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

[rightwinger]

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.

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]

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

sorry, but that's just retarded.

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

Or the person can just show their face.

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

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

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.

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

I am sure you got laid by one..



.

 

[BULLDOG]

Got to love the hidden bullshit on the left..

We are going to fuck with you forever about this

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

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

Or you're playing a game.

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?

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.

I don't listen to him homophobic..


.



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


It's simple.


.

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]

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.

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


.

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

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




View attachment 232472

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

Why does this frightened the left?


View attachment 232474

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]

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?

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]

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]

Eh, who cares?

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

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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

Sorry, no.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

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..


.

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]

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

Or the person can just show their face.

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

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

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.

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

I am sure you got laid by one..



.

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.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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]

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]

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

Sorry, no.

Ok, point out where I am wrong.

 

[Lysistrata]

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]

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]

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]

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.

I would hope that people have children by deliberate design.

 

[deanrd]

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 ...

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]

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

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

 

[deanrd]

....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. ...

I know, right?

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