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

[Faun]

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.

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

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.

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.

So if she thinks that chopping off a robber's hand is ok (as per sharia), that's ok with you?

That would violate U.S. law.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, at least you're honest that your objection is hypocritical.

HOw it is it hypocritical to want newcomers to adopt to our ways, instead of the other way around?

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.

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.

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?!

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

So if she thinks that chopping off a robber's hand is ok (as per sharia), that's ok with you?

Because her wearing a hijab is just like changing our laws on robbery/theft punishment criteria to match up with some ME theocracy.

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?

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]

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.

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?

Is marrying off her 9 year old daughter to Roy Moore legal in this country?

So it's ok with you if that's one of her goals as a lawmaker?

Is it?

 

[bodecea]

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.

You've been in frightened panic mode since you started posting on this thread.

 

[bodecea]

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.

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.

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.

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.

She is a cherry picker, because she doesn’t follow sharia law completely.

But she lives in America, where we do not have Sharia Law.

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]

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

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.

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.

So if she thinks that chopping off a robber's hand is ok (as per sharia), that's ok with you?

Because her wearing a hijab is just like changing our laws on robbery/theft punishment criteria to match up with some ME theocracy.

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?

Inherently, by definition, beyond dispute, any one professing a religious belief must owe allegiance to its principles. It is either or.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

She is a cherry picker, because she doesn’t follow sharia law completely.

But she lives in America, where we do not have Sharia Law.

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]

Some men allege, women have to cover up, because there is not enough moral fortitude to go around.

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

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.

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.

So if she thinks that chopping off a robber's hand is ok (as per sharia), that's ok with you?

That would violate U.S. law.

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]

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.

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.

So if she thinks that chopping off a robber's hand is ok (as per sharia), that's ok with you?

Because her wearing a hijab is just like changing our laws on robbery/theft punishment criteria to match up with some ME theocracy.

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?

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.

Not scared of anything, just making a point. You're just scared that we won't allow carpet kissing in the Capitol Building.

 

[Taz]

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.

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?

Is marrying off her 9 year old daughter to Roy Moore legal in this country?

So it's ok with you if that's one of her goals as a lawmaker?

Is it?

Would that be okay with you? Is the question.

 

[Faun]

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

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.

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.

So if she thinks that chopping off a robber's hand is ok (as per sharia), that's ok with you?

That would violate U.S. law.

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.

Of course she can believe whatever she wants. You advocating for mind control now?

 

[bodecea]

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.

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.

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.

She is a cherry picker, because she doesn’t follow sharia law completely.

But she lives in America, where we do not have Sharia Law.

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.

Who says she must? Are you the one who tells muslims what they must and must not do? Is the muslimsplainin'?

 

[bodecea]

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.

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?

Is marrying off her 9 year old daughter to Roy Moore legal in this country?

So it's ok with you if that's one of her goals as a lawmaker?

Is it?

Would that be okay with you? Is the question.

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]

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.

So if she thinks that chopping off a robber's hand is ok (as per sharia), that's ok with you?

Because her wearing a hijab is just like changing our laws on robbery/theft punishment criteria to match up with some ME theocracy.

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?

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.

Not scared of anything, just making a point. You're just scared that we won't allow carpet kissing in the Capitol Building.

"carpet kissing"..... You are truly frightened to the point of almost hysteria.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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.

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.

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.

She is a cherry picker, because she doesn’t follow sharia law completely.

But she lives in America, where we do not have Sharia Law.

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.

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]

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.

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.

So if she thinks that chopping off a robber's hand is ok (as per sharia), that's ok with you?

Because her wearing a hijab is just like changing our laws on robbery/theft punishment criteria to match up with some ME theocracy.

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?

Inherently, by definition, beyond dispute, any one professing a religious belief must owe allegiance to its principles. It is either or.

Ah...is that why all those evangelical christians are owing their allegiance to a three time married adultery/sexual abusing liar?

 

[bodecea]

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.

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.

She is a cherry picker, because she doesn’t follow sharia law completely.

But she lives in America, where we do not have Sharia Law.

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.

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.

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.