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

[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....

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

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]

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.

”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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

So you do not believe in religious freedom in this country for fellow Americans. You a trump supporter?

You don’t even support real freedom of religion or you would care that sharia is outlawed.

Cite the law which states Sharia law is outlawed....

 

[Faun]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Faun]

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.

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]

-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]

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.

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]

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.

What you said was this:

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.""

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."

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]

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

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

A yarmulke is religious headwear.

Allowing it would violate the rule.

Hence, the rule change.

Except it was not changed for a Jew with generations of American-ness behind him, but for a newcomer.

Where is the religious rule that a Jewish female must cover her hair at all times?

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.

Why is there a rule that Catholic women had to cover their hair during church services that is now largely ignored?