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

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Great, let me know when you can come up with a compelling reason to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment rights.

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.

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.

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.

I wasn't planning on it. I don't see how it is relevant. They were told to live by the rules.

I don't see how anything on that front could be relevant.

Really? You throw out "Well, other people have tried to get the rule changed, but they didn't get it. Only she did," and you don't think it's relevant to actually substantiate that? You make an argument, but the verifiable details can just be dismissed?

Well, let me make it relevant for you, Bigot Boy. No details = it's a lie you made up to sell your position.

Unless/until you prove otherwise, the rule was changed because she's the first person who has requested accommodation for her religious beliefs. You want to claim otherwise, do NOT expect to just say it and have it stand. I don't accept that shit when leftists do it, and I don't accept it here.

 

[Olde Europe]

[...] 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.

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" [...]

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]

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?

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.

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.

Sorry, but a rule does not become more or less valid simply on the basis of how long it's been around.

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

Sorry, but a rule does not become more or less valid simply on the basis of how long it's been around.

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.

Or it could be as simple as no one has asked before.

Exactly.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Is any expression of personal religious belief by a Representative while in the House unconstitutional?

 

[Montrovant]

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.

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]

Great, let me know when you can come up with a compelling reason to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment rights.

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.

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.

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.

I wasn't planning on it. I don't see how it is relevant. They were told to live by the rules.

I don't see how anything on that front could be relevant.

Really? You throw out "Well, other people have tried to get the rule changed, but they didn't get it. Only she did," and you don't think it's relevant to actually substantiate that? You make an argument, but the verifiable details can just be dismissed?

Well, let me make it relevant for you, Bigot Boy. No details = it's a lie you made up to sell your position.

Unless/until you prove otherwise, the rule was changed because she's the first person who has requested accommodation for her religious beliefs. You want to claim otherwise, do NOT expect to just say it and have it stand. I don't accept that shit when leftists do it, and I don't accept it here.

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]

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!

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]

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?

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?

Cultural diffusion is fine. That is not what we are seeing here, today. We are changing too much, too fast and for the worse.

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"?

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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?

She can do that in a mooselimb country.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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?

She can do that in a mooselimb country.

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.

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]

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.

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.

Stupid and dishonest is moronically calling Joe Biden a child fondler.

 

[Faun]

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.

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]

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.

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....

If you erect it in the Capital Building, it’s more than just a benign nothing.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

She can do that in a mooselimb country.

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.

Separation of church and state

 

[Faun]

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?

She can do that in a mooselimb country.

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.

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.

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.