebeast?
Sometimes one doesn't get to choose between two perfect choices. Taking the lesser of two evils is always a viable option in an imperfect world.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



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.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Taz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


So you do not believe in religious freedom in this country for fellow Americans.  You a trump supporter?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> So you do not believe in religious freedom in this country for fellow Americans. You a trump supporter?


No one has the freedom to impose their medieval religion on others. But Ilhan Omar may be part of a new wave of Muslims who doesn't want to impose her religion's savagery on others (though she did defend the people who were defendants in the female genital mutilation case). Yeah...maybe not.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


You spelled Roy Moore wrong.  Or maybe you tried to spell Dennis Hastert....you know...the pervert that the GOP elected to the third highest office in the US.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > So you do not believe in religious freedom in this country for fellow Americans. You a trump supporter?
> ...


I'm sorry to hear that someone is forcing a hijab on you.   But does it make you look good?


----------



## Votto (Dec 6, 2018)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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.
> 
> ...



I wonder how much explosives she can hide in that scarf when she enters the Congressional chambers?

Then again, she would only do that if she were trying to save the country.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> I'm sorry to hear that someone is forcing a hijab on you. But does it make you look good?


What I wear isn't the issue but you knew that.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 6, 2018)

irosie91 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



Multiple posters have decried the possibility of the House changing its rules to accommodate Omar.  It hasn't simply been 'hijabs are bad', it's been an argument that she should not be able to wear any head covering because the House rules don't currently permit it, and those rules apparently should never be changed if only one person is being discomfited.  Either that, or no religious ornamentation should ever be granted an exception.

And again, it's been pointed out multiple times that the Senate does not have a rule preventing religious headwear.  That makes the consternation about the House possibly allowing a hijab seem even more silly.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 6, 2018)

Votto said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...


She models herself after Tim McVeigh?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Multiple posters have decried the possibility of the House changing its rules to accommodate Omar. It hasn't simply been 'hijabs are bad', it's been an argument that she should not be able to wear any head covering because the House rules don't currently permit it, and those rules apparently should never be changed if only one person is being discomfited. Either that, or no religious ornamentation should ever be granted an exception.
> 
> And again, it's been pointed out multiple times that the Senate does not have a rule preventing religious headwear. That makes the consternation about the House possibly allowing a hijab seem even more silly.


What the Senate does is immaterial. The question is are we still a secular nation or not?
Presumably _everyone_ in government has a rule preventing religious wear because we supposedly profess a belief in separation of church and state. You seem to think not. Tell me when the concept of separation of church and state was invalidated. I missed that Constitutional revision.


----------



## Taz (Dec 6, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


You don’t even support real freedom of religion or you would care that sharia is outlawed.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Olde Europe (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > [...] He put a huge monument on public government property, on display like a giant billboard, advertising his religion.  That's a no no, according to the Court and the big no no was ignoring the Court's Order not to.
> ...



Nice.  I mean, really, that was well done.  And you are perfectly right, double standards should be pointed out wherever they occur, and in one's own camp in particular.  Integrity demands no less.  But, let's have a closer look at the two cases of "no service".

The baker discriminates against would-be customers, without regard for the person, merely for their being members of a group.  Moreover, members of a group that, historically, faced discrimination, harassment, and worse, should not, on allegedly religious grounds, receive a wedding cake.

With that in mind, let's look at the restaurant owner.  He asked, politely, a member of he upper crust of the Trump administration, which collectively supported, and thus collectively bore responsibility for, their atrocious immigration policy - gratuitously separating children from their parents - to leave the premises.  

So, in one case, we have the profoundly immoral continuation of a historical pattern of discrimination against an otherwise unknown member of that discriminated-against group, and in the other case we have a morally grounded objection to a policy for which the person asked to leave the restaurant had some responsibility.

I can't help it, these cases are not only dissimilar, they are completely different, with completely different motivations at work, and thus I find it completely acceptable to condemn the baker, and accept the restaurant owner's behavior.

Finally, I cannot recall a single liberal who would not condemn religious monuments of a weight, size, and public visibility comparable to the 10-commandments monument, no matter the religion, on public premises.  Your assumption to the contrary, I fear, doesn't hold water.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Still very very frightened of an American woman wearing a hijab.
> ...



Is any expression of personal religious belief by a Representative while in the House unconstitutional?


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Multiple posters have decried the possibility of the House changing its rules to accommodate Omar. It hasn't simply been 'hijabs are bad', it's been an argument that she should not be able to wear any head covering because the House rules don't currently permit it, and those rules apparently should never be changed if only one person is being discomfited. Either that, or no religious ornamentation should ever be granted an exception.
> ...



Let me get this straight: if the House of Representatives allows members to wear religious headwear while on the floor, it is a violation of the Constitution, but if the Senate does the same, it is immaterial?  Really?  If it escaped your attention, the Senate is also a chamber of Congress.  

If you honestly presume that everyone in government is prohibited from wearing any kind of religious clothing or ornamentation, you are extremely out of touch with reality, not to mention relevant Supreme Court rulings.  Then again, maybe I'm the one who is out of touch: can you please tell me the case(s) in which the USSC ruled that all religious clothing is prohibited by government employees?

The concept of separation of church and state does not mean that all personal expression of faith is banned, whatever you might profess to the contrary.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 6, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



It wasn't for religious reasons, but Frederica Wilson did try to get the hat ban lifted about 8 years ago.  
Frederica Wilson Gives Up on Fight to Wear Hats on House Floor

I happened to have seen an article about it while looking at things relevant to Ms. Omar's situation.  Obviously it was a different set of circumstances than this current one.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Tammy Duckworth was brought into this because another poster complained about rules being changed to accommodate an individual. It's kind of odd that someone who thinks putting a large monument on display in a courthouse is the same as wearing a hijab would suddenly fail to see any points of similarity in another comparison.
> ...



I didn't say anything about proselytizing.  I don't consider wearing a hijab or a cross or anything similar to be proselytizing.  That you do is an unfortunate issue for you, but doesn't really affect me.

Do you think the ACLU never defends the religious expression of Christians or something along those lines?

You seem to have a very hard time understand there is a difference between a monument and a piece of attire.

Equal treatment does not mean that if one form of religious expression is permitted, any form must be permitted.  That's simply asinine and has never been true in this country.  

The comparison absolutely does change if you go from a Star of David as part of clothing, or a dashboard ornament in a personal car, compared to a monument made a part of a government building.  You seem incapable of separating the concepts of personal expression and public expression; you don't seem to see that one form of expression can belong to an individual while another can be seen as representing the government.  A government building espousing a religion's tenets is different from an individual doing the same.  By having the large monument placed on display in the courthouse, Roy Moore made it not a personal expression of religious belief, but instead a public one, one inherently tied to the government.  By wearing a hijab, Ilhan Omar only shows a personal expression of religious belief; it is not inherently tied to the government.  Representatives have lives outside of government, while a government building is always a government building.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



It seems to me that Ms. Omar is doing exactly that.  She's a citizen, she's been elected to the House of Representatives, and she's working through the rules in place in the House to petition for a change.  

Is your version of a "sane world" one in which change never occurs?


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Any law ever passed was "forced down the throats" of any person who disagreed with that law.  The same is true of any regulation or policy ever put in place that someone disagreed with.  Sometimes opposition to such things meets with resistance.  This may be a shock to you, but that's just life.

And you are perfectly free to seek election to the House of Representatives, and then to apply for changes, in the same way that Omar has.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

Taz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


She’s a U.S. citizen which means she gets to do it here. Sucks for you that there’s nothing you can do about it.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Let me get this straight: if the House of Representatives allows members to wear religious headwear while on the floor, it is a violation of the Constitution, but if the Senate does the same, it is immaterial? Really? If it escaped your attention, the Senate is also a chamber of Congress.


Has it escaped your attention that I never claimed any such thing? Looks like it has. 
Just like you couldn't wear a t-shirt claiming "Jesus is the One True Savior...Repent" in the Senate so a hijab is 
an endorsement of Islam and an expression of faith. 
That violates separation of church and state. Has the Constitution changed lately? No? 
Then I don't know what you are getting at.



> If you honestly presume that everyone in government is prohibited from wearing any kind of religious clothing or ornamentation, you are extremely out of touch with reality, not to mention relevant Supreme Court rulings. Then again, maybe I'm the one who is out of touch: can you please tell me the case(s) in which the USSC ruled that all religious clothing is prohibited by government employees?


I'm not a Supreme Court scholar but I can assure you that the principle of separation of church and state is alive and well. Ask Roy Moore about that, for instance.



> The concept of separation of church and state does not mean that all personal expression of faith is banned, whatever you might profess to the contrary.


I don't suggest all personal expression of faith is banned. Once again you are setting up your straw man and misrepresenting me.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Expressing one’s religion is not the same as exercising it.
> ...


Expressing one’s religion is not necessarily exercising it. Express means to show. Exercise means to practice.

 For example, let’s see you explain how erecting a monument of the Ten Commandments is “exercising” one’s religion....


----------



## Taz (Dec 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I don’t care if she wants to look foolish, she can tattoo a swastika on her forehead, for all I care. It would fit well with the rag wrapped around her noggin.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


Stupid and dishonest is moronically calling Joe Biden a child fondler.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > This nonsense that you obviously read or heard somewhere and adopted as your own is pablum for the moron. Obviously expressing your religion is a form of exercising it. Stupid to even argue otherwise . You simpletons are hilarious.
> ...


LOLOL 

Putting me on ignore only puts you at the disadvantage of not being able to defend your drivel when I call you on it.


----------



## Taz (Dec 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


If you erect it in the Capital Building, it’s more than just a benign nothing.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 6, 2018)

Faun said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Separation of church and state


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

Taz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I’m certain she doesn’t care what you think of her look. In fact, I’m certain she doesn’t even know what you think. What’s important to her is that her First Amendment rights are being protected.

And by Democrats. Republicans clearly don’t give two shits about First Amendment rights.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

Taz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


LOLOL 

That wasn’t the question, now was it. I think I’m onto something as you’re now the second retard to run away from that question.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > So you do not believe in religious freedom in this country for fellow Americans. You a trump supporter?
> ...


*”No one has the freedom to impose their medieval religion on others.”*

You’re fucking deranged. 

She’s not imposing her religion on anyone.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Multiple posters have decried the possibility of the House changing its rules to accommodate Omar. It hasn't simply been 'hijabs are bad', it's been an argument that she should not be able to wear any head covering because the House rules don't currently permit it, and those rules apparently should never be changed if only one person is being discomfited. Either that, or no religious ornamentation should ever be granted an exception.
> ...


We are secular. And that’s why it’s completely relevant that the Senate allows religious head dressings as it demonstrates doing so is not a violation of blending church and state.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Let me get this straight: if the House of Representatives allows members to wear religious headwear while on the floor, it is a violation of the Constitution, but if the Senate does the same, it is immaterial? Really? If it escaped your attention, the Senate is also a chamber of Congress.


I think I said it was immaterial if the Senate outlawed the wearing of hats. Of course it would also be a violation of our secular government if the Senate allowed a hijab to be worn on the floor of Congress as it would constitute a tacit endorsement of a specific religion over all others. I'm happy to clear up your confusion. 



> If you honestly presume that everyone in government is prohibited from wearing any kind of religious clothing or ornamentation, you are extremely out of touch with reality, not to mention relevant Supreme Court rulings. Then again, maybe I'm the one who is out of touch: can you please tell me the case(s) in which the USSC ruled that all religious clothing is prohibited by government employees?


Did you already ask this? I'm not a Supreme Court scholar.
Again I would ask Roy Moore about this. 



> The concept of separation of church and state does not mean that all personal expression of faith is banned, whatever you might profess to the contrary.


I'm only concerned about a hijab on the floor of the Congress unless our Constitution has been altered.


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

Taz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Cite the law which states Sharia law is outlawed....


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


It’s not just the Senate floor which allows it... it’s EVERY public building in the entire country; except for the House floor, which never specifically banned religious headwear to begin with.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> I didn't say anything about proselytizing. I don't consider wearing a hijab or a cross or anything similar to be proselytizing. That you do is an unfortunate issue for you, but doesn't really affect me.


Well that's a relief.



> Do you think the ACLU never defends the religious expression of Christians or something along those lines?[/QUOTE[I've only seen Christians sued by the ACLU for saying the word "God" prior to a football game or putting up a tiny cross on remote mountain memorial so I really couldn't say.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Faun (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Let me get this straight: if the House of Representatives allows members to wear religious headwear while on the floor, it is a violation of the Constitution, but if the Senate does the same, it is immaterial? Really? If it escaped your attention, the Senate is also a chamber of Congress.
> ...


LOLOL

You’re truly fucking demented. 

Watch as I demonstrate...

*Eric Arthur Blair: *_What the Senate does is *immaterial*._

*Montrovant: *_Let me get this straight: if the House of Representatives allows members to wear religious headwear while on the floor, it is a violation of the Constitution, but if the Senate does the same, it is *immaterial*? Really? If it escaped your attention, the Senate is also a chamber of Congress. _

*Eric Arthur Blair: *_Has it escaped your attention that *I never claimed any such thing*? Looks like it has._​
And the best part about this? Because you idiotically claimed to put me on ignore, you can’t defend yourself now. How fucking stupid are you??


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

-You seem to have a very hard time understand there is a difference between a monument and a piece of attire.

Not at all and I've addressed that issue about twenty times now.

-Equal treatment does not mean that if one form of religious expression is permitted, any form must be permitted. That's simply asinine and has never been true in this country

Well since we supposedly have a secular form of government no religion should be allowed to be publicly expressed as it constitutes a tacit endorsement of that religion. I don't know where you are getting your ideas from. Not from me.

-The comparison absolutely does change if you go from a Star of David as part of clothing, or a dashboard ornament in a personal car, compared to a monument made a part of a government building. You seem incapable of separating the concepts of personal expression and public expression; you don't seem to see that one form of expression can belong to an individual while another can be seen as representing the government. A government building espousing a religion's tenets is different from an individual doing the same. By having the large monument placed on display in the courthouse, Roy Moore made it not a personal expression of religious belief, but instead a public one, one inherently tied to the government. By wearing a hijab, Ilhan Omar only shows a personal expression of religious belief; it is not inherently tied to the government. Representatives have lives outside of government, while a government building is always a government building.

Roy Moore was not authorized to establish a monument in his courthouse but aside from your misconception Omar may wear a hijab when she is not representing the US government but not otherwise.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Let me get this straight: if the House of Representatives allows members to wear religious headwear while on the floor, it is a violation of the Constitution, but if the Senate does the same, it is immaterial? Really? If it escaped your attention, the Senate is also a chamber of Congress.
> ...



You've suggested that both a granite monument in a government building and a hijab are prohibited because both are expressions of faith.  I wonder, if that's the case, what expressions of faith you think ARE allowed?

I'm pretty sure that any t-shirt would be prohibited in the Senate, regardless of what message might be on it.  Same for the House.  On the other hand, I don't think crosses are prohibited from being worn.  Are they not endorsements of Christianity?

You keep claiming things violate the separation of church and state, but don't provide any actual evidence that that is the case.  That's not a very compelling argument.  On the other hand, religious headwear is allowed in the Senate and, so far as I'm aware, no Constitutional challenge has been made, let alone upheld, regarding that rule.  More, I'm unaware of any ban on religious jewelry in either the House or Senate.  So, while the principle of separation of church and state is alive and well, the problem is that you don't seem to have a firm grasp of just what that concept entails in the US.

You may not have explicitly stated that all personal expressions of faith are banned (in government), but you've certainly implied it by saying that a granite monument of the 10 commandments and a hijab are the same because both are religious expressions, and the hijab should be banned.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Let me get this straight: if the House of Representatives allows members to wear religious headwear while on the floor, it is a violation of the Constitution, but if the Senate does the same, it is immaterial? Really? If it escaped your attention, the Senate is also a chamber of Congress.
> ...



What you said was this:


Eric Arthur Blair said:


> What the Senate does is immaterial.


It wasn't that long ago.

Is it a violation of our secular government for the Senate to allow any individual religious expression, or only a hijab?  You've been pretty unclear about your stance.

One doesn't need to be a Supreme Court scholar to have some basis for a claim about what is or is not considered unconstitutional.  Of course, perhaps you do not actually have such a basis.  I'm not asking Roy Moore about this because I'm asking you, and because the Roy Moore situation was different than this one, as has been explained to you repeatedly.

The Constitution doesn't need to be altered to allow a Congressional representative to wear a hijab (or a yarmulke, or a cross, or a bindi, etc.).  The Constitution does not prohibit the free exercise of religion, only government endorsement of religion.  An individual wearing a piece of religious headwear does not constitute government endorsement of religion.  If you disagree you can feel free to bring suit against the House and Senate.  I think you'll find that your understanding of the concept of separation of church and state is in error if you do.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> You've suggested that both a granite monument in a government building and a hijab are prohibited because both are expressions of faith. I wonder, if that's the case, what expressions of faith you think ARE allowed?


I would think non specific expressions of faith are allowed as they don't endorse any certain religion over any other.



> I'm pretty sure that any t-shirt would be prohibited in the Senate, regardless of what message might be on it. Same for the House. On the other hand, I don't think crosses are prohibited from being worn. Are they not endorsements of Christianity?


I think jewelry is considered a discreet personal expression of religious faith.



> You keep claiming things violate the separation of church and state, but don't provide any actual evidence that that is the case. That's not a very compelling argument. On the other hand, religious headwear is allowed in the Senate and, so far as I'm aware, no Constitutional challenge has been made, let alone upheld, regarding that rule.


You keep stating this as if it were true. It is not. Hats or head wear are not banned in the Senate. That's not the same thing as claiming a hijab, a specifically and easily identifiable Muslim expression of religion, has ever been specifically
approved for wear there.



> More, I'm unaware of any ban on religious jewelry in either the House or Senate. So, while the principle of separation of church and state is alive and well, the problem is that you don't seem to have a firm grasp of just what that concept entails in the US.


I've already covered jewelry.



> You may not have explicitly stated that all personal expressions of faith are banned (in government), but you've certainly implied it by saying that a granite monument of the 10 commandments and a hijab are the same because both are religious expressions, and the hijab should be banned.


The ten commandments already have been banned by court order and before Roy Moore brought in his slab of stone he was told to take a poster in his court down
listing the ten commandments. As far as the hijab no one has ever worn one because no Muslim woman has ever before been elected to Congress but it undoubtedly violates the law in our secular nation.

If the ACLU has any guts or integrity, which I already know they haven't, they will challenge the hijab on the same principle they've challenged the ten commandments. I expect a court challenge in any event.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say anything about proselytizing. I don't consider wearing a hijab or a cross or anything similar to be proselytizing. That you do is an unfortunate issue for you, but doesn't really affect me.
> ...



The misconception seems to be yours, as it's quite possible that Omar will soon be able to wear her hijab when representing the US government.  Were she a Senator, she could already do so.

An individual, even one working for the government, can express their religious belief without that being a government endorsement of that religion.  The context is important.  In the case of simply wearing a hijab, I'm confident that any hypothetical challenge to Omar (or anyone else) wearing one while working as a representative would be found without merit.

I see you've done as much research into the ACLU as you seem to have into the concept of separation of church and state.  Here, I'll give you a hand:
ACLU Defense of Religious Practice and Expression

Just a quick couple of highlights: "The ACLU of Louisiana (2006) prevailed in its lawsuit defending the right of a Christian man to exercise his religious and speech rights by protesting against homosexuality in front of a Wal-Mart store with a sign that read: "Christians: Wal-Mart Supports Gay Marriage and Gay Lifestyles. Don't Shop There.""

This one is particularly apt for this thread: "The ACLU and ACLU of Georgia (2017) advocated for the rights of a Christian woman who was forced to remove her religiously motivated head covering when she visited her brother in prison. An officer told her that only Jews and Muslims would be allowed to enter with a head covering worn for religious reasons."

As far as the 10 commandments on public property is concerned, you might look up McCreary County v ACLU and Van Orden v Perry.  Those are interesting in that both involved 10 commandments displays on public property, both were decided on the same day by 5-4 votes, and they seem on the surface to come to opposite conclusions about the Constitutionality of a 10 commandments display on public property.

By the way, I am in no way a Constitutional or Supreme Court scholar.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> What you said was this:
> .


You said the Senate "allows" religious head wear and that's misstating things.
They simply haven't banned head wear like the House had. That makes your statement immaterial.



> It wasn't that long ago. Is it a violation of our secular government for the Senate to allow any individual religious expression, or only a hijab? You've been pretty unclear about your stance.


I haven't been unclear at all. Where have you been? First of all you again misstate the issue: The Senate is not allowing "any" religious expression.
Only religious expression that doesn't tacitly endorse one particular religion over others. I think that eliminates the hijab just as it does the ten commandments. 



> One doesn't need to be a Supreme Court scholar to have some basis for a claim about what is or is not considered unconstitutional. Of course, perhaps you do not actually have such a basis. I'm not asking Roy Moore about this because I'm asking you, and because the Roy Moore situation was different than this one, as has been explained to you repeatedly.


And I've stated over and over again based on court rulings that any religious expression that endorses any particular religion over others tacitly implies the government is favoring a certain religion and that is
not legal. So ask Roy Moore why he could not post the ten commandments in his court room: Because it 
implies endorsement by our government of that religion. That's counter to our supposed secular nation.



> The Constitution doesn't need to be altered to allow a Congressional representative to wear a hijab (or a yarmulke, or a cross, or a bindi, etc.). The Constitution does not prohibit the free exercise of religion, only government endorsement of religion. *An individual wearing a piece of religious headwear does not constitute government endorsement of religion*. If you disagree you can feel free to bring suit against the House and Senate. I think you'll find that your understanding of the concept of separation of church and state is in error if you do.


I've indicated where your reasoning falls apart. If wearing a hijab does not constitute government endorsement of that religion then Roy Moore should get his job back and he should put that ten commandments poster back up
because if one is okay then the other must be as well as they are both expressions of religious faith that feature one specific religion over all others. The End


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > You've suggested that both a granite monument in a government building and a hijab are prohibited because both are expressions of faith. I wonder, if that's the case, what expressions of faith you think ARE allowed?
> ...



Non-specific expressions of faith, not endorsing one religion over another, are all that's allowed...yet jewelry is acceptable because it's a discreet personal expression?  Which is it?  Only non-specific expressions of faith, only discreet personal expressions, or some other variation?  And what makes jewelry a discreet personal expression but a hijab something else?

The Senate may not specifically allow hijabs, but it does specifically make an exception for religious head coverings for men, as Faun posted earlier:
United States Senate Manual, 104th Congress-RULES FOR REGULATION OF THE SENATE WING OF THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL
"except that where a man's religious beliefs require that he wear a head-cover in such public places as the Senate Gallery, then such head-cover shall be permitted."

It appears that religious expression through head coverings are allowed in the Senate.

I'm not sure why you would have no doubt about a hijab violating the law when you have admitted to not knowing of a single Supreme Court case which has ruled such a thing, nor have you provided any other evidence that it is true.  You have said it's true many times, but to date the only thing you've given to back up that opinion is your opinion.

It's odd how you seem to know so much about the guts and integrity of the ACLU, yet didn't realize the ACLU has on multiple occasions fought in court for the religious freedom of Christians.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> The misconception seems to be yours, as it's quite possible that Omar will soon be able to wear her hijab when representing the US government. Were she a Senator, she could already do so.


Not without legal challenge however.



> An individual, even one working for the government, can express their religious belief without that being a government endorsement of that religion. The context is important. In the case of simply wearing a hijab, I'm confident that any hypothetical challenge to Omar (or anyone else) wearing one while working as a representative would be found without merit.


And I'm confident of the opposite outcome. Of course someone working for the government can express religious beliefs depending on what they do.
I don't believe Omar's hijab is anymore appropriate for wear in Congress than someonere showing up in the papal cape, robes, slippers and mitre. And if that is allowed to happen then the government is definitely making an affirmative statement about that wear represents.



> I see you've done as much research into the ACLU as you seem to have into the concept of separation of church and state. Here, I'll give you a hand:
> ACLU Defense of Religious Practice and Expression
> 
> Just a quick couple of highlights: "The ACLU of Louisiana (2006) prevailed in its lawsuit defending the right of a Christian man to exercise his religious and speech rights by protesting against homosexuality in front of a Wal-Mart store with a sign that read: "Christians: Wal-Mart Supports Gay Marriage and Gay Lifestyles. Don't Shop There.""
> ...


Neither case is applicable. But thanks.



> As far as the 10 commandments on public property is concerned, you might look up McCreary County v ACLU and Van Orden v Perry. Those are interesting in that both involved 10 commandments displays on public property, both were decided on the same day by 5-4 votes, and they seem on the surface to come to opposite conclusions about the Constitutionality of a 10 commandments display on public property.
> 
> By the way, I am in no way a Constitutional or Supreme Court scholar.


Great. But Ray Moore was removed from office because he was ordered to remove his ten commandments poster and he responded with his slab of stone.
The most applicable example would seem to vindicate my position.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > What you said was this:
> ...



I've just re-posted it, but the Senate doesn't just lack a rule regarding religious head coverings.  They specifically have (or at least had, as of the 104th) an exception for religious head coverings (although it's for men in particular). 

You've claimed that religious jewelry is acceptable, yet haven't explained how something like a cross as a piece of jewelry would be anything but endorsing one religion over others.

You may have stated that court rulings say that any religious expression that endorses a particular religion over others is not legal, but you haven't actually provided evidence to support that.  Now, I'm happy to agree that there are cases in which *the government* endorsing religion has been found unconstitutional, but I don't know of any in which wearing a religious head covering by an individual is considered a government endorsement.

*sigh*  Once again, Roy Moore did not simply have a personal, individual expression of religion.  He had a monument erected to become part of a government building.  When Roy Moore left the building, the monument remained.  When Ilhan Omar leaves the House, her hijab goes with her.

I'm unaware of Roy Moore having a poster of the 10 commandments taken down.  Another judge, James DeWeese, had an issue with a 10 commandments poster in his courtroom he was made to take down. 

Once again, wearing a hijab is different from erecting a monument in a government building both in fact and in principle.  I'm not sure how you can consider a hijab the same as a monument, while saying that jewelry is different.  Jewelry is much more similar to a hijab than a hijab is to a monument.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Not without legal challenge however.



If you want to bring a legal challenge you are free to try.  I'm not sure where else you expect a legal challenge to come from.



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> And I'm confident of the opposite outcome. Of course someone working for the government can express religious beliefs depending on what they do.
> I don't believe Omar's hijab is anymore appropriate for wear in Congress than someonere showing up in the papal cape, robes, slippers and mitre. And if that is allowed to happen then the government is definitely making an affirmative statement about that wear represents.



If the pope visits Congress, I am guessing he'll be allowed to wear his religious garb.  



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Neither case is applicable. But thanks.



The cases aren't meant to be applicable to this one, instead they were pointing out that the ACLU does fight on behalf of Christians, something you said you were unaware of.  



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Great. But Ray Moore was removed from office because he was ordered to remove his ten commandments poster and he responded with his slab of stone.
> The most applicable example would seem to vindicate my position.



Roy Moore was removed from office for refusing to have the monument he had put in the courthouse removed despite a federal court order.  What is this poster stuff you keep bringing up?

Roy Moore Removed From the Bench. Again.
CNN.com - Ten Commandments judge removed from office - Nov. 14, 2003

When he was a circuit judge Moore apparently had a 10 commandments plaque in court, but I've found nothing indicating he was told to take down a poster.  The case filed about the plaque ended up thrown out for technical reasons from my limited reading.

You keep pushing the Roy Moore case as "the most applicable" despite being shown over and over the reasons it is not applicable.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 6, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Non-specific expressions of faith, not endorsing one religion over another, are all that's allowed...yet jewelry is acceptable because it's a discreet personal expression? Which is it? Only non-specific expressions of faith, only discreet personal expressions, or some other variation? And what makes jewelry a discreet personal expression but a hijab something else?


Because a hijab is plainly visible
and jewelry is not. Because a hijab is a symbol of only one thing but a pinkie ring or necklace may not be.



> The Senate may not specifically allow hijabs, but it does specifically make an exception for religious head coverings for men, as Faun posted earlier:
> United States Senate Manual, 104th Congress-RULES FOR REGULATION OF THE SENATE WING OF THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL
> "except that where a man's religious beliefs require that he wear a head-cover in such public places as the Senate Gallery, then such head-cover shall be permitted."
> 
> It appears that religious expression through head coverings are allowed in the Senate.


A head cover. In the Senate Gallery. Not on the floor of the Senate itself. Not exactly pertinent, is it? No. It isn't. That's what you get for
quoting an absolute idiot and asshole!



> I'm not sure why you would have no doubt about a hijab violating the law when you have admitted to not knowing of a single Supreme Court case which has ruled such a thing, nor have you provided any other evidence that it is true. You have said it's true many times, but to date the only thing you've given to back up that opinion is your opinion.


As I've said already (once again) there has never before been a case of a Muslim woman in Congress
to wear a hijab so how could anyone know about such a thing. Obviously, no one could. 
What I do know is explicit expressions that exalt one religion over all others made by government entities is verboten.



> It's odd how you seem to know so much about the guts and integrity of the ACLU, yet didn't realize the ACLU has on multiple occasions fought in court for the religious freedom of Christians.


Versus how many other times when they have literally sued people to have mountain top memorials torn down? The ACLU is smart enough
to take just enough cases that goes against their grain so people can't say they always do this or that.
Your few examples are the exception, not the rule. ACLU Survey/Fundraising Letter Confirms Its Anti-Christian Bias


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



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


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



The rule should have been changed long ago.  Catch a clue man!  You are embarrassing yourself!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



There are rules.  You are just pisssed they were changed.

I am a conservative and have zero problems with this.  Why is it that you have caught butthurt from the Democrats?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



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

You are a bigot, through and through!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2018)

irosie91 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



Well, you are simply wrong.  As a 21-year teacher of Muslim students, they wore their hajibs as they wished.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2018)

irosie91 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



You did not attend any school that had that policy that would not be raked over the coals in the media and courtroom.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



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


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Do tell!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




Such as?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Nobody likes you because you are being a bigot and an asshole.  That is why no one cares about making you happy!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2018)

Votto said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...



Oh, shut up!  You are embarrassing yourself!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 6, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Back again to reinforce your ignorance?


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 6, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Because a hijab is plainly visible
> and jewelry is not. Because a hijab is a symbol of only one thing but a pinkie ring or necklace may not be.



Obviously we are talking about religious jewelry in this context.  Did you think that wedding bands were being included in the conversation? 

When did the visibility of the apparel become the determining factor in whether something is Constitutionally acceptable?  Are crosses of a certain size no longer Constitutional?  If that's the case, why is the difference in size between a hijab and a multi-ton granite monument of the 10 commandments not relevant?



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> A head cover. In the Senate Gallery. Not on the floor of the Senate itself. Not exactly pertinent, is it? No. It isn't. That's what you get for
> quoting an absolute idiot and asshole!



You've got me there, it certainly is the gallery.



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> As I've said already (once again) there has never before been a case of a Muslim woman in Congress
> to wear a hijab so how could anyone know about such a thing. Obviously, no one could.
> What I do know is explicit expressions that exalt one religion over all others made by government entities is verboten.



How do you know that explicit expressions that exalt one religion over all others made by government entities is verboten?  I've already pointed out one case to you in which that is not true (Van Orden v Perry).
You've not shown any evidence that the sort of expression in question here is prohibited.  Do you know of any cases in which a government employee was deemed to be in violation of the Constitution for wearing a religious head cover?  Hell, do you know of any cases in which a government employee was deemed to be in violation of the Constitution because of the religious nature of any apparel they wore?  Once again, your argument appears to rest on your opinion alone.



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Versus how many other times when they have literally sued people to have mountain top memorials torn down? The ACLU is smart enough
> to take just enough cases that goes against their grain so people can't say they always do this or that.
> Your few examples are the exception, not the rule. ACLU Survey/Fundraising Letter Confirms Its Anti-Christian Bias



I'm not trying to argue the merits of the ACLU, I'm pointing out that when you admit to knowing very little about an organization, your opinions of that organization lose weight.

Here's a question: Do you think the military allowing religious head covers for soldiers is unconstitutional?


----------



## Correll (Dec 7, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You made a point about Constitutional Rights, and he demonstrated that that point was invalid.


That's a crushing. 


Don't project your inability to be objective.


----------



## Correll (Dec 7, 2018)

MrShangles said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Demographic shift is changing the face of the nation. And we are changing our rules to accommodate the newcomers.
> ...





And libs can't see an issue with that.


----------



## Correll (Dec 7, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...




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.


----------



## Correll (Dec 7, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...




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.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 7, 2018)

Correll said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




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


----------



## Correll (Dec 7, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...





Your pretense that this type of Privilege is limited merely to Congress or this specific incident is noted and dismissed as silly.


Now, my point stands. We are NOT free to make changes.


----------



## Taz (Dec 7, 2018)

Faun said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Her first amendment rights aren’t protected, sharia law is outlawed.

I’m a Libertarian, not Republican.


----------



## Taz (Dec 7, 2018)

Faun said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I just handed you your ass. Now get off the internet, you’re making it dumber.


----------



## Correll (Dec 7, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




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?


----------



## Taz (Dec 7, 2018)

Faun said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


We don’t allow stoning of rape victims, nor chopping off the hand of petty thieves... you have been schooled, now stfu.


----------



## Correll (Dec 7, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I do agree with that. I think it would be far easier. You don't need to be on the floor for 8 hours. You have a staff. You made a decent wage, though I grant that DC is probably expensive.


----------



## Correll (Dec 7, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Correll (Dec 7, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




Your appeal to emotion is noted and dismissed as a logical fallacy.


----------



## Correll (Dec 7, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...





I asked you a question. You did not answer it. You said something moronic instead.


You lose.


----------



## Correll (Dec 7, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




They are not being satisfied with being different alongside of US. They are asking US to change, and thanks to LIberalism and the Cult of Diversity, we give in without any thought to whether we should.


----------



## RealDave (Dec 7, 2018)

Correll said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


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


----------



## Correll (Dec 7, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




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.


----------



## Correll (Dec 7, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




You change the way an institution operates and effects everyone in the institution.


She did not just participate in our society, she demanded and got a change.


----------



## Correll (Dec 7, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...





That is not what I said.


----------



## Correll (Dec 7, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...





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.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 7, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


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.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 7, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


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


----------



## bodecea (Dec 7, 2018)

Correll said:


> MrShangles said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


So we are having to change for them by US having to wear hijabs now?   Where is that happening?   Name the place in this country where that is happening.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 7, 2018)

Taz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Wearing a hijab is outlawed?


----------



## Taz (Dec 7, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Ok, let's say all the barbaric stuff, and the stuff that dispossesses woman and children of their rights. As soon as we start limiting anything, the First is being infringed upon. So we don't really have freedom of religion, just a limited freedom of religion. An oxymoron, really.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 7, 2018)

Taz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


You are correct, we do not...because we are a secular nation.   And we no longer force people to stay at home or go to church on Sundays...we are not a christian sharia nation either.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 7, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


It's certainly how you come across.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 7, 2018)

Correll said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


How is she changing it to her system?   By wearing her hijab voluntarily and NOT putting pressure on anyone else to wear one?  That's changing our system?


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 7, 2018)

Correll said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




OUR system allows for changes. You realize, of course, that if the House had wanted the rules to be permanent they could have long ago made a rule stating that no rules may be changed, don't you? 

That is , in fact, the beauty of our entire system. It is entirely adaptable, and even our Constitution can be changed, albeit in a very difficult process as is appropriate.


----------



## Faun (Dec 7, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > What you said was this:
> ...


*”You said the Senate "allows" religious head wear and that's misstating things. They simply haven't banned head wear like the House had. That makes your statement immaterial.”*

No, ya lying cuck. The Senate has a rule that permits Senators to wear religious headwear on the Senate floor...

United States Senate Manual, 104th Congress-RULES FOR REGULATION OF THE SENATE WING OF THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL

_... *he [the Sergeant of Arms] shall not permit *any person to place any object whatsoever--including hats, coats, or other personal apparel--or portion of a person on any railing, or *any male to wear a hat, except that where a man's religious beliefs require that he wear a head-cover in such public places as the Senate Gallery, then such head-cover shall be permitted*;\1\ and he shall not allow any person to lean forward over the railings or to place his or her hands thereon._​
Don’t you ever get tired of making an ass of yourself on this topic?

Oh wait, you said you’re ignoring me. That means while everyone else here gets to see me bitchslap you with the back side of my pimp hand, you put yourself into the unenviable position of not being able to defend yourself. How fucking stupid are you??


----------



## OldLady (Dec 7, 2018)

Correll said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


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.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 7, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...




I myself expect to be very inconvenienced by a woman who I don't know wearing a hoodie somewhere that I am not at.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 7, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Obviously we are talking about religious jewelry in this context. Did you think that wedding bands were being included in the conversation?
> 
> When did the visibility of the apparel become the determining factor in whether something is Constitutionally acceptable? Are crosses of a certain size no longer Constitutional? If that's the case, why is the difference in size between a hijab and a multi-ton granite monument of the 10 commandments not relevant?


Both a granite monument and a hijab can easily be seen and therefore be recognized as a potential endorsement of a certain religion by the government. Isn't that perfectly obvious?


Montrovant said:


> You've got me there, it certainly is the gallery.


Like I said...don't get your talking points from an utter idiot and a miserable prick! It makes _you_ look bad.


Montrovant said:


> How do you know that explicit expressions that exalt one religion over all others made by government entities is verboten? I've already pointed out one case to you in which that is not true (Van Orden v Perry).
> You've not shown any evidence that the sort of expression in question here is prohibited. Do you know of any cases in which a government employee was deemed to be in violation of the Constitution for wearing a religious head cover? Hell, do you know of any cases in which a government employee was deemed to be in violation of the Constitution because of the religious nature of any apparel they wore? Once again, your argument appears to rest on your opinion alone.


Separation of Church and State in the United States - Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History
How do I know that Van Orden v Perry says what you say it does? Are you actually disputing the concept of separation of church and state?
_"Despite its inclusion in the pantheon of democratic virtues, separation of church and state did not become constitutional canon until the mid-twentieth century with incorporation of the Bill of Right to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. In the modern Court’s first Establishment Clause holding, Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote:

The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another […] No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion […] In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between Church and State_.”

There is *zero doubt* that the thing that I can prove is a Constitutionally sound principle of American secular governance
is a real actual thing. Where is your evidence it is not?


Montrovant said:


> I'm not trying to argue the merits of the ACLU, I'm pointing out that when you admit to knowing very little about an organization, your opinions of that organization lose weight.


Have I admitted to knowing very little about the ACLU? I don't recall that. I know about their zeal for kicking God out of the public arena based on the principle of separation of church and state.



> Here's a question: Do you think the military allowing religious head covers for soldiers is unconstitutional?


That's an Obama directive, surprise. U.S. Army Allows Turbans, Hijabs, Beards, and Dreadlocks   - The Atlantic
I think it undermines military order but using the ACLU's philosophy ANY government activity that could be construed as an endorsement of religion is illegal. Of course that's only ever been applied to *Christianity* by them.

As a Supreme Court justice I would have to find that our military occupies a unique place in our government and since it does not make policy but is only a defensive force, military exemptions granted for religious purposes would not be seen as endorsement per se by our government of any religion but merely a religious expression by military personnel. But that's off the top of my head and I could easily change my mind on that issue.

What I do know is some faceless grunt does not occupy the same place in our government as a member of Congress.


----------



## Faun (Dec 7, 2018)

Taz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


That you couldn’t produce a statute that shows Sharia law is outlawed, demonstrates even you know it’s not. Certainly, parts of it are, and of course, Sharia law does not trump the Constitution. But nowhere in U.S. law does it say Sharia law is outlawed.


----------



## Faun (Dec 7, 2018)

Taz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


It’s adorable how you think you handed me my ass * by avoiding my question.

*


----------



## Taz (Dec 7, 2018)

Faun said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


It's illegal to chop someone's hand off for stealing an egg. There's your fucking statute. Idiot. Think of getting off the internet, you're making it dumber. Seriously.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Yeah, that really WOULD have been accommodating just one person, and not for any meaningful reason.  I can't say off the top of my head how many obsessive shopping addicts the House contains at any given moment.


----------



## Faun (Dec 7, 2018)

Taz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


You’re merely list some of their laws that are outlawed. Some are not. Sharia law is not outlawed.


----------



## Faun (Dec 7, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


LOLOL 

You’re fucking demented.

I adequately explained, as have others, why no one answered your question.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 7, 2018)

Even a "DeathStar" can have a casual Friday; why not Congress.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I think his version of a sane world is one where everyone is required to be just like him.


----------



## Faun (Dec 7, 2018)

Taz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


That’s but one law of many. Just admit you can’t find any U.S. statute that outlaws Sharia law.


----------



## Taz (Dec 7, 2018)

Faun said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


None of sharia holds weight in court. Now go kiss a fucking carpet. Can't you hear Allah calling you?


----------



## Taz (Dec 7, 2018)

Faun said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I just told you, it's illegal to chop anyone's hand off, for pretty much any reason I would think, lol. Now seriously, go water your camel.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 7, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


More name calling.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 7, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Both a granite monument and a hijab can easily be seen and therefore be recognized as a potential endorsement of a certain religion by the government. Isn't that perfectly obvious?



So only something easily seen violates the Constitution?  OK, what do you base that opinion on, and what are the limits of "easily seen"?  Do you not think the fact that a hijab is a personal ornamentation which leaves when the person wearing it leaves, while a granite monument becomes a part of the building it is placed in and cannot be moved without machinery and a great deal of effort, makes those situations different?  Is the visibility of the display the only important factor, and again, what do you base such an opinion on?



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Separation of Church and State in the United States - Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History
> How do I know that Van Orden v Perry says what you say it does? Are you actually disputing the concept of separation of church and state?
> _"Despite its inclusion in the pantheon of democratic virtues, separation of church and state did not become constitutional canon until the mid-twentieth century with incorporation of the Bill of Right to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. In the modern Court’s first Establishment Clause holding, Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote:
> 
> ...



If you want to know what Van Orden v Perry says, simply look it up.  That's what I did.  You were clearly able to go look up other things.  In Van Orden a 10 commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol was deemed not to violate the Constitution.

I have never once argued that the concept of separation of church and state does not exist.  It is your understanding of the current status of how that concept is applied I have been arguing against.  That we have a separation of church and state does not mean that every (easily visible) expression of religious belief by government employees is prohibited.



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Have I admitted to knowing very little about the ACLU? I don't recall that. I know about their zeal for kicking God out of the public arena based on the principle of separation of church and state.



You said you had no idea if the ACLU had ever fought to protect the rights of Christians, only that they had sued Christians.  I easily found more than 20 cases in which the ACLU fought to protect the rights of Christians in just the past decade.  If you don't know what kinds of cases the ACLU brings and works with, yeah, you don't know that much about them.

Certainly the ACLU has been involved in separation cases.  They tend to get more media attention.  That doesn't mean the organization hasn't fought for the religious freedoms of individuals of various faiths, too.



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> That's an Obama directive, surprise. U.S. Army Allows Turbans, Hijabs, Beards, and Dreadlocks - The Atlantic
> I think it undermines military order but using the ACLU's philosophy ANY government activity that could be construed as an endorsement of religion is illegal. Of course that's only ever been applied to *Christianity* by them.
> 
> As a Supreme Court justice I would have to find that our military occupies a unique place in our government and since it does not make policy but is only a defensive force, military exemptions granted for religious purposes would not be seen as endorsement per se by our government of any religion but merely a religious expression by military personnel. But that's off the top of my head and I could easily change my mind on that issue.
> ...



Actually, there has apparently been a mechanism for religious exemption to the grooming and uniform requirements of the military since the 1980s.  The article you posted says it would just become easier to apply for such an exemption, and changed rules about women's hair to allow dreadlocks.  From the article you posted: "In the 1986, the Supreme Court heard a case brought by an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, Simcha Goldman, who had been forbidden by the Air Force to wear a yarmulke while on duty and in uniform. The Court deferred to the military. In response, Congress passed a rule stating that servicemen should be able to wear religious apparel."

So now we have visibility of religious expression and the particular place one holds in government as mitigating factors as to whether an expression of religion violates the Constitution.  Clearly you understand that context matters; that circumstances can change whether something is a Constitutional violation.  That being the case, why are you so insistent that the differences between a woman wearing a hijab and a man having a monument placed in a courthouse are meaningless?  For the umpteenth time, what is it you base your opinion about that on?  You've said you don't know of any relevant Supreme Court rulings, I haven't seen you post anything in the Constitution that would indicate the First Amendment separation of church and state covers only those things you claim it does, what makes you so secure in your understanding of how the separation of church and state works?

I'm more than happy to admit I'm not an expert and that I may not have a proper understanding of all the nuances of how the concept of separation is applied, but I've also done a little checking to find things like relevant court decisions about the subject.  There is clearly subjective opinion either way, I just don't understand where your seemingly unshakable confidence in your opinion comes from.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 7, 2018)

Taz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



This is just silly.  Can you both agree that any portion of Sharia Law which violates US law is outlawed, and any part which does not is not outlawed, while agreeing that Sharia Law does not have the force of law in the US?  The same as any other set of religious law?

Of course, you're making me feel better about the content of my own current conversation in this thread, so perhaps it would be better if you keep this up.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Only thing that trumps it is common sense AND the law.  At no point in time has the law ever said, or been interpreted to say, that elected officials lose their individual civil rights.  Therefore, "separation of church and state" - which doesn't even appear in the law as such - is not applicable to the individual First Amendment rights of Representatives, no matter how many times you parrot it in the gleeful tones of a 3-year-old who thinks he's finally outsmarted his parents.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 7, 2018)

Taz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


You are correct....sharia law holds no weight in our courts of law....just like any other religious law.

Let's think on the 10 Commandments, a form of Sharia Law for Jews and Christians

*The Ten Commandments*

* 1 Thou shalt have no other gods before me 
2 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image 
3 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain 
4 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy 
5 Honour thy father and thy mother 
6 Thou shalt not kill 
7 Thou shalt not commit adultery 
8 Thou shalt not steal 
9 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour 
10 Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's slaves, animals, or anything else) *


1 is not a secular law
2 is not a secular law
3 is not a secular law
4 is not a secular law
5 is not a secular law
6 IS a secular law in all cultures/countries
7 is not a secular law (tho it probably will get you divorced)
8 IS a secular law in all cultures/countries
9 is not a secular law (unless under oath in a court of law)
10 is not a secular law


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

Faun said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I'm certain she doesn't even know Taz exists.  Heck, the people talking to Taz are only barely aware of that.


----------



## Taz (Dec 7, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





bodecea said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I'm agnostic, I don't believe in fairy tales.


----------



## Taz (Dec 7, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Ceci, as long as you care, it's all good.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



Not being Catholic, I can't really say for sure, but I don't think it was a rule so much as a custom.  And I believe it is still observed by more traditional Catholic women.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



I made a point about Constitutional rights.  He made a false analogy, and you creamed your pants because you thought someone had validated your bigotry.

That's laughable and pathetic.

Don't project your inability to think without your glands.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 7, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




That you are too stupid to understand an analogy doesn't make it false.

You have a right to carry a gun, you also have a right to express your religion.

Those are both rights as much as the left would like one of them not to be, and the other as well if it's a Christian expressing their religion, but that's a topic for another thread.

Having those rights doesn't have shit to to do with The House, or any other organization saying "fine , but you can't exercise that right here" meaning for example that just because I have a right to carry a gun, that doesn't mean I have a right to carry around inside a bank because the bank has a right to set rules. Just as Congress does.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



What in the actual fuck 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.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

Correll said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



More mindless blather about a community you're not part of, and how "unfair" the procedures are when you know very little about what the procedures actually are, and only just became aware of them five minutes ago.

Just another repetition of "NOooooo!!!  Nothing can ever change, because I feel threatened by it!"


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Your pretense that we're talking about anything OTHER than Congress, simply because you feel threatened by anything ever changing anywhere, is noted and pitied.

Now, your point is as non-existent as ever.  YOU are not free to make changes; not because of some apocryphal "privilege" or "PC catering" to people you've personally designated as undesirables, but because YOU are not part of the House of Representatives, YOU therefore have zero say or stake in their rules of conduct, and YOU are butting your nose into something that does not affect you and is not any of your business, because YOU think you should be able to dictate the entire world be just like you so that YOU don't have to feel bad.

In other words, you're thinking an awful lot like a leftist.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...



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?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

Taz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Correll should be so proud to know that he's thinking on the exact same wavelength as you.  If that doesn't make him suicidal, nothing on Earth will.


----------



## Taz (Dec 7, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


I bet you'd be right up there throwing the first stone.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



You don't need to be there for 8 hours, but you don't necessarily know WHAT time of day you'll be required to be there.  Politicians love to schedule shit at weird times to keep the opposition from showing up, or in marathon sessions in the hopes that people will get tired.  Expense isn't really the point.

Once again, you insist that people are being "privileged" because they refuse to change or give up something deeply important to them in order to accommodate the whims of some nobody without a dog in the fight, but who's going to get butt-chapped at the knowledge that someone, somewhere, is being different from him.

The only demand for special accommodation I'm seeing right now is YOU.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

Correll said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Fucking hat bans on the fucking 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.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 7, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




Now this is hilarious, when you see a liberal actually arguing that there is no requirement for a separation of church and state in this country. LOL just the sort of thing that happens when you have zero actual principles to live by.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



We're not talking about a change in the way the House of Representatives operates, you pinhead.  We're talking about the _dress code_.  And not even a major change in THAT.

Super-majorities for cloture, THAT is a change in the operation.  A head scarf?  Not even.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



That is EXACTLY what you said.  You just don't like having it pointed out to you.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



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 pussy-aching comes not from "the interests of the old", but from the fact that YOU'RE NOT A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE.


----------



## Faun (Dec 7, 2018)

Taz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Praying 5 times a Day is part of Sharia law. That is protected by our Constitution and is not outlawed in the U.S.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Actually, I answered his question . . . in far more detail than he wanted.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

Taz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Then you're going to be a very sad moron when reality hits.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 7, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Who is the liberal and where did they argue there is no requirement for separation of church and state?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



I understood the analogy just fine.  It was wrong.  That's why I disagreed with it.

Helpfully explaining your wrongness will not lessen it.


----------



## Taz (Dec 7, 2018)

Faun said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


That should make you and your camels happy then.


----------



## Taz (Dec 7, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Naw, you’re a softy at heart.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 7, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Actually, in some states adultery is apparently part of secular law.  Of course, it seems they are rarely if ever prosecuted, and it's an open question whether they would pass Constitutional muster were a case brought against them.

In which states is cheating on your spouse illegal?
Adultery Laws - Where Is Cheating Illegal
Why is adultery still a crime?

I find the idea of it being criminal ludicrous, although I can see it having civil consequences as a breach of contract.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 7, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously we are talking about religious jewelry in this context. Did you think that wedding bands were being included in the conversation?
> ...


_Both a granite monument and a hijab can easily be seen and therefore be recognized as a potential endorsement of a certain religion by the government. Isn't that perfectly obvious?_

NO!  A granite monument in a Court House, where the laws are adjudicated cannot put up a Christian monument to the Ten Commandments, the cornerstone of the Christian religion. 
Where on her hijab does it say or list anything about Islam?  This is what Judge Moore want to advertise:

You shall have no other gods before Me.


You shall not make idols.


You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.


Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.


Honor your father and your mother.


You shall not murder.


You shall not commit adultery.


You shall not steal.


You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.


You shall not covet.


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 7, 2018)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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.
> 
> ...


Nice Christian foul mouth.
Ammerican muslims are better educated and earn more than our zero college white rubes.
Especially like ms purge who doesn't know "America great" was our WWII Nazi group name
Or maybe she does??


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 7, 2018)

Correll said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 232366
> ...



That's what happened to the Indians.
Let white convicts in here


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

Taz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Not sure what stones have to do with suicide, but I never have understood idiots very well.


----------



## The Purge (Dec 7, 2018)

ph3iron said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...


I am not a Christian, asshole! Unlike you, terrorist fodder!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Now this is hilarious, when someone is told multiple times that I'm not a "liberal", but is too stupid to comprehend it because he - mistakenly - thinks he represents all things conservative, and any disagreement must be "liberalism".  As opposed to, for example, simple acknowledgement that he talks out of his ass.

Congratulations on "brilliantly" identifying the hypocrisy that doesn't exist in the principles of a "liberal" who never was one . . . and being too pig-stupid and arrogant to pick up on your own mistake.


----------



## Taz (Dec 7, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


At the rape victim. Sheesh, try to keep up.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Apparently, my lack of worship for his received "brilliance and wisdom" when he showed up and started vomiting nonsense without reading the thread is a sign of "liberalism", instead of my very consistent lack of patience with bloviating idiocy.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

Taz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Provide proof that I have a heart.


----------



## mdk (Dec 7, 2018)

Cecilie1200 is a well-known communist agitator around here and her favorite color is red.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

Taz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Yeah, um, I was talking about Correll and his rather alarming agreement with you.  The idiocy on which the two of you were agreeing, not so much.

Learn to comprehend English.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

mdk said:


> Cecilie1200 is a well-known communist agitator around here and her favorite color is red.



Yeah, and I cried when Hillary Clinton lost, because I adore her pantsuits.


----------



## mdk (Dec 7, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 is a well-known communist agitator around here and her favorite color is red.
> ...



I bet you have one in every color.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 7, 2018)

mdk said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



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


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 7, 2018)

mdk said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



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

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


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 7, 2018)

OldLady said:


> NO! A granite monument in a Court House, where the laws are adjudicated cannot put up a Christian monument to the Ten Commandments, the cornerstone of the Christian religion.


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



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


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



> This is what Judge Moore want to advertise:
> 
> You shall have no other gods before Me.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## bodecea (Dec 7, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Not after Labor Day.


----------



## Asclepias (Dec 7, 2018)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 7, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


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

I am having a hard time believing you.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 7, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> So only something easily seen violates the Constitution? OK, what do you base that opinion on, and what are the limits of "easily seen"? Do you not think the fact that a hijab is a personal ornamentation which leaves when the person wearing it leaves, while a granite monument becomes a part of the building it is placed in and cannot be moved without machinery and a great deal of effort, makes those situations different? Is the visibility of the display the only important factor, and again, what do you base such an opinion on?


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


Montrovant said:


> If you want to know what Van Orden v Perry says, simply look it up. That's what I did. You were clearly able to go look up other things. In Van Orden a 10 commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol was deemed not to violate the Constitution.
> 
> I have never once argued that the concept of separation of church and state does not exist. It is your understanding of the current status of how that concept is applied I have been arguing against. That we have a separation of church and state does not mean that every (easily visible) expression of religious belief by government employees is prohibited.


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


Montrovant said:


> You said you had no idea if the ACLU had ever fought to protect the rights of Christians, only that they had sued Christians. I easily found more than 20 cases in which the ACLU fought to protect the rights of Christians in just the past decade. If you don't know what kinds of cases the ACLU brings and works with, yeah, you don't know that much about them.


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



> Certainly the ACLU has been involved in separation cases. They tend to get more media attention. That doesn't mean the organization hasn't fought for the religious freedoms of individuals of various faiths, too.


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


----------



## Taz (Dec 7, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 is a well-known communist agitator around here and her favorite color is red.
> ...


You probably wanted to munch her rug.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 7, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


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



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



Eric Arthur Blair said:


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



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

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

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



Eric Arthur Blair said:


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



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



Eric Arthur Blair said:


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



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


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 8, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



They do!  

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


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 8, 2018)

Montrovant said:


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


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


Montrovant said:


> Roy Moore was removed from office for violating a court order by a federal judge.
> 
> Moore didn't simply post the commandments, he had a large monument placed in the courthouse. You continue to view the two situations (the hijab and the monument) as the same, which is why you mistakenly think they put forth the message you are reading into it.


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



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


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

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

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



Montrovant said:


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


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

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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 8, 2018)

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

Are women about equality and civil liberty, or Religion.


----------



## Faun (Dec 8, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


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


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

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

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


----------



## bodecea (Dec 8, 2018)

MisterBeale said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


So you are FOR christian sharia law, eh?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 8, 2018)

Taz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


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


----------



## bodecea (Dec 8, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...


And can't even get their xenophobia correct.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 8, 2018)

bodecea said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...




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


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

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

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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 8, 2018)

bodecea said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


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


----------



## bodecea (Dec 8, 2018)

MisterBeale said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...


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


----------



## bodecea (Dec 8, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...


And what does that vague post mean?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 8, 2018)

bodecea said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


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


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 8, 2018)

MisterBeale said:


> 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 (Dec 8, 2018)

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


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 8, 2018)

bodecea said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




You aren't making any sense.








Sharia is Islamic.


----------



## Correll (Dec 9, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



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 (Dec 9, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...





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


----------



## Correll (Dec 9, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...




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


----------



## Correll (Dec 9, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...



I don't know. Why?


----------



## Correll (Dec 9, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...




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


----------



## Correll (Dec 9, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...





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 (Dec 9, 2018)

RealDave said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...




Fuck you, you asshole.


----------



## Correll (Dec 9, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




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 (Dec 9, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


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 (Dec 9, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Your guesses are worthless.... prove it.


----------



## Correll (Dec 9, 2018)

OldLady said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...




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 (Dec 9, 2018)

Correll said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


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 (Dec 9, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



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 (Dec 9, 2018)

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


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

Liar.


----------



## Correll (Dec 9, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




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 (Dec 9, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > I googled "christian sharia law," and nothing came up. Sorry, I do not know what that 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.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 9, 2018)

bodecea said:


> 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.


LOL...that's two individuals with religious views you don't approve of. Some wild imagination with your whine, sir?


----------



## bodecea (Dec 9, 2018)

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


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


----------



## bodecea (Dec 9, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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?


----------



## Faun (Dec 9, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Correll (Dec 9, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...




Change can be threatening. It should be carefully considered as to whether it is good change or bad.


----------



## Correll (Dec 9, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Wow. That was a lot of sound and fury, especially considering that you are the one pretending this is such a little and unimportant non issue.

Funny, how you have no problem extrapolating from my position on this to reach larger and more important conclusions about ME, 


but I am not supposed to do the same, regarding the people making this change.


----------



## Correll (Dec 9, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




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

That is my point.


----------



## Correll (Dec 9, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




Your blindness to the issue, is a big part of the problem.


----------



## Faun (Dec 9, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


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.


----------



## OldLady (Dec 9, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > NO! A granite monument in a Court House, where the laws are adjudicated cannot put up a Christian monument to the Ten Commandments, the cornerstone of the Christian religion.
> ...


You want to ban hijabs because you are such a strong feminist that you cannot abide the underlying second place status it grants women, as symbolized by the hijab she freely and voluntarily wears in this country?


----------



## Correll (Dec 9, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...




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


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 9, 2018)

bodecea said:


> 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?





bodecea said:


> 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.


----------



## Correll (Dec 9, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




It's different when it's a religious minority, instead of Christians.


----------



## Correll (Dec 9, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




Your refusal to listen to what I am actually saying, is part of the problem.


----------



## depotoo (Dec 9, 2018)

It stands for a slap in the face of all the rights for women that have been fought for in this country.





OldLady said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


----------



## mdk (Dec 9, 2018)

The fact that this innocuous rule change is having the xenophobes piss their pants is just an added bonus. Get a life.


----------



## Faun (Dec 9, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


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.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 9, 2018)

Faun said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Well, he was defending a NAZI, eh?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 9, 2018)

OldLady said:


> You want to ban hijabs because you are such a strong feminist that you cannot abide the underlying second place status it grants women, as symbolized by the hijab she freely and voluntarily wears in this country?


I am not a feminist. I am a humanist. And if a slave decides he likes wearing his chains he is still a slave nevertheless.
The hijab signifies the second place status of women in Islam and it's just a small step away from a burka, philosophically.


----------



## depotoo (Dec 9, 2018)

This is what the hijab represents.  What it does not represent is what rights women have fought for and gained here in the US.  The hijab is to a throw back era, and to think American women would see it as anything but, just astounds me.
Woman 'faces calls to be executed after going out without a hijab in Saudi Arabia'  | Daily Mail Online


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 9, 2018)

depotoo said:


> This is what the hijab represents.  What it does not represent is what rights women have fought for and gained here in the US.  The hijab is to a throw back era, and to think American women would see it as anything but, just astounds me.
> Woman 'faces calls to be executed after going out without a hijab in Saudi Arabia'  | Daily Mail Online


We have a First Amendment in the US.  It can't be about Religion.  It must be about natural rights.


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 9, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...


When all our words have finally become meaningless, none will mean anything.
There is nothing about Sharia seriously comparable to Christian doctrine and practice. We can critique and criticize Christianity (and rightly so) all day long (and not have a 'fatwa' pronounced against us), but we cannot honestly compare the attitudes and acts of those who follow the two regimes. Nowhere are Christians conducting themselves the way those are who would inflict Sharia law upon the world.
Let's keep our use of words under control.


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 9, 2018)

there4eyeM said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...


But. . . but . . . . but . . .  .

bodies arguments make SOOOO much sense?!


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 9, 2018)

depotoo said:


> It stands for a slap in the face of all the rights for women that have been fought for in this country.


Democrat rules: Muslims trump women.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 9, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > It stands for a slap in the face of all the rights for women that have been fought for in this country.
> ...


Not at all.  

Republican rules:   we are frightened of women


----------



## depotoo (Dec 9, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...


Frightened?  No, it is Dems frightened of upsetting Muslims.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 9, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Not at all.
> 
> Republican rules: we are frightened of women


What a clever lie.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 9, 2018)

Correll said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Change, dumbass!  Change!

No one cares anymore, so nobody enforces the rules.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 9, 2018)

Correll said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Why did they have a rule then?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 9, 2018)

Correll said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 9, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...



Actually, she was following the law as written.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 9, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all.
> ...


I see evidence of it almost every day here in threads like this one.   This is an INCEL haven.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 9, 2018)

bodecea said:


> I see evidence of it almost every day here in threads like this one. This is an INCEL haven.


Well,  it's probably not a lie if you've convinced yourself it's true.


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




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 pussy-aching too. And with more drama and emotion than I.


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

ph3iron said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



From their perspective, correct.


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

MisterBeale said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Or hell, being wished a Merry Christmas.


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

bodecea said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...




And by equating some monuments with "Christian Sharia Law" the lib shows how they fight against Christianity in a thread where they weakly submit to a "symbol of Islam" quickly and cheerfully.



Demonstrating my point, that we are NOT balancing the needs/interests of the "old" with the desires/interests of the new.


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...




That almost made sense. Are you ok?


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




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.


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




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


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...




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 (Dec 10, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




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 (Dec 10, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



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 (Dec 10, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




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


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 10, 2018)

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 (Dec 10, 2018)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Dec 10, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...




Better than I have been saying it, thank you.


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




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 (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


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 (Dec 10, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



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


You are an asshole.


----------



## Faun (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


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 (Dec 10, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...




Someone said something about decorum. Not really my concern.


----------



## Faun (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


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 (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > OldLady said:
> ...


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


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...




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 (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


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 (Dec 10, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





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 (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


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 (Dec 10, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




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 (Dec 10, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




That is what I said.


----------



## Faun (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


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.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Name calling again


----------



## bodecea (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Even more rude name-calling.


----------



## Faun (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Faun (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Dumbfuck, the challenge to show where this rule has been challenged in the past was based on it being challened for the same reason it’s being challenged now. Challenges for any other reason are irrelevant. Damn, are you ever fucking stupid to not get that.


----------



## Faun (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Personal experience never occurred to you??


----------



## Faun (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


No, you said I support it because of the racist gesture. I understand it because of the racist gender; I support it because the guy is a nazi.


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





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


Can you support that?

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


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




I've explained your complete lack of comprehension many times.


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I've explained your complete lack of comprehension many times.


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




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.


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




I stated that the rule has been challenged before.


You lefties called me on it.

If you heard "for the same reason" take that up with the voices in your head.


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Not caring about genocide because it was not directly targeted at your people, 


such callousness, and lack of humanity, is beyond my comprehension.


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




You're quibbling, you monster.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



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!"?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 10, 2018)

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.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 10, 2018)

How is it that Men, can still blame women in modern times?


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 10, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> 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.




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?


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 10, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




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 fucking concept , why you can't just be honest is obvious.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 10, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> 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?


It worked for the judges that said Roy Moore could not post the Ten Commandments in his courtroom.
Of course he has the right to cover the walls in his own personal home with Ten Commandment wallpaper if he wishes. No one is stopping him from doing that.
Can you guess how Ilhan Omar's hijab is like that copy of the Ten Commandments?

Both Omar and Moore have the right to believe whatever they like. What they may not do
is display their beliefs publicly, if the Moore ruling is any indication. 
So why are Moore's beliefs less important than Ilhan Omar's? No one can explain that.


Cecilie1200 said:


> 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!"?


LOL...what a non sequitur! Do you realize Roy Moore is a white gentleman?
Such blatant pandering to racism and idiocy.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



The problem is not that I don't understand your "brilliance".  The problem is that you refuse to consider that you aren't brilliant, and I am understanding far more about you than you are.

Most narrow-minded, xenophobic bigots are convinced that they're just stating rational, obvious sense.  Doesn't make it true.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 10, 2018)

depotoo said:


> It stands for a slap in the face of all the rights for women that have been fought for in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I could have sworn that the rights for women we have fought for in this country were all about individual women determining for themselves what they wanted and what was best for them.  I didn't realize that we had ACTUALLY been fighting for the "right" of women to do things the way they're told they should want them by people who consider themselves much smarter than those stupid skirts who might dare to choose otherwise.

Sorry, how is the "rights for women" you're espousing any different from the previous oppression, except for the identity of the people imposing their view of womanhood?


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



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?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 10, 2018)

depotoo said:


> This is what the hijab represents.  What it does not represent is what rights women have fought for and gained here in the US.  The hijab is to a throw back era, and to think American women would see it as anything but, just astounds me.
> Woman 'faces calls to be executed after going out without a hijab in Saudi Arabia'  | Daily Mail Online



Well, considering that this isn't Saudi Arabia and our laws don't allow for women to be executed for not wearing a _hijab_, I'm going to call this utterly irrelevant.

No one's forcing Ms. Omar to wear a _hijab_, that I'm aware of.  She's choosing it of her own free will, which is the point at which my agreement and approval - and YOUR agreement and approval - end.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but whatever you think of her traditions and what they represent is, and always will be, irrelevant.

We didn't fight for the "right" of all women to go out with their heads uncovered no matter what they want to do because YOU think they should, any more than we fought for them to be forced to cover their heads.  The actual right for women that was fought for was for every individual woman to do as she personally chose, regardless of what anyone else thought of it.

What YOU are talking about is just a shift of oppression and oppressor, from "You must cover your head" to "You must uncover your head", based on the wishes of someone other than the woman in question.


----------



## depotoo (Dec 10, 2018)

So, you say the fight was to allow women to let men subjugate them , if it’s ok with them?  Wow.
I thought is was about lifting them up from that mentality.  I guess if a woman decides it’s ok for their man to physically abuse them, then no one should step in to stop it, either, according to your logic.





Cecilie1200 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > It stands for a slap in the face of all the rights for women that have been fought for in this country.
> ...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 10, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > It stands for a slap in the face of all the rights for women that have been fought for in this country.
> ...



American rules:  universal freedom trumps prejudice.

Ms. Omar is a woman; you are not.  Explain to me why you think it's okay for YOU to decide what her "rights" as a woman should be, rather than her deciding for herself.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 10, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I could have sworn that the rights for women we have fought for in this country were all about individual women determining for themselves what they wanted and what was best for them. I didn't realize that we had ACTUALLY been fighting for the "right" of women to do things the way they're told they should want them by people who consider themselves much smarter than those stupid skirts who might dare to choose otherwise.


Ironically you know that hijabs are required wear for women according to the Koran, don't you?
"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allaah is Ever Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful” [al-Ahzaab 33:59]"
In Pakistan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Iran a hijab is mandatory. Omar is actually promoting women NOT being able to dress as they wish. But you knew that, didn't you.



> Sorry, how is the "rights for women" you're espousing any different from the previous oppression, except for the identity of the people imposing their view of womanhood?


Clearly this is not about fashion per se or women's rights. It's about bringing your religious symbols onto the floor of Congress and promoting a particular religion over all others...a religion, by the way, that treats women like lesser creatures than men.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 10, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> American rules: universal freedom trumps prejudice.
> 
> Ms. Omar is a woman; you are not. Explain to me why you think it's okay for YOU to decide what her "rights" as a woman should be, rather than her deciding for herself.


There are no Constitutional exceptions based on gender. Being a woman doesn't make you magically immune from our secular national values.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



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?


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 10, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


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



Once again: what do you base this assertion on?  Why do you think that "religious expression is religious expression....period!"?  Is there something in the Constitution or in relevant case law that states that any type of religious expression is the same as any other?  And, if it is true that religious expression should all be treated the same, why did you earlier indicate that religious jewelry should not be treated the same as other forms of religious expression because it is not as easily visible?  That seems like a contradiction.

Further, as I've pointed out multiple times, the monument is not the same as a hijab because the monument is more than a personal expression.  It becomes a part of the courthouse.  The monument remained part of the courthouse after Roy Moore left.  It was not just Roy Moore's personal expression of religion, he made it part of a government building, made it a government expression of religion.  Ilhan Omar's hijab never becomes part of the House of Representatives; it is always connected to and limited to her.



Eric Arthur Blair said:


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



How is that relevant?  
I don't know if it's true.  I recall you saying something about Moore having a poster of the commandments put up, and I've been able to find nothing to confirm that.  He did apparently have a plaque while he was a circuit judge and had to take it down.
Did you know that the other 8 members of the Alabama Supreme Court unanimously voted against Moore regarding the monument, and that the USSC refused to hear Moore's case?



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> And you continue to make a flawed argument this is not supported by logic and common sense.
> 
> What is the essential issue? I_t is whether a government official can bring his religious views into public life therefore threatening the prohibition against our secular government endorsing one religion over another. In both cases, Moore and Omar, that is what they are doing....promoting one specific religion as a part of their public lives._
> 
> ...



Once again, Roy Moore did not just make a personal expression of religious belief.  He had a monument placed for public display in a courthouse, making it a part of that government building.  The display was not limited to Moore.  Ilhan Omar wearing a hijab is limited to her.  It is not part of the House of Representatives; it does not remain when Omar leaves.  Do you deny the basic truth of these statements, or do you think the fact that the monument became part of the courthouse is irrelevant?

The USSC can decide this issue if the rule change in the House passes, someone brings forth a case against it, it is appealed through the court system, and the USSC decides to hear the case.  If I were you, however, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to occur. 



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> You seem to admit anti Christian bias by the ACLU does exist yet insist the few examples of the ACLU representing Christians disproves the bias?
> You need to make up your mind and then admit that the few cases you can cite does not disprove the many others.
> 
> Here is something else to help you decide. Pay special attention to the section _Censoring God. _
> ACLU - Conservapedia



You're having a difficult time comprehending what I've said.  I said that even if the ACLU has an anti-Christian bias, they still get involved in cases fighting to protect the religious rights of Christians.  I didn't say taking on such cases disproves their bias.  I didn't say that the cases they have taken to protect the religious rights of Christians disprove any other cases.

I have said that, since you didn't even know the ACLU EVER took on cases protecting the religious rights of Christians, your opinion about the organization does not hold much weight.


----------



## depotoo (Dec 10, 2018)

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.  





Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 10, 2018)

there4eyeM said:


> 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.


----------



## depotoo (Dec 10, 2018)

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.



Cecilie1200 said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...


----------



## Pogo (Dec 10, 2018)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion!



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*".


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 10, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > I could have sworn that the rights for women we have fought for in this country were all about individual women determining for themselves what they wanted and what was best for them. I didn't realize that we had ACTUALLY been fighting for the "right" of women to do things the way they're told they should want them by people who consider themselves much smarter than those stupid skirts who might dare to choose otherwise.
> ...



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.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 10, 2018)

Pogo said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion!
> ...



Yes POGO-----"no law"   and  SHOULD MAINTAIN 
THE APPEARANCE OF COMPLETE NEUTRALITY 
IN MATTERS RELATED TO RELIGION.    I support
the ban on overt signs of religions including head
coverings specific and amulet style jewelry  etc etc 
and white shoes after labor day


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 10, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



bad idea since it is almost impossible to DEFINE A RELIGION------creating a list of ACCEPTABLE RELIGIONS
is very *NOT ACCEPTABLE  *


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



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

Your dislike of Muslims doesn't qualify.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



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.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 10, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



there is an overriding reason------no congressman should
be an advertisement for ANY  religion


----------



## Pogo (Dec 10, 2018)

Bella Abzug (D-NY19) dug hats.





​So did Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)





​Wiki sez this 1837 Congress rule was put in not out of any consideration of religion, but to distinguish the US House from the British House of Commons, where hat-wearing was a tradition. 

It would appear that tradition has long since passed...


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 10, 2018)

irosie91 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...



Sure, there's the possibility someone might try to abuse the exception.  I don't think that's a very big threat, but I don't deny it could happen.  "This fruit basket on my  head is an integral part of my religion!"


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 10, 2018)

depotoo said:


> So, you say the fight was to allow women to let men subjugate them , if it’s ok with them?  Wow.
> I thought is was about lifting them up from that mentality.  I guess if a woman decides it’s ok for their man to physically abuse them, then no one should step in to stop it, either, according to your logic.
> 
> 
> ...



So you say the fight was for YOU to tell women what to do and who to be, instead of someone else?  Wow.

You thought it was about "educating" women to all want what YOU thought was best for them.  I thought, and still think, it was about assuming women are intelligent, capable individuals in their own right who should be allowed to make their own choices and live their own lives, even if I think their choices are bad.  

There is no amount of "Well, that choice is bad, so it shouldn't be available" that's going to make you sound any less oppressive and dictatorial, just so you know.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 10, 2018)

irosie91 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Religious garb isn't "advertisement".

Here's an example of hat-as-advertisement ---


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 10, 2018)

irosie91 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Then it becomes an argument about whether personal expressions of religious belief become representative of the government.  I don't think that a hijab, or a yarmulke, or a cross, or a bindi, worn by an individual rep would be construed as representing the stance of the government in and of themselves.  I can understand disagreeing, however.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 10, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




Disagreeing with YOU does not make a person a bigot.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 10, 2018)

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



virtually THE SAME  pogoed.     That cap should not be
worn in congress


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 10, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > I could have sworn that the rights for women we have fought for in this country were all about individual women determining for themselves what they wanted and what was best for them. I didn't realize that we had ACTUALLY been fighting for the "right" of women to do things the way they're told they should want them by people who consider themselves much smarter than those stupid skirts who might dare to choose otherwise.
> ...



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.

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.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 10, 2018)

Pogo said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




Of course religeous garments are an advertisement of your religion. That's PRECISELY why the Koran calls for women to cover their heads in pubic, to advertise that they are devout and pious women.

Oh, you meant they aren't a commercial advertisement like that orange bastard's hats.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 10, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > American rules: universal freedom trumps prejudice.
> ...



Nice snipping there to allow you to defend against I point I didn't make.  Sure wouldn't want to be stuck having to stick to the topic, or anything.


----------



## depotoo (Dec 10, 2018)

Wow!  So, according to your logic, if a woman wants to continue to be physically abused, her abuser should not be arrested?  Because she doesn’t want to press charges, it is her choice to stay with them.  Well, hell, why have any laws then, that deal with abusive relationships, if they are willing participants, even though their self esteem is so low, they don’t know any better!  Who cares!

Makes me wonder if you are one of the repressed.

You just can’t make this stuff up.





Cecilie1200 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > So, you say the fight was to allow women to let men subjugate them , if it’s ok with them?  Wow.
> ...


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 10, 2018)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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.
> 
> ...



Why the fuck do you care whether she wears a hijab or not?

WTF is it to you?


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 10, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



in shariah law it's actually a lot worse.    Dress DEMARCATES 
muslim from non muslim  in VERY SHARIAH ADHERENT societies.      It is ILLEGAL for a non muslim to ape the dress of
a muslim     or to NOT bear the insignia of his own.   Adolf did
not invent the idea.    BTW  the color orange in the "beauty"
of shariah ------marks a HINDU DHIMMI    (I think it has something to do with saffron or maybe turmeric  ???)   For Christians the color is blue,   for Jews, yellow and for Zoroastrians, red.          ....  interesting, huh?    Its that kinda shit 
we do not need in  D.C.     To be fair----way back in ancient
Greece and Rome----there were issues of special dress for
special people-----forbidden to the average joe


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 10, 2018)

depotoo said:


> Wow!  So, according to your logic, if a woman wants to continue to be physically abused, her abuser should not be arrested?  Because she doesn’t want to press charges, it is her choice to stay with them.  Well, hell, why have any laws then, that deal with abusive relationships, if they are willing participants, even though their self esteem is so low, they don’t know any better!  Who cares!
> 
> Makes me wonder if you are one of the repressed.
> 
> ...



I think there should be limits------like Medicaid should not
cover the outcome of the abuse


----------



## Pogo (Dec 10, 2018)

MisterBeale said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...



Again -- so you know her?

Or do you have magic glasses that peer into people's thoughts, simply by looking at a picture?

Narrowmind much?

Back to the top here:



> she ran for Congress because she wants to affect policy, yet she never had any intention of making a compromise of her faith.



Why the fuck would running for, or being a member of, Congress, require a 'compromise of one's faith'?
Summa y'all still don't seem to get that this is not a theocracy.

Holy SHIT.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 10, 2018)

I will repeat-----there are discrete ways to cover ones hair-----
without screaming*    ISLAAAAM*


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 10, 2018)

depotoo said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 10, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



And in fact, here's a Congressional Rep defying that rule in, in this case, March of 2011.




​That same Wiki link sez the rule is worded: "Every member shall remain *uncovered *during the sessions of the House."  That should mean everybody has to be naked, so we could say this rule has been ignored for 181 years.

Might be interesting though.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 10, 2018)

Pogo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



wat's dat?    ash Wednesday?        She should have washed it off if she was attending an official function.     Months ago
I noticed a JUDGE------with the same mark.   She should have washed it off and it should not be allowed on the heads of
public school teachers.    Some people---for the sake of DECORUM   have no business announcing their religion. 
For the record   "COVER"  in the USA military MEANS HAT


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 10, 2018)

depotoo said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here's a tip:  "enslavement" is not defined as "doing something you don't agree with".  And "upholding rights" is not defined as "forbidding people to do things you don't agree with".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 10, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



It's almost like humans are required to use reason, logic, and discernment on a case-by-case basis, instead of just blindly applying blanket rules to everything.  We can't be having with THAT nonsense.


----------



## depotoo (Dec 10, 2018)

“Interestingly, everyday dress for certain ethno-religious subcultures, such as Hasidic Jews, Amish, and conservative Mennonites, is considered sacred, especially in the symbolic separation of the ethno-religious subculture from a dominant culture. As religious groups encounter social change, dress often symbolically becomes important as certain items of a religious group's clothing may be classified as sacred in contrast to what is considered secular. Generally the most symbolic dress features of Amish and Mennonites (hats, beards, head coverings, bonnets, aprons) are considered sacred. Similarly, among conservative Muslim women, very fashionable clothing may be worn underneath the veils (sacred garments), known as _chador, chadaree_, or _burqa_, that are seen by outsiders. Sacred dress worn externally then becomes used intentionally to visually separate these religious groups from the larger culture. Often, the rules as to dress codes are imposed by male clergy on female members of the community, and in doing so, these patriarchal religious societies intentionally use dress codes to maintain a gendered imbalance of power.”
https://fashion-history.lovetoknow.com/fashion-history-eras/religion-dress


Yes, let’s re-enforce a patriarchal society, in a society that has fought to free itself from the patriarchal. 




Let me ask you this, if someone from the Surma tribe migrated here, and was elected to Congress would you be ok with their attire of nothing, as that is part of their culture?







Pogo said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 10, 2018)

depotoo said:


> “Interestingly, everyday dress for certain ethno-religious subcultures, such as Hasidic Jews, Amish, and conservative Mennonites, is considered sacred, especially in the symbolic separation of the ethno-religious subculture from a dominant culture. As religious groups encounter social change, dress often symbolically becomes important as certain items of a religious group's clothing may be classified as sacred in contrast to what is considered secular. Generally the most symbolic dress features of Amish and Mennonites (hats, beards, head coverings, bonnets, aprons) are considered sacred. Similarly, among conservative Muslim women, very fashionable clothing may be worn underneath the veils (sacred garments), known as _chador, chadaree_, or _burqa_, that are seen by outsiders. Sacred dress worn externally then becomes used intentionally to visually separate these religious groups from the larger culture. Often, the rules as to dress codes are imposed by male clergy on female members of the community, and in doing so, these patriarchal religious societies intentionally use dress codes to maintain a gendered imbalance of power.”
> https://fashion-history.lovetoknow.com/fashion-history-eras/religion-dress
> 
> 
> ...



all true------but so what?     yankee doodles have a culture


----------



## depotoo (Dec 10, 2018)

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





Cecilie1200 said:


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


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 10, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



you put the period in the wrong place.    The subject is up for
debate.     Public Practice of religion in the capitol building
is my business.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 10, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Never said it did.

Saying, "Can't let that Muslim look like a Muslim in the House", however, does.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 10, 2018)

depotoo said:


> Wow!  So, according to your logic, if a woman wants to continue to be physically abused, her abuser should not be arrested?  Because she doesn’t want to press charges, it is her choice to stay with them.  Well, hell, why have any laws then, that deal with abusive relationships, if they are willing participants, even though their self esteem is so low, they don’t know any better!  Who cares!
> 
> Makes me wonder if you are one of the repressed.
> 
> ...



Wow, so according to your logic, wearing a headscarf because you believe not doing so is immodest is exactly the same as being a battered wife.

Pretty much nothing I need to say about that spectacularly illogical attempt at equivalence.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 10, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



no it doesn't      It emphasizes the SECULAR NATURE of
the  UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 10, 2018)

depotoo said:


> “Interestingly, everyday dress for certain ethno-religious subcultures, such as Hasidic Jews, Amish, and conservative Mennonites, is considered sacred, especially in the symbolic separation of the ethno-religious subculture from a dominant culture. As religious groups encounter social change, dress often symbolically becomes important as certain items of a religious group's clothing may be classified as sacred in contrast to what is considered secular. Generally the most symbolic dress features of Amish and Mennonites (hats, beards, head coverings, bonnets, aprons) are considered sacred. Similarly, among conservative Muslim women, very fashionable clothing may be worn underneath the veils (sacred garments), known as _chador, chadaree_, or _burqa_, that are seen by outsiders. Sacred dress worn externally then becomes used intentionally to visually separate these religious groups from the larger culture. Often, the rules as to dress codes are imposed by male clergy on female members of the community, and in doing so, these patriarchal religious societies intentionally use dress codes to maintain a gendered imbalance of power.”
> https://fashion-history.lovetoknow.com/fashion-history-eras/religion-dress
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe YOU fought to be free of "the patriarchy".  Shockingly, SOME of us have fought to be free of EVERYONE.  And if you're going to tell me I have to be "free" the way you determine is best for me, then you're no better than the patriarchy you're obessed with.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 10, 2018)

depotoo said:


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



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


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 10, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > “Interestingly, everyday dress for certain ethno-religious subcultures, such as Hasidic Jews, Amish, and conservative Mennonites, is considered sacred, especially in the symbolic separation of the ethno-religious subculture from a dominant culture. As religious groups encounter social change, dress often symbolically becomes important as certain items of a religious group's clothing may be classified as sacred in contrast to what is considered secular. Generally the most symbolic dress features of Amish and Mennonites (hats, beards, head coverings, bonnets, aprons) are considered sacred. Similarly, among conservative Muslim women, very fashionable clothing may be worn underneath the veils (sacred garments), known as _chador, chadaree_, or _burqa_, that are seen by outsiders. Sacred dress worn externally then becomes used intentionally to visually separate these religious groups from the larger culture. Often, the rules as to dress codes are imposed by male clergy on female members of the community, and in doing so, these patriarchal religious societies intentionally use dress codes to maintain a gendered imbalance of power.”
> ...



sorry Cecilie------but I have the impression that either
you trivialize the social effects of patriarchal "religions"
or "cultures"  when transplanted into our society----OR
you never confronted any of those social effects.   You
are being theoretical


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 10, 2018)

irosie91 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



That isn't the problem I have with it.

IDGF that she is a Muslim.

If she wants to advertise her faith on the floor of Congress?  She can go for it.

Just as long as she follows the rules and customs of this nation.  This etiquette it centuries old, I see no reason to change it for one woman.  We are NOT the middle east.  We are the West.  Common culture is what binds us.  Either integrate, or GO HOME!

*Advice*
*Hats Off! Hat Etiquette for Everyone*
http://emilypost.com/advice/hats-off-hat-etiquette-for-everyone/

"While some of these customs are now historical footnotes, even in today’s casual culture men and women still remove their hats as a sign of respect. *Cancer patients are exempt from hat rules. They may keep their hats or caps on at all times if they wish.* Here’s when it’s fine to wear your hat and when it’s not:

*Men*
 . . . .

*Take hats off, including baseball caps …*

In someone’s home
At mealtimes, at the table
While being introduced, indoors or out (unless it’s frigid!)
In a house of worship, unless a hat or head covering is required
Indoors at work, especially in an office (unless required for the job)
*In public buildings such as a school, library, courthouse, or town hall*
In restaurants and coffee shops
At a movie or any indoor performance
When the national anthem is played
When the flag of the United States passes by, as in a parade

*Women*
*Fashion hats (not baseball-style caps) can be left on…*

In someone’s home
At luncheons, weddings, garden parties
At religious services
At a movie or any indoor performance
When the national anthem is played
When the flag of the United States passes by, as in a parade

*Take your fashion hat off…*

Anytime it blocks someone’s view, such as at a wedding or in a theater
Indoors at work
*Remove baseball-style (unisex) caps…*

In someone’s home
At mealtimes, at the table
While being introduced
In a house of worship, unless a hat or head covering is required
Indoors at work, unless required for the job
*In public buildings such as a school, library, courthouse, or town hall*
In restaurants and coffee shops
At a movie or any indoor performance
When the national anthem is played
When the flag of the United States passes by, as in a parade"


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 10, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


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


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


----------



## MisterBeale (Dec 10, 2018)

Pogo said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


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


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 10, 2018)

MisterBeale said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



actually,  women WEAR hats as a sign of respect.    Women do not tip or remove their hats when being introduced.    Nor do they remove hats  (unless they are obstructive or
outlandish---for libraries etc or funerals.     It is sorta gauche for a woman NOT to wear a hat at a funeral,   a Kerchief is ok
THE QUEEN does not go around town without something on her head


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 10, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



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


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Must be irony.
Asshole and accuses someone of name calling


----------



## Pogo (Dec 10, 2018)

depotoo said:


> “Interestingly, everyday dress for certain ethno-religious subcultures, such as Hasidic Jews, Amish, and conservative Mennonites, is considered sacred, especially in the symbolic separation of the ethno-religious subculture from a dominant culture. As religious groups encounter social change, dress often symbolically becomes important as certain items of a religious group's clothing may be classified as sacred in contrast to what is considered secular. Generally the most symbolic dress features of Amish and Mennonites (hats, beards, head coverings, bonnets, aprons) are considered sacred. Similarly, among conservative Muslim women, very fashionable clothing may be worn underneath the veils (sacred garments), known as _chador, chadaree_, or _burqa_, that are seen by outsiders. Sacred dress worn externally then becomes used intentionally to visually separate these religious groups from the larger culture. Often, the rules as to dress codes are imposed by male clergy on female members of the community, and in doing so, these patriarchal religious societies intentionally use dress codes to maintain a gendered imbalance of power.”
> https://fashion-history.lovetoknow.com/fashion-history-eras/religion-dress
> 
> 
> ...



Since you insist on turning quotes upside down in some sort of sadistic perversion where you create more work for everybody else, there's no telling who this post was intended for or what it was responding to.  If anything.

And yanno what ---- it's not even worth trying to figure it out.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 10, 2018)

MisterBeale said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...



Strange link.  I can click it and get to the post but every time I do it signs me out of USMB and I can't sign back in.

In response though, what you listed was a long litany of quaint PC bullshit apparently written by Emily Post or some similar sociofascist.  Thing is, cultural mores change with time, and certainly clearly have changed since the 1800s or whenever this quaint list dates from.

When's the last time you saw this ----





?

Strange looking herd, innit?  Let's thank our lucky stars we don't have to live with _that_.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 10, 2018)

irosie91 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


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


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 10, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 10, 2018)

depotoo said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 10, 2018)

irosie91 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


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


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 10, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> 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.


Cecilie1200 said:


> 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 fucking Constitution, for God's sake.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 10, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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

I'll put on some popcorn.


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...






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 FUCKING TIME, there is any attempt to discuss the issue.


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




YOu made a point, they called you racist.


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


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




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 (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



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 (Dec 10, 2018)

Pogo said:


> 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 (Dec 10, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...





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 (Dec 10, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




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


----------



## Pogo (Dec 10, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't _you_ read us the part of the Constitution that bars head coverings.
> ...



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 (Dec 10, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> ...




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 (Dec 10, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


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




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 (Dec 10, 2018)

Pogo said:


> 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 (Dec 10, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


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




Your lack of listening, is on you.


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

ph3iron said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




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 (Dec 10, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> 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 (Dec 10, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > But in the US, whether or not a woman follows the Koran is a choice.
> ...



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

Right before they begin with that prayer thingy.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 10, 2018)

Pogo said:


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


I already answered the question, asshole! You just can't find a way around it.


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

Pogo said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...




Sorry, I tend to lump all those various personal attacks the left considers debating, under the Race Card.


It is sort of lazy, but when it is ALL that they do...


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 10, 2018)

Pogo said:


> You be sure to run down to Congress and tell them that.
> 
> Right before they begin with that prayer thingy.


Prayers are not deemed to be representative of any particular religion. Got any other asinine comments to make?
I'm sure you'll think of something.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 10, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > 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'?
> ...



Please provide an example of a Supreme Court ruling which covers hijabs.  Haven't you already pointed out your lack of knowledge when it comes to relevant USSC cases?


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 10, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > But in the US, whether or not a woman follows the Koran is a choice.
> ...



I don't have to twist words to see that the proposed change in no way specifies hijabs or Islam.  You, on the other hand...  

Change is often spurred by a single person or small group.  That doesn't make the changes wrong or invalid.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



You seem to be saying that no changes should ever be made as long as there are liberals...


----------



## Pogo (Dec 10, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Which is the same thing King George thought in 1776.


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 10, 2018)

The seat of American representative government would do well to represent liberty for women, not just the privilege of one woman.


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...




Funny, I thought I was saying that I want liberals to stop being dishonest race baiting assholes, and have a real discussion about policy.


But, you seem to be saying that that is so out of the question, that it is inconceivable. 


You may be right.


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

Pogo said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




Are you trying to imply that all change is good?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 10, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> I don't have to twist words to see that the proposed change in no way specifies hijabs or Islam. You, on the other hand...


Nor does it have to since we all know who the rule change was made to benefit specifically. 
But that's beside the point....the hijab is a Muslim bit of wear mentioned in the Koran and designed to subjugate women.  And it would be just as improper if rules were changed for a yarmulke wearing Jew or a turban wearing Sikh.
I don't know if you people are just pretending you don't understand or if you all really are that dense.



> Change is often spurred by a single person or small group. That doesn't make the changes wrong or invalid.


In this case it does, if we still are following the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


_WHOOOOOOOSH!_


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...




Why are you posting, if you have nothing to say? Are you just here to be a troll?


----------



## Pogo (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Uhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno.  



bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



_*WAY*_ whooooooosh.


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

Pogo said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...




Good. 


So, the fact that once long ago, some guy resisted change that seems to have worked out well for US,


in no way implies that today, liberals give due consideration to whether change is good or not.



Sooo, my point stands.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



You didn't make a point.  I did that.  What you did is completely miss it.




Too busy making all those



superfluous carriage returns


I'd say.


----------



## Correll (Dec 10, 2018)

Pogo said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Fine. run it by me slower, with smaller words.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 10, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have to twist words to see that the proposed change in no way specifies hijabs or Islam. You, on the other hand...
> ...



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?


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 10, 2018)

Correll said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



OK, are you saying that as long as liberals are "dishonest race baiting assholes," no changes should be made?


----------



## Correll (Dec 11, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...




Nope. That is clearly not what I am saying.


You should really consider how much your perceptions are warped by your preconceived notions.


----------



## Faun (Dec 11, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


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?


----------



## Faun (Dec 11, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Faun (Dec 11, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


G’head, keep pretending as if you weren’t challenged to show something relevant.


----------



## Faun (Dec 11, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Most things are beyond your comprehension. Like your idiocy that wanting to wear a hat in the House as a fashion statement is relevant to wearing one as practice of religion.


----------



## Faun (Dec 11, 2018)

depotoo said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 11, 2018)

Theocracies must be held to a more holy Standard.  The Expense of Government is Proof, they not moral enough to Obey, Ten simple Commandments from a God.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 11, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> 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.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 11, 2018)

Correll said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Perhaps.  Of course, perhaps you should consider how poorly you are getting your intended point across.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 11, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...



Actually, I've explained to you multiple times how Roy Moore's actions differ from Ilhan Omar's potentially wearing a hijab on the floor of the House.  So claiming that I can't do so is particularly foolish of you.

I very specifically asked about any religious head covers, not merely hijabs.  Nor did I say any ruling you might bring up had to specify hijabs or even specify religious head covers; I said you haven't pointed to a single case which would indicate that such head covers are unconstitutional if worn on the floor of the House.  Guess what?  You haven't.  You haven't brought up a single USSC ruling at all that I recall.  You've claimed that the Roy Moore situation is the same as this one, but again, provided no actual evidence that that is the case.

Why don't you explain how allowing individual representatives to wear religious head coverings (regardless of the religion) shows a preference for one religion over all others by the government?  Again, any relevant text from the Constitution and/or USSC rulings would be appreciated.  Considering your failure to provide any evidence up to this point, however, I don't think I'll wait with baited breath.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 11, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Actually, I've explained to you multiple times how Roy Moore's actions differ from Ilhan Omar's potentially wearing a hijab on the floor of the House. So claiming that I can't do so is particularly foolish of you.


You've said a stone slab is different from a hijab before and that's never been disputed nor is it relevant. Both the hijab and rock are religious symbols of their respective religions and judges have already ruled on the stone.
If you have a different argument you should insert it here, though we both know you haven't.


Montrovant said:


> I very specifically asked about any religious head covers, not merely hijabs. Nor did I say any ruling you might bring up had to specify hijabs or even specify religious head covers; I said you haven't pointed to a single case which would indicate that such head covers are unconstitutional if worn on the floor of the House. Guess what? You haven't. You haven't brought up a single USSC ruling at all that I recall. You've claimed that the Roy Moore situation is the same as this one, but again, provided no actual evidence that that is the case.


Well guess what? The courts have already decided that symbols of a particular religion are not appropriate or legal
in a government context as they could be construed as endorsement of that religion by the government.

So I don't know how many different ways I can say this: Because a religious symbol of Islam has not specifically been addressed by the courts is irrelevant! ALL and any religious expressions are covered by Supreme Court decisions
when they long ago said a secular nation can not allow religious expressions of any sort to be connected to our government.
I don't want to call you stupid...I just can't think of another word for someone who keeps insisting over and over again
on something that's already been disproved and dispensed with.


Montrovant said:


> _Why don't you explain how allowing individual representatives to wear religious head coverings (regardless of the religion) shows a preference for one religion over all others by the government?_ Again, any relevant text from the Constitution and/or USSC rulings would be appreciated. Considering your failure to provide any evidence up to this point, however, I don't think I'll wait with baited breath.


Because obviously allowing some people to indulge their religious message but not others is tacit approval and endorsement by the government. 
How thick are you? How stupid can you be? You keep spouting the same fucking idiocy!


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 11, 2018)

Faun said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 11, 2018)

there4eyeM said:


> 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.


That you must explain such obvious truths to some people makes one realize what truly stupid people
there are on these boards.


----------



## depotoo (Dec 11, 2018)

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





Faun said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


----------



## Correll (Dec 11, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





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?


----------



## Correll (Dec 11, 2018)

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





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.


----------



## Correll (Dec 11, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...




So, we've ruled out anything on your end, being the problem?


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 11, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> You've said a stone slab is different from a hijab before and that's never been disputed nor is it relevant. Both the hijab and rock are religious symbols of their respective religions and judges have already ruled on the stone.
> If you have a different argument you should insert it here, though we both know you haven't.



As I've said multiple times now, a hijab is a personal expression of religious belief.  A monument in a government building, on the other hand, is a public expression.  The hijab Omar wears is specific to her, whereas the monument Moore had put up became part of the courthouse.  This argument is nothing new, I've put it forth before, but I suppose you may not have bothered reading it, or perhaps your cognitive dissonance has taken hold.



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Well guess what? The courts have already decided that symbols of a particular religion are not appropriate or legal
> in a government context as they could be construed as endorsement of that religion by the government.
> 
> So I don't know how many different ways I can say this: Because a religious symbol of Islam has not specifically been addressed by the courts is irrelevant! ALL and any religious expressions are covered by Supreme Court decisions
> ...



I've already pointed out 2 USSC rulings made on the same day in which 10 commandment monuments were ruled both unconstitutional and Constitutional on government property.  I never said that you needed to show a court ruling which covered a specific Islamic expression.  Strangely, you are still focused on that thing I never said.

However, here you are again claiming that USSC decisions prohibit any and all religious expression.  And, again, you are not providing any evidence to support this claim.



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Because obviously allowing some people to indulge their religious message but not others is tacit approval and endorsement by the government.
> How thick are you? How stupid can you be? You keep spouting the same fucking idiocy!



You say I'm spouting idiocy, but at least I've actually provided some evidence that you are incorrect.  You, on the other hand, continue to get upset about how obvious your argument is and how the court has clearly ruled on this issue in the way you claim, yet you have not given a single shred of evidence to support that claim.

Not every religious expression is unconstitutional.  I've already brought this case to your attention, but I'm guessing you never bothered looking into it.  Here, follow this link:  VAN ORDEN V. PERRY
Or this one: Van Orden v. Perry
If you bother to look, you'll see that the USSC upheld a decision that a monument with the 10 commandments at the Texas Capitol was Constitutional.  So, apparently, not every religious expression is prohibited.  Your argument debunked, with evidence provided from a Supreme Court ruling.  See how that works?

I can show you a number of cases in which individuals won court cases affirming their First Amendment rights to wear religious head coverings in various places, from court to prison.  That would seem to leave you needing to show that Representatives do not enjoy the same rights because, while on the floor of the House, any religious expression on their part constitutes a religious expression by the government.  And before you once again whine "Roy Moore!" remember that this is a personal expression while Moore created a public expression; head coverings are limited to an individual while a monument becomes part of the building it is placed in.  As I've said before, I'm far from a Constitutional or Supreme Court scholar, so I'm more than happy to admit I could be ignorant of of interpretations and rulings which would support your argument.  You'd need to actually provide evidence of that, though.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 11, 2018)

Correll said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Not if you actually read my last post.

Still, I'm curious how you think someone should interpret your post:


Correll said:


> The way the libs scream "racist" the moment anyone questions any proposed change.
> 
> 
> You CAN'T have due consideration in that kind of environment.



If you don't think changes should happen without due consideration, and you don't think due consideration is possible because liberals scream "racist," wouldn't that mean you don't think changes should happen while there are liberals to scream "racist"?  Well, changes that liberals disagree with, at least; maybe you think changes that liberals agree with are OK because they won't scream "racist"?


----------



## Correll (Dec 11, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...





YOu're the one suggesting the liberals are incapable of not screaming racist constantly.


I hope that someday, grownups will slap them down like the ill mannered and stupid children they are, and that normal discourse can resume.


Until then, we should be very, very careful and restrained in any "change", that is not changing BACK.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 11, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> As I've said multiple times now, a hijab is a personal expression of religious belief. A monument in a government building, on the other hand, is a public expression. The hijab Omar wears is specific to her, whereas the monument Moore had put up became part of the courthouse. This argument is nothing new, I've put it forth before, but I suppose you may not have bothered reading it, or perhaps your cognitive dissonance has taken hold.


If I read it before I immediately dismissed your point as absurd bull droppings. It's illogical and irrelevant.
Moore is responsible for the monument just as Omar is responsible for her hijab. Once again you are trying to make some sort of distinction between the stone and the hijab as if that makes any difference at all.
Lots of credit for stubbornness. None for an intelligent point.


Montrovant said:


> I've already pointed out 2 USSC rulings made on the same day in which 10 commandment monuments were ruled both unconstitutional and Constitutional on government property. I never said that you needed to show a court ruling which covered a specific Islamic expression. Strangely, you are still focused on that thing I never said.


A very big LOL!....I've lost track of how many times you've challenged me to produce a specific Supreme Court ruling on hijabs on federal property. Wake the eff up!
As far as your two conflicting rulings I would say the appellate court judges that ordered Roy Moore removed from office for not removing his stone monument breaks the tie, even though a single contrary lower court ruling doesn't mean shit when you consider the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter.


Montrovant said:


> However, here you are again claiming that USSC decisions prohibit any and all religious expression. And, again, you are not providing any evidence to support this claim.


Religious expression by government actors that express a preference for a specific religion, yes. That's right.
*4. Government institutions must show neither official approval nor disapproval of religion, or favor one religion over another............
"or favor one religion over another"*
The uber leftist People for the American Way know this. Why don't you? Allowing Ilhan Omar to wear her symbol of
submission to Islam while not allowing the Ten Commandments to be posted is favoring one religion over another.
She gets her way. Roy Moore does not. Can you comprehend such a simple statement.?


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 11, 2018)

Women won the franchise.  We can no longer get corporal with private women for simply being brazen enough and pornographic enough to "bare their ankles" in public.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 11, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



"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.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 11, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Are you really so fragile, that you become unable to think the instant someone says something you don't like?  I'd like to believe our elected officials are made of sterner stuff.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 11, 2018)

Correll said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You're not making much of a case for your position being at all intelligent, if you kneejerk to "Cecilie is a liberal" the instant I dare to disagree with you on something.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 11, 2018)

Correll said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Your argument goes out the window when you consider that you're not being called a racist because "They're all liberals, and that's just what they say."  I'M calling you a racist, and I'm so conservative, I make you look like a new dealer.

Face it, hon.  You're being called a racist because you sound like one.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 11, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Says the guy who just called ME a "liberal" simply because I disagreed with him.  Yeah, you're ALL about the cool, reasoned logic.  "Shove it up your ass, asshole" turns up in a lot of formal debates, so I hear.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 11, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Lib = You lose.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 11, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...



Riiiiiight.  Why would anyone think a person's religious beliefs and exercise thereof have anything to do with who they are as a person?  It's not like religion is IMPORTANT, or anything.

As for your Gender Card snipe, perhaps you might notice that _depot _brought gender issues into it, not me.  But hey, why read and understand what's being said when you can just "know" that your kneejerk bigotry is correct and proper and the epitome of Truth, Justice, and The American Way?


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 11, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> If I read it before I immediately dismissed your point as absurd bull droppings. It's illogical and irrelevant.
> Moore is responsible for the monument just as Omar is responsible for her hijab. Once again you are trying to make some sort of distinction between the stone and the hijab as if that makes any difference at all.
> Lots of credit for stubbornness. None for an intelligent point.



You said I hadn't made any other argument.  I had.  That you ignored my argument is your own issue.

Do you not see a distinction between a part of a government building and an individual's personal apparel?   



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> A very big LOL!....I've lost track of how many times you've challenged me to produce a specific Supreme Court ruling on hijabs on federal property. Wake the eff up!
> As far as your two conflicting rulings I would say the appellate court judges that ordered Roy Moore removed from office for not removing his stone monument breaks the tie, even though a single contrary lower court ruling doesn't mean shit when you consider the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter.



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!  

Breaking a tie?  Do you think that is how the court works?  And it was the Supreme Court which ruled in both of the 10 commandment monument cases I've mentioned to you (and provided links for Van Orden v Perry).  The USSC rules differently about things depending on the specific circumstances in a given case.  You seem to think they consider every religious expression case to be the same, despite the clear evidence that they do not.



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Religious expression by government actors that express a preference for a specific religion, yes. That's right.
> *4. Government institutions must show neither official approval nor disapproval of religion, or favor one religion over another............
> "or favor one religion over another"*
> The uber leftist People for the American Way know this. Why don't you? Allowing Ilhan Omar to wear her symbol of
> ...



Once again, the commandment monuments was a different situation.  Not every religious expression question is dealt with exactly the same.  The context, the circumstances, actually matter.  Someone wearing a religious head covering does not make their religious belief part of a government building.  Someone placing a religious monument in a courthouse does.  I guess that distinction is too complicated for you.

I understand your continuous whining about Roy Moore.  I can't help it if you can't understand that the two situations were different.

I've invited you to provide some evidence that shows that all forms of religious expression are treated the same by the Constitution: you have failed to do so.  I have provided you evidence that the Supreme Court treats situations far more similar to each other than Roy Moore and Ilhan Omar differently; it was even the exact same court, ruling on the same day, that made the different rulings.  So the only evidence that's been presented indicates that all religious expression is not treated the same, and since that seems to be the basis for your argument, your argument pretty much fails.

There's also the way you claimed that religious jewelry is not an unconstitutional religious expression because it is not easily visible, which, per usual, you also didn't provide evidence for.  That claim contradicts your claim about "Religious expression by government actors that express a preference for a specific religion."  You seem to have dropped that jewelry idea pretty quickly.

Roy Moore's monument was not the same as a representative wearing a religious head cover on the floor.  Even if both are unconstitutional, they are still not the same.  Perhaps one day you'll learn that context can be important and circumstances matter, even in Supreme Court cases and even when dealing with the Constitution.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 11, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > 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'?
> ...



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.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 11, 2018)

Correll said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...



I'm listening.  It's not my fault that all of you are conveying different messages than you think you are.


----------



## Correll (Dec 11, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




"Not being able to have a serious debate", does Not EQUAL "not being able to think".


That you had to lie about that obvious fact, shows that on some level, you know I am right and you are wrong.


And screaming "racist" is more than just something I don't like. It poisons the debate, and divides people.


That you defend that, shows what type of person you are.


----------



## Correll (Dec 11, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...




Your behavior has demonstrated my position to be true. Thank you, btw.


----------



## Correll (Dec 11, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...




If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'm calling it a duck. YOu don't like it, improve your behavior.


----------



## Correll (Dec 11, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...





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 (Dec 11, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...





You made a comment about me, that was false. I corrected it. ANd told you to save such bullshit for someone who might care.


I dont' see what in your response, really addresses that, so consider it to stand.


----------



## Correll (Dec 11, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...





I think it is. I think your preconceived notions and biases are preventing you from hearing what I am actually saying.


YOu said what you heard. I said nothing like that, and challenge you to show me saying anything like that.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 11, 2018)

The point is, we can no longer assume a Corporalcy over private women merely to enforce our version of morality since their acquisition and possession of the franchise.


----------



## Faun (Dec 11, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


She’s not proselytizing. Do you ever stop lying?


----------



## Faun (Dec 11, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...


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


----------



## Faun (Dec 11, 2018)

there4eyeM said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...


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 (Dec 11, 2018)

depotoo said:


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


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


----------



## Faun (Dec 11, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


LOL 

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


----------



## Faun (Dec 11, 2018)

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 11, 2018)

Faun said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...




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 (Dec 12, 2018)

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 (Dec 12, 2018)

there4eyeM said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> "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!"
> 
> ...


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 (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > "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!"
> ...


LOLOL 

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


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 12, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2018)

irosie91 said:


> 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 fucking stupid can some people be? Very, very stupid!


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > 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!
> ...



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 (Dec 12, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> 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 fucking stupid). But the evidence is overwhelming. 
Get your mom to help out.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Dec 12, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> 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 fucking 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 (Dec 12, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2018)

Sunni Man said:


> 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 (Dec 12, 2018)

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 (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


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


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 (Dec 12, 2018)

jillian said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...




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


----------



## Taz (Dec 12, 2018)

jillian said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...


The First Amendment doesn't protect anyone's religion, as sharia law cannot be fully implemented here.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 12, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


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


Forgive them. They know not what the hell they are talking about.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 12, 2018)

Taz said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...




Sharia Law has nothing to do with this. If this was about Sharia, we would be talking about a law that required ALL women wear a hijab while in the Capitol building, as well as at all other times. Instead , we're talking about a rule that allows it , or not.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2018)

We have a First Amendment, it must be about equality and equal protection of the law.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 12, 2018)

Taz said:


> The First Amendment doesn't protect anyone's religion, as sharia law cannot be fully implemented here.


A lawsuit filed by the ACLU would be helpful. If Congress allows Ilhan Omar to wear her hijab in Congress it would signal
they are tacitly approving her religious preference of Islam over any other religion and therefore, they themselves are giving Islam a thumbs up, which is absolutely forbidden!
Some people here should have to go back to school.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > The First Amendment doesn't protect anyone's religion, as sharia law cannot be fully implemented here.
> ...


the ethical issues are that it is a symbol of submission not a symbol of equality or equal rights before Men in Congress, assembled.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 12, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Sharia Law has nothing to do with this. If this was about Sharia, we would be talking about a law that required ALL women wear a hijab while in the Capitol building, as well as at all other times. Instead , we're talking about a rule that allows it , or not.


Yeah...sharia law is a side issue. This is all about the US Constitution and separation of church and state.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 12, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> the ethical issues are that it is a symbol of submission not a symbol of equality or equal rights before Men in Congress, assembled.


I agree but like sharia law, it's also a side issue. We can't stop people from worshiping a religion that treats women like live stock. But we should be free from that medieval relic inside the halls of Congress.

Unfortunately some people are so idiotic and morally decayed they don't care.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 12, 2018)

jillian said:


> 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.


Actually it ISN'T different and here is yet another person who has problems discerning principles of law and Constitutionality.
Omar can wear her hijab at home or away from Congress until it literally falls apart. What she may NOT do is
wear it in her capacity as a member of the House of Representatives.
Btw, wearing a yarmulke is also interpreted by the Supreme Court as violating the separation of church and state.
We live in a secular nation. Not in an Islamic state.Or Israel.




> you should probably stop pretending you understand the issue.


Good one! I love irony. Especially when it makes you look a clueless fool.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > the ethical issues are that it is a symbol of submission not a symbol of equality or equal rights before Men in Congress, assembled.
> ...


only if they keep it to themselves.  if they "lose faith" and bring it to the attention of the secular and temporal Government, it must be about due process, and equality and equal protection of the law.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 12, 2018)

irosie91 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...



I tried Googling "standard USA stuff".  Nothing relevant came up.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Dec 12, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...



It is called "freedom of religion".  I think you can find that.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 12, 2018)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> It is called "freedom of religion". I think you can find that.


Well, "Admiral", no one is preventing Ilhan Omar from worshiping her regressive religion and wearing a head covering, away from Congress, because she is a woman, and in Islam women are to be controlled and covered up.
You seem to be confused.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > the ethical issues are that it is a symbol of submission not a symbol of equality or equal rights before Men in Congress, assembled.
> ...




Sir , you shouldn't be and are not free FROM any religion. This is why people who oppose say a nativity scene on public land are stupid. The FA says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Not that this is a first amendment issue anyway.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > The First Amendment doesn't protect anyone's religion, as sharia law cannot be fully implemented here.
> ...




See, again you have this completely backwards. Allowing this woman to wear her hoodie does not violate anyone's rights. 

Now , if the rule passes, and it will, and a Jewish man wishes to wear his beanie and he's told no then he certainly would have a valid claim that his rights have been violated, but allowing this woman to wear her hoodie in and of itself does not violate your rights.

The only thing it really does is further illustrate the outright hypocrisy of many on the left who complain that simply having to look at a nativity scene on public land violates their rights, but this is different. Somehow. No , they are the same. Simply allowing religion on public land does not equate "official religion" and the argument is stupid whether from the left or the right.

Let this woman wear her hoodie, let that town put up with their cross. Be an adult and move on with your life.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 12, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> See, again you have this completely backwards. Allowing this woman to wear her hoodie does not violate anyone's rights.
> 
> Now , if the rule passes, and it will, and a Jewish man wishes to wear his beanie and he's told no then he certainly would have a valid claim that his rights have been violated, but allowing this woman to wear her hoodie in and of itself does not violate your rights.
> 
> ...


Well either everyone will get to bring religion out of the home and church (mosque, synagogue) and into the public arena, or no one should have that right (Ilhan Omar most notably).
But since this is how the Supreme Court has called this ballgame then each team should have to play by the same rules.

And we aren't about to un-ring the bell of separation of church and state though I personally feel the Supreme Court took an extreme stance in order remove religion from ALL of society, ideally in the left's view.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > See, again you have this completely backwards. Allowing this woman to wear her hoodie does not violate anyone's rights.
> ...




I find the Congressional Black Caucus to be far more offensive and illegal than allowing this woman to wear a hoodie, but that's just me.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


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



Actually, yes, it's in the context of separation of church and state.  There is a difference between altering a government building and wearing a religious garment, even when it comes to separation of church and state.



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> 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.



You did not prove anything of the sort with your link.  If you think you have, please point to where any of the cases in the link say that "invoking your particular religion's God in any governmental context is forbidden."  Just posting some USSC cases on religious expression doesn't prove your point; the cases have to be relevant to your point.  A school having a prayer recitation is not the same thing as an individual wearing religious garb.  Displaying a nativity scene in a government building is not the same as an individual wearing religious garb.  Etc. etc.

I may not have proven my case, but I have provided evidence directly relevant to the argument that not all religious expression cases are treated the same.  If you don't yet realize that the cases I referenced regarding 10 commandment monuments, one of which I provided a couple of links to, are USSC cases, then clearly you aren't going to bother paying attention to any evidence shown to you which contradicts your current belief.  The rationales in the two cases are certainly different, and I never claimed otherwise.  I merely pointed them out to you to show that all 10 commandment monument cases, and all religious expression cases, are not treated the same.  Context matters.



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> 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.



I don't want you to take anything on faith, certainly not the statement you just made which I've never said or implied.  You seem to be opposed to actually looking at any evidence I provide you, though, I guess because it makes it easier for you to tell yourself I'm trying to get you to take things on faith.  I provided a link to many ACLU cases, and you thought it only contained the 2 examples I pulled from the link to quote in the thread.  I provided a link to a Supreme Court case in which a 10 commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol was ruled Constitutional, and you don't know if I've shown you rulings from the Supreme Court.  You expect me to analyze and detail the reasoning behind the cases I present to you to make a point I've never put forth, yet you don't seem to feel a need to even point to any specific cases or how they support your argument, simply posting a link with some USSC religious expression cases as though any case related to religious expression or the Establishment Clause supports you.

Please, don't take this on faith.  Go actually look at the 2 cases I mentioned and see for yourself that in 1 case, a 10 commandments monument was deemed unconstitutional, while in the other case it was not.  See for yourself that the cases were decided by the same court on the same day.  See for yourself that the court did not simply decide whether the monuments were a form of religious expression, but instead took the context of the monuments into account.  Then ask yourself if your argument that any religious expression is the same as any other, in terms of the Establishment Clause, makes sense.  

You could further ask yourself if the idea that religious jewelry is not a prohibited expression makes sense when you argue that one religious expression is the same as any other.  Perhaps you might contemplate why you believe that being easily visible is a required test for whether a particular expression of religion violates the Establishment Clause, and what made you believe that to be true.  You might find the part of the Constitution or court rulings which show that easy visibility is a measure of Constitutionality and point that out.

Or you could just wait for a long time, then post a link to some Supreme Court cases without explaining how any of them are relevant to your argument.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > In which of those cases did the Supreme Court interpret the personal activities of government officials to be official government acts?
> ...



I didn't want Supreme Court cases dealing with separation of church and state.  I wanted cases relevant to your particular argument.  If you honestly think that any Establishment Clause case is evidence of your argument...


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 12, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > NOT when it comes to separation of church and state you haven't. Stop with your fucking idiocy.
> ...




Given that many of our historic government building were originally designed with religious symbolism included, your point is stupid


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > The First Amendment doesn't protect anyone's religion, as sharia law cannot be fully implemented here.
> ...



If Congress also allows Jews to wear a yarmulke, or Christians to wear a bonnet, or Sikhs to wear a turban, how is it tacitly approving Islam over any other religion?


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Feel free to show where the Supreme Court has interpreted the wearing of a yarmulke as violating separation of church and state.  Or do you expect everyone to take it on faith?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 12, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Actually, yes, it's in the context of separation of church and state. There is a difference between altering a government building and wearing a religious garment, even when it comes to separation of church and state.


Nope. An expression of one's religion is an expression of one's religion whether a hijab, a stone slab or a Cadillac with John 3:16 painted all over it. Try another argument. This one of yours doesn't work.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 12, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...




You make the point, how is one judge putting the ten commandments in his court room tactically acknowledging an official state religion? The answer, of course, is that it does not. But liberals sure scream that it does.

That's the kind of quandary you find yourself in if you don't have any principles. I myself have little doubt that if a GOP led House were changing this exact same rule because a Christian woman were wanting to wear her bonnet that you would be in here screaming "we can't allow Congress to endorse Christianity like this" I have ZERO doubt on that point.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 12, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> I didn't want Supreme Court cases dealing with separation of church and state. I wanted cases relevant to your particular argument. If you honestly think that any Establishment Clause case is evidence of your argument...


Separation of Church and State is relevant to my argument.
It is the entire reason why letting Omar wear her hijab under brand new House rules is counter to the Constitution.
And it would be the same if the rules were changed so someone could wear their yarmulke, turban or Pope's mitre. That's what a legal principle is. An across the board prohibition
against religious wear in Congress. Learn it, children.


----------



## Taz (Dec 12, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


I'm simply saying that saying we're protected by the First Amendment for religious freedom is a strawman argument because the First doesn't really protect anyone religious rights.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 12, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...



Yeah, you kinda do.  That's what it means when something is listed in the Bill of *Rights:  *that you have a right to it.

And yes, of course, there are tons of shadings, nuances, and compromises involved depending on circumstances, because human interactions are always going to be complicated and involve the balancing of one person's demands and rights against another person's.

Generally speaking, however, I would pitch an ungodly hissy fit if any official government body tried to interfere in any way with my personal obedience to God as I understood it, without an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so.  Therefore, because I believe that my freedoms are only secured insofar as I am willing to secure them for others, I must therefore object to any official government body interfering in any way with Ms. Omar's personal obedience to her god as she understands it, absent an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so.

No one has yet identified or explained that overwhelmingly compelling reason.

So there we have it.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, yes, it's in the context of separation of church and state. There is a difference between altering a government building and wearing a religious garment, even when it comes to separation of church and state.
> ...



I imagine you want me to accept that on faith?  

I'll take the fact that the Supreme Court does not view every expression of religion the same as every other as evidence that you are wrong.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't want Supreme Court cases dealing with separation of church and state. I wanted cases relevant to your particular argument. If you honestly think that any Establishment Clause case is evidence of your argument...
> ...



When you can provide evidence that the Supreme Court has ruled there is "an across the board prohibition against religious wear in Congress," or that the Constitution has such a prohibition, I'll take your argument seriously.  As long as your argument consists of "separation of church and state always applies to any form of religious expression (unless I say otherwise)," I'll continue to disagree with you.

Oh, and I'll provide some evidence that actually supports me.  You should try it.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > See, again you have this completely backwards. Allowing this woman to wear her hoodie does not violate anyone's rights.
> ...



When did the Supreme Court remove religion from all of society?

People already can bring religion out of their homes and places of worship.  What you have to show is that wearing a religious head cover constitutes a government endorsement of religion.  There may be a good argument that, in the case of Congressional representatives, religious head covers do create such an endorsement.  Unfortunately, all you've done is whine about Roy Moore and try to create a link between the alteration of a government building and the personal apparel of individuals.  You've repeatedly claimed that the Supreme Court views such things the same, but have not actually shown where the court has done so.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 12, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...




No you certainly do not have  a right to wear a Hoodie during a session of Congress, and this is EASILY proven.

Go to court in your local city wearing a hat, any hat. You will quickly be asked to remove the hat. Why? Because it is considered to be a lack of respect to wear a hat in court. Not exactly a compelling reason is it.

AND if some judge decided "I don't care about hats in my court room" he could allow it, because it's a rule, not a law.

Same thing here. You most certainly do NOT have a right to wear a hoodie in Congress. They simply had a rule against it, but now they are changing that rule. 

Same reason courts routinely toss out cases against school dress codes, because you do not have a right to wear for example a t shirt with a marijuana leaf on it to school. I suppose a school could allow it within their rules if they wanted to, but there is no right.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 12, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...



Given that the case I've been bringing up (Van Orden v Perry) takes things like the historical context of the monument in question into account, and given that a variety of things which were acceptable in the past would be considered unconstitutional today, I think my points stand.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 12, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Well,  it's quite clear that SCOTUS isn't infallible and the Justices are quite capable of outright making shit up to justify their rulings in general, not specific to this case. So I don't just say "well SCOTUS ruled, so that's that"

However, can we agree that people who complain about such things that have no real impact on their lives are losers who we would be better off without?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 12, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...



Oh, is that a fact?  You have evidence that courts routinely ask people to divest themselves of religiously-related clothing, do you?  Because I can tell you just from anecdotal evidence that I work for a legal transcription firm owned by an Orthodox Jewish man.  Not only are a lot of our employees Orthodox Jews themselves (meaning the men all wear _yarmulkes_), but we deal with a LOT of different courts and legal cases.  Never once have I encountered any occasion on which a judge thought it appropriate or legal to ask a Jewish man to remove his _yarmulke_, or a Muslim woman to remove her _hijab_.

And if some judge DID decide he had a right to do so, the legal uproar would be deafening.  Because he's acting as a government official when he's in court, which makes it a violation of the First Amendment.

Same thing here.  The House of Representatives is as "official government body" as you can get.  And not only does it not have the right to interfere in someone's personal religious exercise, it would also be utterly inappropriate and wrong.  Which is why they are correctly proposing to change the rule, now that it has become a matter of religion, rather than simply one of fashion.

Public schools can set dress codes, but they cannot legally set dress codes which violate the student's First Amendment rights.  A t-shirt with a marijuana leaf on it is not remotely comparable to a _hijab _or _yarmulke_.  Any public school that tried to ban such things on campus would 1) get slapped down by the district, 2) get slapped down by the school board, and 3) get sued out the ass.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 12, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...



I posted a link to a list of ACLU cases earlier.  A number of them involved religious head covers.  At least one involved an individual having the right to wear religious head cover in court.
NJ Appellate Division dismisses contempt finding against ACLU-NJ client who refused to remove religious head-covering in court


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 12, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...



Certainly I agree SCOTUS isn't always correct.  My arguments with other posters in large part revolve around claims that the court has made certain rulings and interpretations that it has not, to my knowledge.

And I agree that complaining against someone wearing a hijab in the House is pretty ridiculous.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 12, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




Oh, you don't think public schools can ban students from wearing head coverings? LOL of course they can, for obvious reasons.

Same reason, for example, some dumb Muslim bitch who wants to wear her face covering in her DL picture can be told "um no" is that a violation of her first amendment rights ? I mean she's free to wear a garbage bag over her head in accordance to her religion, isn't she ? Well, yes yes she is, but that doesn't mean she can do whatever she wants while doing so. 

And of course on the subject of Muslim women who want to practice their religion, I must once again ask. Isn't serving in Congress, going to school, driving, working, or even being out in pubic without a male escort all violations of her religion? Yes they are. Meaning, of course, that they are fake Muslims, only practicing their faith when it is convenient for them.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 12, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



That ruling didn't say what you thought it said.


----------



## Faun (Dec 12, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...


Says who?


----------



## Faun (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> > It is called "freedom of religion". I think you can find that.
> ...


And no one will be banning her when she shows up for work in the Capitol.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 12, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...



The ruling didn't say it, but it was part of the ACLU's argument.  Unfortunately I didn't find another case about wearing a head covering in court to give as an example from the list I was looking at.  There were cases about head coverings in other places, but I wanted to get as close as I could to your statements.


----------



## Faun (Dec 12, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


LOLOL 

I like how you switched from “hijab” to “hoodie.” Demonstrates even you know you’re wrong.


----------



## Taz (Dec 12, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Marijuana is an integral part of the Rastafarian religion, so a pot leaf on a t-shirt can be seen as a religious garment.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 12, 2018)

Faun said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




What are you talking about ? The hijab IS a hoodie. Hoodie just sounds funnier .

In EITHER case, you have no right to wear one in Congress, thus the 180 year rule that one couldn't be worn.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 12, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...



No, public schools can ban certain things, for certain reasons.  I realize that you feel compelled to dismissively lump everything under "head covering" or "hoodie", presumably to demonstrate how lofty and above-it-all you are, but there are differences.  Lots of them.

Pretending you don't see the difference between wearing a covering which leaves the face revealed and one which covers the face IN A CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH IS ALL ABOUT IDENTIFICATION just tells me that I don't have to bother taking anything you post seriously, because you consider rights you yourself aren't using to be too silly to be respected.

Come back when you think Constitutional rights are inherently important.


----------



## Faun (Dec 12, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


*”Go to court in your local city wearing a hat, any hat. You will quickly be asked to remove the hat. Why? Because it is considered to be a lack of respect to wear a hat in court. Not exactly a compelling reason is it.”*

Dumbfuck.


----------



## Faun (Dec 12, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


One is worn for religious reasons, the other is not. Your bigotry is irrelevant.


----------



## Taz (Dec 12, 2018)

Faun said:


>


So it's like a dunce cap, only smaller.


----------



## Faun (Dec 12, 2018)

Taz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Seems to me it’s your head that’s pointy, not the yarmulke.


----------



## Taz (Dec 12, 2018)

Faun said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


FYI, your "torch" on the right is actually a light. Sorry to have to break it to you.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 12, 2018)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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.
> 
> ...






IMHO,  with modern communication equipment, there is really no need to have Congress in Washington DC for more that a couple days a years for ceremonial purposes.

I'd say let the broad "attend" the meetings in the buff if it pleases her, as long as she does it from her own house in Minnesota.    

I think it would be best for the country to have Congresscritters stay in their districts where they can better represent their constituents.


----------



## Faun (Dec 12, 2018)

Taz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


No worries. You should tell the National Parks Services though that they got it wrong.

_Is the torch open? The torch has been closed since the "Black Tom" explosion of July 30, 1916...

Frequently Asked Questions About the Statue of Liberty - Statue Of Liberty National Monument (U.S. National Park Service)_​


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 12, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...



Well, thank you so much for informing us that the existence of the rule being changed is evidence that there was no requirement for changing it, based on your erroneous assumption that the rule was instituted about religious garb in the first place.

If that's not a mental circle jerk, I don't know what is.

Back here in Realityland, the rule about hats was instituted at a time when everyone in the House was a WASP male, and it was created in regards to appearing different from the British Parliament members, not in regards to any religion.  This is the first time it has come into conflict with anyone's religious behavior.

So pretty obviously, since the response was to exempt religious garb from the rule, the House itself does think Ms. Omar has a right to wear her _hijab_.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 12, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> I posted a link to a list of ACLU cases earlier. A number of them involved religious head covers. At least one involved an individual having the right to wear religious head cover in court.
> NJ Appellate Division dismisses contempt finding against ACLU-NJ client who refused to remove religious head-covering in court


Irrelevant! The defendant was presumably not representing the government in any way. What he wore in court in no way
indicates a government preference for one religion over the other.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 12, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> When did the Supreme Court remove religion from all of society?
> 
> People already can bring religion out of their homes and places of worship. What you have to show is that wearing a religious head cover constitutes a government endorsement of religion. There may be a good argument that, in the case of Congressional representatives, religious head covers do create such an endorsement. Unfortunately, all you've done is whine about Roy Moore and try to create a link between the alteration of a government building and the personal apparel of individuals. You've repeatedly claimed that the Supreme Court views such things the same, but have not actually shown where the court has done so.


You are so frustratingly stupid. You know Roy Moore brought his slab of rock into his courthouse because he was barred from posting a poster of the Ten Commandments in it.
It's an expression of his religion to the exclusion of others....just like Omar's hijab.

I don't have to prove that the Supreme Court would differentiate between the Ten Commandments or a Muslim hijab or a Christmas nativity scene in a public park, for that matter They are *all* viewed the same by the court. As a religious expression of one faith or another.

Period!
Prove other wise.


----------



## Faun (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > When did the Supreme Court remove religion from all of society?
> ...


Still can’t tell the difference between express and exercise?? What a pity.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 12, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Given that the case I've been bringing up (Van Orden v Perry) takes things like the historical context of the monument in question into account, and given that a variety of things which were acceptable in the past would be considered unconstitutional today, I think my points stand.


Van Orden v. Perry - Wikipedia
There were many mitigating factors in Van Orden v Perry that differentiate it from Roy Moore's situation. 
It's location, it's historical value, it's non religious value,etc. That you are comparing the two shows you  really are in over your head. I'm not surprised.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I posted a link to a list of ACLU cases earlier. A number of them involved religious head covers. At least one involved an individual having the right to wear religious head cover in court.
> ...



Neither does what is worn by individual people who happen to be employed by the government.  For the 47th time, they do not stop being individual citizens with personal Constitutional rights just because they're elected to office.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 12, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Neither does what is worn by individual people who happen to be employed by the government. For the 47th time, they do not stop being individual citizens with personal Constitutional rights just because they're elected to office.


The president is a private citizen with Constitutional protections however that doesn't give him the right to wear a John 3:16 ball cap or jacket when he goes out in public. When do you think you might finally understand?


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I posted a link to a list of ACLU cases earlier. A number of them involved religious head covers. At least one involved an individual having the right to wear religious head cover in court.
> ...



How is it irrelevant to the post I was responding to, which talked about wearing a head cover in court?

You don't bother reading much, do you?


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > When did the Supreme Court remove religion from all of society?
> ...



You continue to equate changing a building to wearing a garment, and you call ME "frustratingly stupid."  

I don't need to disprove a claim you've made with 0 evidence.  You have never shown that the Supreme Court views all expressions of religion the same way.  I, on the other hand, have provided evidence that the court most certainly does not view all expressions of religion the same way; the USSC takes each case individually and judges it based on the context involved.  

A monument is the same as a personal garment; the Supreme Court views all expressions of religion the same way despite the lack of evidence; you respond to one post without actually reading the post that it was made in response to; you expect others to disprove your claims rather than you having to prove them.

Your debating skills leave much to be desired.


----------



## Montrovant (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Given that the case I've been bringing up (Van Orden v Perry) takes things like the historical context of the monument in question into account, and given that a variety of things which were acceptable in the past would be considered unconstitutional today, I think my points stand.
> ...



You compare wearing a hijab to a ten commandments monument.  Comparing 2 situations in which a ten commandments monument is placed on government property is a lot more similar than that.  

Besides, I was pointing out that the USSC doesn't simply look at any given expression of religion and deem it unconstitutional, not comparing it to Roy Moore's situation.  Since you seem to think every religious expression somehow relates to Roy Moore, I can see where you'd have trouble with that.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 12, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> You continue to equate changing a building to wearing a garment, and you call ME "frustratingly stupid."


No. I continue to point out that the principle that connects the two are the same and that's what makes you such a disingenuous duplicitous a-hole! 



> I don't need to disprove a claim you've made with 0 evidence. You have never shown that the Supreme Court views all expressions of religion the same way. I, on the other hand, have provided evidence that the court most certainly does not view all expressions of religion the same way; the USSC takes each case individually and judges it based on the context involved.


Of course it does but a nativity scene on public land is always judged to be a violation of the separation of church and state and Ilhan Omar's hijab is nothing more than a member of Congress using her position to show her preference for Islam over all other religions. That's not allowed.



> A monument is the same as a personal garment; the Supreme Court views all expressions of religion the same way despite the lack of evidence; you respond to one post without actually reading the post that it was made in response to; you expect others to disprove your claims rather than you having to prove them.
> 
> Your debating skills leave much to be desired.


The principle is the same. Not the things themselves. The Supreme Court views all expressions of religion that endorse one particular religion over others to be illegal. There is no lack of evidence there. It is clearly stated settled law. If a post is worth responding to and not recycled bullshit I respond.
And I don't have to prove that Supreme Court rulings on settled law are proper. You have to demonstrate why
Omar's hijab is not a clear government sponsored endorsement of Islam over all other religions. 
Don't blame me because you cannot.


----------



## Faun (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Neither does what is worn by individual people who happen to be employed by the government. For the 47th time, they do not stop being individual citizens with personal Constitutional rights just because they're elected to office.
> ...


That’s because wearing a John 3:16 cap is expressing one’s religion, not exercising it. Such a simple concept that confounds even a simpleton like you.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Neither does what is worn by individual people who happen to be employed by the government. For the 47th time, they do not stop being individual citizens with personal Constitutional rights just because they're elected to office.
> ...



Where did you get the idea the President doesn't have the right to wear a John 3:16 ball cap if he chooses to?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 12, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> You compare wearing a hijab to a ten commandments monument. Comparing 2 situations in which a ten commandments monument is placed on government property is a lot more similar than that.
> 
> Besides, I was pointing out that the USSC doesn't simply look at any given expression of religion and deem it unconstitutional, not comparing it to Roy Moore's situation. Since you seem to think every religious expression somehow relates to Roy Moore, I can see where you'd have trouble with that.


I have problems when I realize Roy Moore's expression of religion was the basis for him being removed from office and then comparing that to the democrats ending long standing House rules 
so Ilhan Omar could do precisely what Moore did.
A clear double standard. A clear preference by the democrats for a specially protected religion.

Moore wasn't removed for putting a stone monument in this court house, per se. He was removed because that monument listed the Ten Commandments. That's something you and your ideological friends never mention or properly acknowledge. I wonder why.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > You compare wearing a hijab to a ten commandments monument. Comparing 2 situations in which a ten commandments monument is placed on government property is a lot more similar than that.
> ...



It doesn't seem to penetrate your impervious cranium that "Roy Moore" is not "the courthouse".

"Roy Moore" can express whatever religious diatribe he wants.  "The courthouse" cannot.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 12, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Where did you get the idea the President doesn't have the right to wear a John 3:16 ball cap if he chooses to?


You mean while not at home? Because it's Christian proselytizing! That's why.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 12, 2018)

Pogo said:


> It doesn't seem to penetrate your impervious cranium that "Roy Moore" is not "the courthouse".
> 
> "Roy Moore" can express whatever religious diatribe he wants. "The courthouse" cannot.


You mean Roy Moore cannot use his courtroom for religious purposes?
Yes. I know. Just like Ilana Omar shouldn't be able to use Congress for hers.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 12, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't seem to penetrate your impervious cranium that "Roy Moore" is not "the courthouse".
> ...



You let us know when she does, Sparkles.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 13, 2018)

Pogo said:


> You let us know when she does, Sparkles.


The second she takes the floor of Congress in her Muslim approved head wear, Champ.


----------



## bodecea (Dec 13, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't seem to penetrate your impervious cranium that "Roy Moore" is not "the courthouse".
> ...


A courtroom cannot be used for religious purposed.  Correct.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 13, 2018)

bodecea said:


> A courtroom cannot be used for religious purposed. Correct.


No one seems to debate this. The question is can the House of Representatives be used for religious purposes?
Another Muslim woman entering that body this year is Rashida Tlaib, who doesn't feel the need to wear a hijab.
Ilhan Omar's choice to wear one on the floor of Congress can only be seen as a religious statement in a place where, supposedly, that sort of thing is not allowed.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 13, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Where did you get the idea the President doesn't have the right to wear a John 3:16 ball cap if he chooses to?
> ...



I'm sorry, Mensa Boy.  Perhaps I should have made it clearer.  I wasn't asking you what crazy logic you were following.  I was asking you to cite any official entity - like a law, a regulation, a court ruling - prohibiting the President from wearing anything he pleases.  Or from proselytizing, for that matter, if that floats his boat.

It would probably be politically stupid, but that's not the same as "not allowed to".


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 13, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I'm sorry, Mensa Boy. Perhaps I should have made it clearer. I wasn't asking you what crazy logic you were following. I was asking you to cite any official entity - like a law, a regulation, a court ruling - prohibiting the President from wearing anything he pleases. Or from proselytizing, for that matter, if that floats his boat.
> 
> It would probably be politically stupid, but that's not the same as "not allowed to".


No, it's me who should apologize. I didn't realize your brain was damaged and you don't realize that even the president
is subject to Constitutional restrictions like separation of church and state (an extremely basic facet of our nation).

Have the driver in your short bus explain it to you.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 13, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry, Mensa Boy. Perhaps I should have made it clearer. I wasn't asking you what crazy logic you were following. I was asking you to cite any official entity - like a law, a regulation, a court ruling - prohibiting the President from wearing anything he pleases. Or from proselytizing, for that matter, if that floats his boat.
> ...



In other words, you have nothing besides your own ASSumptions as to "He's not allowed to do that, because . . . I'm just sure he's NOT!"

Have the driver on your short bus slap you for talking where people can hear you.  That's never, EVER a good thing.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 13, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > You let us know when she does, Sparkles.
> ...



No no, I mean actual, in your words (which you again cut out to run away from), "uses Congress for religious purposes".

That means something the subject ACTIVELY DOES, not something you choose to plug in and infer because you'd like it to be in play.

Integrating some religion-based apparel into one's wardrobe doesn't mean they're by virtue of that apparel "using" whatever facility they're in.
​
If a Congresswoman walks into Congress wearing a crucifix and proceeds to opine on commerce legislation, is she "using Congress for religious purposes"?




Is this Congresswoman interacting with the Australian PM, or is she "using" him for "religious purposes"?


If a nun walks into a Burger King is she "using" that Burger King for "religious purposes"?  Or is she there to eat junk food?

Is this gal "using the game of baseball for religious purposes"?




​---  or did she just hit a short pop fly to second base?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 13, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> In other words, you have nothing besides your own ASSumptions as to "He's not allowed to do that, because . . . I'm just sure he's NOT!"
> 
> Have the driver on your short bus slap you for talking where people can hear you. That's never, EVER a good thing.


That's correct. I have no reason whatever to believe that Donald Trump, or any other president, can do whatever he wants.
Your point is especially stupid considering what Trump is going through right this very moment for trying to avoid following the law (if you believe his accusers). How brainless are you? Do the daily events that go on all around you make no impact on you at all?
I do hope your bus driver tries to help you.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2018)

they should change the rule to raise tax revenue by raising the minimum wage.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 13, 2018)

Pogo said:


> No no, I mean actual, in your words (which you again cut out to run away from), "uses Congress for religious purposes".


The same way in which Roy Moore used his monument for religious purpose. Does the concept throw you? That's a pity.


Pogo said:


> That means something the subject ACTIVELY DOES, not something you choose to plug in and infer because you'd like it to be in play.
> 
> Integrating some religion-based apparel into one's wardrobe doesn't mean they're by virtue of that apparel "using" whatever facility they're in.


Wearing a hijab, or yarmulke or turban or Pope's mitre IS actively doing something!
I don't know what else you could call it, just the same as placing a Jesus in the manger display in the park is actively doing something.  I get it that you want your agenda so badly it can fry your own brain trying to justify it, but in this case somebody doing something of a religious nature is someone doing something of a religious nature.
Try again.


Pogo said:


> If a Congresswoman walks into Congress wearing a crucifix and proceeds to opine on commerce legislation, is she "using Congress for religious purposes"?


Yeah, in my opinion a crucifix on the forehead violates separation of church and state principles. If I'm a Jew or Muslim or Sikh looking at Pelosi I would have to wonder why she is bringing her religion onto the floor of Congress.


Pogo said:


> If a nun walks into a Burger King is she "using" that Burger King for "religious purposes"? Or is she there to eat junk food?
> 
> Is this gal "using the game of baseball for religious purposes"?  or did she just hit a short pop fly to second base?


Whatever a nun at Burger King does or an Amish girl playing softball, neither one represents any sort of religious endorsement on behalf of our government. I'm sure you thought you had a pertinent point here...but you don't.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 13, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, you have nothing besides your own ASSumptions as to "He's not allowed to do that, because . . . I'm just sure he's NOT!"
> ...



You're still talking about your assumptions.  I'm still not interested.

You're also still trying to draw utterly false comparisons between unrelated things.  I'm still laughing.

"You disagree with me, so you're STUPID!"  Let me get right on being wounded by that witty remark.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 13, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > No no, I mean actual, in your words (which you again cut out to run away from), "uses Congress for religious purposes".
> ...



Roy Moore! But . . . but . . . Roy Mooooooore! = You lose


----------



## Pogo (Dec 13, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > No no, I mean actual, in your words (which you again cut out to run away from), "uses Congress for religious purposes".
> ...



Oh really.

So you're saying Roy Moore *wore* the Ten Commandments in his courtroom as an article of clothing?

That's what he would have to do by your own logic, since the act of wearing something immediately transmits its essence through the building like unto some kind of virus, _independent _of what the wearer does or says.




Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > That means something the subject ACTIVELY DOES, not something you choose to plug in and infer because you'd like it to be in play.
> ...



Nope, it is not.  The action was done when the article was donned.  After that --- it's over.

You have no idea what I'm wearing right now, nor is it in any way influential upon the words in this post.  I could be wearing a Star of David suspended on a hammer and sickle overlaid with an ankh embroidered on a freaking Cincinnati Reds baseball cap festooned with Allis Chalmers logos.  Or I could be stark nekkid.  Either way the words on this post are exactly the same and they carry exactly the same meaning.




Eric Arthur Blair said:


> I don't know what else you could call it, just the same as placing a Jesus in the manger display in the park is actively doing something.  I get it that you want your agenda so badly it can fry your own brain trying to justify it, but in this case somebody doing something of a religious nature is someone doing something of a religious nature.
> Try again.



Don't need to.  My points already stand unopposed.

_You_ can place Jesus in a manger anywhere you want.  But the _government _cannot.  A red herring here since Rep. Omar is planning no such display in the Congress.




Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > If a Congresswoman walks into Congress wearing a crucifix and proceeds to opine on commerce legislation, is she "using Congress for religious purposes"?
> ...



Oh I can tell you that.  She isn't.  She's bringing her _person _in.

The ashes are a symbol that's worn on the forehead, of a *Catholic*.  Not the forehead of a Representative --- the forehead of the *person*.  Again, as in the Roy Moore parable, the _person_, not the _office_.  The ashes (or the crucifix or the Star of David or the hijab or the turban) have a function only for the *person* --- not for the _office_.  Ergo it's not the "government" or any part of it expressing anything religious --- it's the _person_.

What you can't do is prove me wrong about that.  Which is why this point stands unopposed.

The function of Congressional Reps --- and all other office holders --- are served by _persons_.  Those persons may have all kinds of unrelated _personal _stuff going on that in no way relates to their job.  Perhaps they need to pay the electric bill.  Perhaps they need to arrange a flight soon.  Maybe they're fighting off a cold.  None of these are relevant to the Congress but they're still THERE.




Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > If a nun walks into a Burger King is she "using" that Burger King for "religious purposes"? Or is she there to eat junk food?
> ...



Correct, nor does it have any religious endorsement of influence on Burger King or Baseball on behalf of Catholicism or Amishness.  Because they're frickin' UNRELATED.  A person (the nun) needs to eat; a religion does not -- ergo a personal act.  A baseball batter needs to make contact with the ball; Amishness does not.   Ergo a personal act.  And in both cases unrelated to any "religion".

That girl needs to level her swing out too.  Just sayin'.  Although it would in no way be "unAmish" to fail to do so.

Sheeeeeeeesh


----------



## Claudette (Dec 13, 2018)

Jesus. What's the big deal.

She's a member of Congress and they made a change for her.

Its a small thing and certainly not a big deal.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 13, 2018)

Claudette said:


> Jesus. What's the big deal.
> 
> She's a member of Congress and they made a change for her.
> 
> Its a small thing and certainly not a big deal.



Don't be silly.  It's OBVIOUSLY the end of the Republic as we know it.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 13, 2018)

Pogo said:


> Oh really.
> 
> So you're saying Roy Moore *wore* the Ten Commandments in his courtroom as an article of clothing?
> 
> That's what he would have to do by your own logic, since the act of wearing something immediately transmits its essence through the building like unto some kind of virus, _independent _of what the wearer does or says.


No. That's stupid and by your "reasoning" (and I use that term loosely in connection with your post) a Christmas nativity scene on public grounds would be absolutely legal (though we all know it isn't). City removes decades-old nativity scene after constitutional complaints about Christian display
_
The very act of wearing an article of religiously significant clothing is an act of religious advocacy._
And just like a Christmas nativity scene or Moore's Ten Commandments is not actively proselytizing (Hey! Come here! Let me tell you about Jesus) Omar's hijab is promoting one particular religion on government time. That's illegal.


Pogo said:


> Nope, it is not. The action was done when the article was donned. After that --- it's over.
> 
> You have no idea what I'm wearing right now, nor is it in any way influential upon the words in this post. I could be wearing a Star of David suspended on a hammer and sickle overlaid with an ankh embroidered on a freaking Cincinnati Reds baseball cap festooned with Allis Chalmers logos. Or I could be stark nekkid. Either way the words on this post are exactly the same and they carry exactly the same meaning.


What you wear is irrelevant! You are just a common troll. What a member of Congress does is another matter.


Pogo said:


> Don't need to. My points already stand unopposed.
> 
> _You_ can place Jesus in a manger anywhere you want. But the _government _cannot. A red herring here since Rep. Omar is planning no such display in the Congress.


   My link already posted shows you are wrong. You have a stunning lack of knowledge when it comes to this issue. Whether the local Elks club or Congressman Foghorn Leghorn places the nativity scene on government ground, it is still illegal and will be removed.


Pogo said:


> Oh I can tell you that. She isn't. She's bringing her _person _in.
> 
> The ashes are a symbol that's worn on the forehead, of a *Catholic*. Not the forehead of a Representative --- the forehead of the *person*. Again, as in the Roy Moore parable, the _person_, not the _office_. The ashes (or the crucifix or the Star of David or the hijab or the turban) have a function only for the *person* --- not for the _office_. Ergo it's not the "government" or any part of it expressing anything religious --- it's the _person_.
> 
> ...


Yes. A person. A person who is, for all intents and legal purposes, the government itself.
When a member of Congress is home or when they leave office they can wear whatever they wish.
Otherwise their religious wear represents government endorsement. Wake up and learn something.


Pogo said:


> Correct, nor does it have any religious endorsement of influence on Burger King or Baseball on behalf of Catholicism or Amishness. Because they're frickin' UNRELATED. A person (the nun) needs to eat; a religion does not -- ergo a personal act. A baseball batter needs to make contact with the ball; Amishness does not. Ergo a personal act. And in both cases unrelated to any "religion".
> 
> That girl needs to level her swing out too. Just sayin'. Although it would in no way be "unAmish" to fail to do so.
> 
> Sheeeeeeeesh


Nice fucking pointless non sequitur. Are you trying to salvage your original point? Too late now.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 13, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Don't be silly. It's OBVIOUSLY the end of the Republic as we know it.


It's ignoring the Constitution to placate a Muslim member of Congress. Is that nothing to you?
Fortunately the Constitution will have the last say...not some dim troll.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 13, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Roy Moore! But . . . but . . . Roy Mooooooore! = You lose


You're trolling and being ignorant. But obviously you don't care.


----------



## there4eyeM (Dec 13, 2018)

This scarf thing is a minor detail, and of course it will be ceded to. We are right, however, to call attention to this and not simply allow it to pass unquestioned. We need to remain alert to further infringements.
We need to be alert to how our sisters are treated in this world, and by whom.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 13, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't be silly. It's OBVIOUSLY the end of the Republic as we know it.
> ...



Ummmmmmmmm... what Constitution are you reading?  Is there a toilet involved?

Perhaps you need to borrow my copy.  Where it says absolutely zero about "Muslim" anything.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 13, 2018)

Pogo said:


> Ummmmmmmmm... what Constitution are you reading? Is there a toilet involved?
> 
> Perhaps you need to borrow my copy. Where it says absolutely zero about "Muslim" anything.


The Constitution indeed mentions the need to stay clear of state sponsored religions. Islam is a religion, albeit a
savage eighth century religion. 
Oh...did you think I thought they were specifically mentioned?

No. That would be very, very stupid. That's more your style.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 13, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Roy Moore! But . . . but . . . Roy Mooooooore! = You lose
> ...



Nope.  I'm pointing out that "Roy Moore!" has been debunked and disqualified multiple times, which means every time you wave it around as though it's meaningful and relevant, you mark your post as an automatic fail which doesn't merit reading and deserves to be mocked relentlessly.

So by all means, feel free to continue defeating yourself by shouting "Roy Mooorrreee!!!"  Saves me the work of talking to you as though you were a person.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 13, 2018)

there4eyeM said:


> This scarf thing is a minor detail, and of course it will be ceded to. We are right, however, to call attention to this and not simply allow it to pass unquestioned. We need to remain alert to further infringements.
> We need to be alert to how our sisters are treated in this world, and by whom.


I doubt the ACLU will have the balls to sue, as they do with Christians with great regularity. But they certainly have grounds to sue. I think a right wing NGO will bring suit.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 13, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Nope. I'm pointing out that "Roy Moore!" has been debunked and disqualified multiple times, which means every time you wave it around as though it's meaningful and relevant, you mark your post as an automatic fail which doesn't merit reading and deserves to be mocked relentlessly.
> 
> So by all means, feel free to continue defeating yourself by shouting "Roy Mooorrreee!!!" Saves me the work of talking to you as though you were a person.


LOL...."debunked". Sure thing.....(wink). Mock away. It isn't as though your opinion is a serious one. Go ahead and be an ass! See if I care.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 13, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. I'm pointing out that "Roy Moore!" has been debunked and disqualified multiple times, which means every time you wave it around as though it's meaningful and relevant, you mark your post as an automatic fail which doesn't merit reading and deserves to be mocked relentlessly.
> ...



LOL . . . Debunked.  Just because multiple people demonstrated multiple times that personal clothing is different from monuments attached to public buildings, that's no reason to think my argument was torn to shreds.  LOL"


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 13, 2018)

Cecilie1200 said:


> LOL . . . Debunked. Just because multiple people demonstrated multiple times that personal clothing is different from monuments attached to public buildings, that's no reason to think my argument was torn to shreds. LOL"


I myself have stated that a head covering is not a slab of stone. But of course a Christmas nativity display is not a  stone slab either but they are both illegal to display on public property.  And so is an article of clothing that is explicitly religious.

Try and use your limited mental resources to see what the common thread is here (religious expression by government).
No one is teaching critical thinking in schools anymore it looks like. Think about that when you get off the short bus this afternoon.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 13, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ummmmmmmmm... what Constitution are you reading? Is there a toilet involved?
> ...



Why can't you quote it then?  Constipated?


----------



## Faun (Dec 13, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Oh really.
> ...


Of course not since a nativity scene is not one exercising their religion.


----------



## Faun (Dec 13, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > LOL . . . Debunked. Just because multiple people demonstrated multiple times that personal clothing is different from monuments attached to public buildings, that's no reason to think my argument was torn to shreds. LOL"
> ...


LOL

Your brain-dead logic.....

A = B and B = C; therefore, A = D


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 14, 2018)

Pogo said:


> Why can't you quote it then? Constipated?


Is this an admission you don't even know what is in the Constitution?
Never heard of separation of church and state? I always thought you were very very stupid, but I didn't know you were just plain ignorant.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 14, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Why can't you quote it then? Constipated?
> ...




Separation of Church and State is in fact NOT in the COTUS. That's a made of bunch of bullshit by liberal retards in order to attack Christianity, notice that when it comes to Islam suddenly they feign ignorance. Oh who are we kidding, they aren't feigning.


----------



## Faun (Dec 14, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


LOLOL 

And by “liberal retards in order to attack Christianity,” you mean the repeated interpretations by multiple Supreme Court rulings spanning multiple cases brought to their court reaffirming the wall between church and state.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 14, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Separation of Church and State is in fact NOT in the COTUS. That's a made of bunch of bullshit by liberal retards in order to attack Christianity, notice that when it comes to Islam suddenly they feign ignorance. Oh who are we kidding, they aren't feigning.


The principle of separation of church and state is not in the Constitution per se but has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in countless decisions. 
https://usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html
The Constitution only specifically mentions religion in Article 6 with regards to prohibiting religious tests for office holders.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 14, 2018)

Faun said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...



Exactly.

SCOTUS isn't infallible you know.

Are you really going to argue that the first contintental congress's first hire was a congressional pastor, but they didn't want religion inside government? LOL SCOTUS themselves opens every session with a PRAYER LOL hahahahaha that's just too funny


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 14, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Separation of Church and State is in fact NOT in the COTUS. That's a made of bunch of bullshit by liberal retards in order to attack Christianity, notice that when it comes to Islam suddenly they feign ignorance. Oh who are we kidding, they aren't feigning.
> ...




Yet isn't it funny that it was Bernie Sanders who last year held one nomination in particular to a religious litmus test during her Senate confirmation hearing............ LOL Democrats are morons.


----------



## Faun (Dec 14, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


It’s been upheld every single time, regardless of who was on the bench. Perhaps you should consider it’s you who’s wrong, not the SCOTUS.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 14, 2018)

Faun said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



I've considered it and rejected it. ANY court that says that the founding fathers intended that for example a high school football coach couldn't pray after a football game, or that a Jew couldn't wear a yamaluke while at a city council meeting or that a Muslim couldn't wear her hoodie in Congress, or yes even that a Christian town couldn't put a cross up on their property because it might offend people who don't even live there is a violation of the law is WRONG.

Again I ask, if SCOTUS is and has been correct in that there is to be a wall between Church and State how come every session of Congress and every session of the Court begins with a prayer? You can't square that.


----------



## Faun (Dec 14, 2018)

Spot the rightard exhibiting cognitive dissonance...


Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Why can't you quote it then? Constipated?
> ...





Eric Arthur Blair said:


> The principle of separation of church and state is not in the Constitution...


----------



## Faun (Dec 14, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


LOLOL 

How fortunate is America that you’re a nobody with zero self awareness whose opinion counts for nothing? Meanwhile, the SCOTUS has upheld that wall at every turn — and their opinion matters very much.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 14, 2018)

ALL the founding fathers ever intended was that the USG would not have an official religion. A great majority of them were religious themselves, and yes primarily Christian of one sect or another.

Their primary concern was that we wouldn't have a Church of the United States, not that we would have Christians , or Muslims for that matter, practicing their religion on government grounds.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 14, 2018)

Faun said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...




Your childish insults attempts aside, you're conceding that you can't square "separation of church and state" with scotus and congress both beginning every session with a prayer? Of course you are, because you can't.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 14, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Your childish insults attempts aside, you're conceding that you can't square "separation of church and state" with scotus and congress both beginning every session with a prayer? Of course you are, because you can't.


The courts get around that by deeming the prayers are non denominational and not indicative of any single religion.
I think you are correct that the Supreme Court has made a series of decisions that drive religion out of the public arena
as much as they can (like uttering the word "God" before a football game is censored). But hopefully their view of religion and the government will come back on them when this issue of Ilhan Omar and her hijab is brought before them, as it certainly should be, thanks to their own rejection on any religious ties to our government.


----------



## DandyDonovan (Dec 14, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> DandyDonovan said:
> 
> 
> > Your childish insults attempts aside, you're conceding that you can't square "separation of church and state" with scotus and congress both beginning every session with a prayer? Of course you are, because you can't.
> ...




That' s what I'm saying. The founding fathers obviously didn't intend for their to be NO religion in our government at all. Hell, the very first person they hired was a Congressional Minister, even before they hired George Washington to lead the Army. All they intended was that, for example, Catholics couldn't punish Quakers for not being Catholics. That's it.


----------



## Faun (Dec 14, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...


LOLOL 

Your pussification aside, of course I can. A chaplain leading the prayer existed before the First Amendment; leading the SCOTUS to affirm the Founders intent to allow it in Marsh v. Chambers


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 14, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> That' s what I'm saying. The founding fathers obviously didn't intend for their to be NO religion in our government at all. Hell, the very first person they hired was a Congressional Minister, even before they hired George Washington to lead the Army. All they intended was that, for example, Catholics couldn't punish Quakers for not being Catholics. That's it.


I'm not at all arguing that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution properly. In fact I agree that they have interpreted it in such a way to do away with all religion, to they extent that's possible for them to do that.

But as the law stands, any connection by government to any particular religion is supposedly strictly forbidden.
Let's see how much the Supreme Court believes in their own rulings when Ilhan Omar takes her place in Congress.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 15, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...



Sooooooooooooo still nothing.

We sit, and we wait.


----------



## Pogo (Dec 15, 2018)

DandyDonovan said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > DandyDonovan said:
> ...



Huh?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 15, 2018)

Pogo said:


> Sooooooooooooo still nothing.
> 
> We sit, and we wait.


Good idea. Try holding your breath too. You've already gotten all the answer there is.
Is this what you do when bored?


----------



## Pogo (Dec 15, 2018)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Sooooooooooooo still nothing.
> ...



I'm well aware of that.  Which is exactly why I pose the question --- because the silence is eloquent.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Dec 15, 2018)

Pogo said:


> I'm well aware of that. Which is exactly why I pose the question --- because the silence is eloquent.


There has been no silence. You asked a fucking dumb question and I answered it to the best of anyone's ability.
No, the Constitution does not mention Islam explicitly (no one thinks otherwise) and yes, the Constitution specifically mentions no religious tests for holders of office and the Supreme Court has interpreted that to mean there should be a wall of separation (in Thomas Jefferson's words) between the state and religion. It's all been explained before.

How can I help someone too dumb to understand?


----------



## Polishprince (Mar 14, 2019)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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.
> 
> ...






I'd call this a violation of the wall of Separation between Church and State.   If this broad wants to follow her paganistic cult, that's her own affair.

But wearing it in Congress is Establishment of Religion.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Mar 14, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...



You are a clueless moron, so why should we care what you think?

You keep referencing something that does not exist nor what the Constitution does not say.


----------



## BULLDOG (Mar 14, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...



Not really. Nobody is forced to wear a head covering, but everyone is forced to endure a prayer. If you truly want to separate church and state, eliminate the prayer.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 14, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...



It's a piece of cloth, not a "religion".  Religion is an abstract, not a physical object.

Establishment of religion in Congress is much more like having a chaplain read some mumbo-jumbo hypnosis spell.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 14, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > The Purge said:
> ...



GMTA


----------



## Polishprince (Mar 14, 2019)

Pogo said:


> It's a piece of cloth, not a "religion".  Religion is an abstract, not a physical object.
> 
> Establishment of religion in Congress is much more like having a chaplain read some mumbo-jumbo hypnosis spell.




The Ten Commandments plaque in the Alabama Supreme Court chamber is a physical object, yet was tossed in the dumpster at the insistence of liberals


----------



## BULLDOG (Mar 14, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > It's a piece of cloth, not a "religion".  Religion is an abstract, not a physical object.
> ...



Tissue?


----------



## Pogo (Mar 14, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > It's a piece of cloth, not a "religion".  Religion is an abstract, not a physical object.
> ...



You're welcome.

That's the "keep it" part of "a republic, if you can keep it".


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Mar 14, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> The Ten Commandments plaque in the Alabama Supreme Court chamber is a physical object, yet was tossed in the dumpster at the insistence of liberals


The Ten Commandments are the basis of Chritian/Judeo ethics so therefore must be rejected but the hijab, a sign of 
the basic deeply misogynistic view of women's place in Islam, must be defended and held to a different standard
by the hypocritical left. 

It's pretty much as basic and simple as that: Christian symbols must be publicly driven out of view...Islamic symbols, not so much.


----------



## BULLDOG (Mar 14, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > The Ten Commandments plaque in the Alabama Supreme Court chamber is a physical object, yet was tossed in the dumpster at the insistence of liberals
> ...



The 10 commandments are Christian Law. Would you be so accepting if Sharia Law was on a plaque in a court house?


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Mar 14, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


/---/ Actually it's a Jewish law, 611commandments shortened to 10 and adopted by Christians. See what you lean living in New York?
*613 commandments - Wikipedia*


613 commandments - Wikipedia
Significance of 613. The Talmud notes that the Hebrew numerical value ( gematria) of the word "Torah" is 611, and combining Moses's 611 commandments with the first two of the Ten Commandments which were the only ones heard directly from God, adds up to 613. The Talmud attributes the number 613 to Rabbi Simlai,...


----------



## Pogo (Mar 14, 2019)

Cellblock2429 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...



OK, y'all know it's coming...........

​


----------



## BULLDOG (Mar 14, 2019)

Cellblock2429 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...



Interesting, however, The 10 commandments as presented by Moses are considered to be Christian law.


----------



## Polishprince (Mar 14, 2019)

BULLDOG said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




The 10 commandments were first proclaimed by Almighty God to the Jews, in actuality.


But the reality of the situation is that these 10 simple rules were meant for all mankind, regardless of their religion.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 14, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > It's a piece of cloth, not a "religion".  Religion is an abstract, not a physical object.
> ...



This comparison again?

There is a difference between a plaque adorning a government building and a personal item of clothing.

Yes, both are religious in nature, but only one is made a part of a government building. Bulldog's example of a Sharia Law plaque is a much more apt comparison.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 14, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Cellblock2429 said:
> ...



Actually they came from Chapter 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead*, but it's pretty damned arrogant to dictate to other people what their religion is.

Religion is a private, personal choice.  You keep yours, let other people keep theirs.


* OMG that means they came from AY-rabs!!


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Mar 14, 2019)

Montrovant said:


> This comparison again?
> 
> There is a difference between a plaque adorning a government building and a personal item of clothing.
> 
> Yes, both are religious in nature, but only one is made a part of a government building. Bulldog's example of a Sharia Law plaque is a much more apt comparison.


Yes. This old argument again? Both the hijab and plaque are religious symbols that proselytize merely by existing
in a government setting and context though they are not precisely the same thing. That's an irrelevant detail.

I thought our secular government forbade such things? Not for Islam, it looks like.


----------



## BULLDOG (Mar 14, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Cellblock2429 said:
> ...



They actually list moral values that were common throughout the mid east, and were seen as no particular importance above all the other rules until the 13th century  when they were incorporated into a manual of instruction for those coming to confess their sins. With the rise of Protestant churches, new manuals of instruction in the faith were made available and the Ten Commandments were incorporated into catechisms as a fundamental part of religious training, especially of the young. Today they are considered to be authoritative Christian law.


----------



## Polishprince (Mar 14, 2019)

Pogo said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...





Of course you are wrong.   The Ten Commandments came from Almighty God, not from "Ay-rabs", or any other humans.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 14, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> > This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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!
> ...


Let's get rid of all the cross necklaces, etc too.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 14, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


which god?   which version of the 10 Commandments?


----------



## BULLDOG (Mar 14, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...



I didn't know they had video cameras back then.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Mar 14, 2019)

bodecea said:


> Let's get rid of all the cross necklaces, etc too.


You can put a necklace down a shirt or dress front. Not so easy for a hijab. 
But you aren't serious about this anyway, like almost all of your posts.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 14, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > This comparison again?
> ...



Not for Catholics either....


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Mar 14, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > It's a piece of cloth, not a "religion".  Religion is an abstract, not a physical object.
> ...



It was a plaque moron! Get your facts straight.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 14, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > This comparison again?
> ...



An individual expression of faith vs a government endorsement of faith (which is, I would think, the argument against putting religious symbols on government buildings) is an irrelevant detail?

Is your argument that any religious symbol worn by any representative is a government endorsement of religion of the same type as adding something to a government building, such as a plaque?

Is it your argument that the government forbids all representatives from wearing any sort of religious clothing or decoration, unless they believe in Islam?


----------



## Polishprince (Mar 14, 2019)

Montrovant said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...




In America, Christians have been barred from public workplaces because of religious garb- why should Omar be allowed to?

Nun banned from wearing habit in classroom due to Nebraska state law | Catholic Herald


----------



## BULLDOG (Mar 14, 2019)

Big deal. The law was a relic that hasn't been changed yet, and they are working on changing it. You'll note it only became law so many years ago after pressure from the KKK.


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 14, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...



That law apparently covers any religious garb, according to your link.  It specifically mentions burqas.  It also is a state law.  Do you think Nebraska state law should cover members of Congress while they are in the Capitol Building?

I'm not agreeing with the Nebraska law, but that such a thing happened in on place does not mean it should happen in others.


----------



## elongobardi (Mar 14, 2019)

Sorry but fuck her.  She is a disgrace to congress and how and why she got elected is a disgrace.   Muslim community voted her in and all she had done is disgraced the seat she holds.   Plus to change a over hundred year law is even more disgusting.    The Democrats wonder why people despise them.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Mar 14, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...




Too bad your information is not current.  The ban was lifted in 2017 less than two months after your link.

Nebraska ends ban on religious garb in public schools


----------



## Montrovant (Mar 14, 2019)

elongobardi said:


> Sorry but fuck her.  She is a disgrace to congress and how and why she got elected is a disgrace.   Muslim community voted her in and all she had done is disgraced the seat she holds.   Plus to change a over hundred year law is even more disgusting.    The Democrats wonder why people despise them.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



When a law reaches a certain age, should it no longer be subject to change?


----------



## Faun (Mar 14, 2019)

elongobardi said:


> Sorry but fuck her.  She is a disgrace to congress and how and why she got elected is a disgrace.   Muslim community voted her in and all she had done is disgraced the seat she holds.   Plus to change a over hundred year law is even more disgusting.    The Democrats wonder why people despise them.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You’re nuts. There was no law changed for her.


----------



## Meister (Mar 14, 2019)

IMO, let her wear it.....there are a lot bigger issues to be dealing with


----------



## LuckyDuck (Mar 15, 2019)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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.
> 
> ...


I don't care about what she has on her head, however, as the number of Islamists grow in this nation, so to will the number of Islamist politicians and their religious influence, eventually changing laws to meet their religious teachings, which in turn, mandate that even non-Muslims "must" abide by Islamic laws; those not abiding by Islamic law are oppressed, persecuted and worse.  One just has to look across the world at all Islamic nations, they were once....not Islamic nations and the change is never peaceful.  Even in those few Islamic nations where their laws permit the freedom of religion, non-Muslims are persecuted.  Thankfully, it won't happen in my life-time, but at some point, in the future, our descendants will suffer under it, if they don't convert to it and those politicians who didn't believe that such a thing could happen, will be reviled.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 15, 2019)

Faun said:


> elongobardi said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry but fuck her.  She is a disgrace to congress and how and why she got elected is a disgrace.   Muslim community voted her in and all she had done is disgraced the seat she holds.   Plus to change a over hundred year law is even more disgusting.    The Democrats wonder why people despise them.
> ...



You are correct (and I'm still throwing up in my mouth a little to say it).  This wasn't a law; it was a procedural rule, a dress code.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Mar 15, 2019)

Meister said:


> IMO, let her wear it.....there are a lot bigger issues to be dealing with



You are correct.  She's given us much bigger shit to be upset about . . . as I knew she would.


----------



## pismoe (Mar 15, 2019)

The Purge said:


> This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking 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.
> 
> ...


-------------------   Shouldn't have happened .


----------



## Pogo (Mar 15, 2019)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > elongobardi said:
> ...



It's not the first time.  Member back when you had integrity about Rump's worthless character and you and I found ourselves on the same side?

I know, that was _creepy_.  But it was also right.


----------



## The Purge (Mar 15, 2019)

Pogo said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


----------

