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

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Dumbfuck, with the lone exception of running for president of the United States of America, a citizen with “generations of American-ness” behind them are entitled to ALL the same rights and privileges as a citizen who was naturalized.

Just admit it, you hate Muslims and it’s driving you apeshit that a Muslim is going to get to wear a hijab in Congress.

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.

So we should just allow old rules to stay in effect forever. Great thinking. Sometimes it is one case that pushes reform.

That is a nice strawman you have there. I'm sure you are proud of it. I respectfully decline your invitation to join you in playing with it.


My statement stands.



Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have. If it was, we basically wouldn't have any rules.

And good choice of the word "Privilege", because that is what we are seeing in the quest for "diversity" and "tolerance".


Some people get special treatment, with the rules being changed or just ignored for their convenience or benefit.

Nonsense. You have no evidence she receives special treatment because she’s a naturalized citizen.

lol!!! 181 year old rule, shit canned just for her? That's special treatment.


Ask me how many times some organization or group or community changed the rules just to make me happy?

The rule should have been changed long ago. Catch a clue man! You are embarrassing yourself!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I mean the obvious solution here is House Republicans should all get MAGA hats if they wish to protest this.

Trumpism has become a religion now? I read that only religious headgear is allowed.

Oh, I hadn't read that. Only religious headgear? That seems a weird rule to have in Congress. What happened to separation of church and state?

All rules are out the window, when dems are in charge and the person is question checks off enough diversity boxes.


A female black muslim? Rules? What rules? lol. If she was gay or trans, they would make of her a GOD.

There are rules. You are just pisssed they were changed.

I am a conservative and have zero problems with this. Why is it that you have caught butthurt from the Democrats?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Dumbfuck, with the lone exception of running for president of the United States of America, a citizen with “generations of American-ness” behind them are entitled to ALL the same rights and privileges as a citizen who was naturalized.

Just admit it, you hate Muslims and it’s driving you apeshit that a Muslim is going to get to wear a hijab in Congress.

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.

No hats during sessions is completely reasonable. If she can't accept that, doesn't have to attend.

If it were completely reasonable, why doesn't the Senate have the same "completely reasonable" rule?

BTW....I am amazed at how frightened certain people are of a woman in a hijab.

This is not about a woman in a hijab, but about the mindset that we need to adjust to them instead of the other way around.

Would you be as upset had it been a Sikh male elected to Congress? Yes, you would have!

You are a bigot, through and through!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I don't believe we should be in an uproar over people peacefully practicing their religion. Not even Islam.

So that judge who was ordered to remove the ten commandments from his court room wasn't peacefully practicing his religion?

See , this is what happens when people pick and choose which liberties they will defend rather than defending ALL liberty.

Hanging up a plaque advertising your religion in a government space is not the same as abiding by a rule of your religion. There is no rule saying that every Christian will hang a religious plaque in their home or place of business. Pretty sure about that.

wearing the clothing of Medieval days in Arabia is not a religious
requirement of any religion. That clothing is a COSTUME

And who is it who gets to make that determination? Would you think having a Scot wearing a kilt is a costume?

In the USA it is a costume. It would not have been tolerated
as regular dress in my public High School for either students or
teachers. It might be considered a problem in Ireland for teachers
or students of policemen

Well, you are simply wrong. As a 21-year teacher of Muslim students, they wore their hajibs as they wished.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Hanging up a plaque advertising your religion in a government space is not the same as abiding by a rule of your religion. There is no rule saying that every Christian will hang a religious plaque in their home or place of business. Pretty sure about that.

wearing the clothing of Medieval days in Arabia is not a religious
requirement of any religion. That clothing is a COSTUME

And who is it who gets to make that determination? Would you think having a Scot wearing a kilt is a costume?

In the USA it is a costume. It would not have been tolerated
as regular dress in my public High School for either students or
teachers. It might be considered a problem in Ireland for teachers
or students of policemen

That is incorrect. It is not a costume, it is cultural dress and MOST schools (those who don't have issues with different people) allow it. In fact, a male in a full dress kilt is awesome looking. Those schools that don't allow it are bit by bit being sued for discrimination based on cultural identity as they should be.

where? in England? ------that would make sense. In the USA in my very liberal public High School-----boys and men would not be allowed to wear a kilt to school-----even those named Scot MacDonald

You did not attend any school that had that policy that would not be raked over the coals in the media and courtroom.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So we should just allow old rules to stay in effect forever. Great thinking. Sometimes it is one case that pushes reform.

That is a nice strawman you have there. I'm sure you are proud of it. I respectfully decline your invitation to join you in playing with it.


My statement stands.



Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have. If it was, we basically wouldn't have any rules.

And good choice of the word "Privilege", because that is what we are seeing in the quest for "diversity" and "tolerance".


Some people get special treatment, with the rules being changed or just ignored for their convenience or benefit.

Nonsense. You have no evidence she receives special treatment because she’s a naturalized citizen.

lol!!! 181 year old rule, shit canned just for her? That's special treatment.


Ask me how many times some organization or group or community changed the rules just to make me happy?

Once again, the crux of the problem seems to be that you feel left out and are demanding special treatment. "How come she gets to wear a hat when I can't?" You do this on so many fronts, Correll. Grow up.

You are mistaken. My point is that she is receiving special treatment, having the rules changed for her.

Why is that a problem with a rule that never considered the possibility of women even being in the House when it was written?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Dumbfuck, with the lone exception of running for president of the United States of America, a citizen with “generations of American-ness” behind them are entitled to ALL the same rights and privileges as a citizen who was naturalized.

Just admit it, you hate Muslims and it’s driving you apeshit that a Muslim is going to get to wear a hijab in Congress.

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.

Deciding which rules we want to change and who we want to accommodate and why IS a privilege that Americans have. And the Americans whose rule this is and who are actually affected by it have exercised this privilege. The only people pissed off about it are people who, noticeably, are butting into something that really doesn't concern them.

Remember what you were saying earlier about "defining our community"? The fact still applies that the two Muslim women in question are actually members of the community in question, having been duly elected to Congress, and you and I are NOT members of that community, having not even run for office. Which means THEY have far more legitimate right to have input into the rules of that community than either of us do.

You put forth a scenario where the community was able to discuss this rule and have input freely and seriously and honestly.


I doubt that.


I don't know it the dems held a vote or not, but any input opposing this would have been demagogued to the Nth degree, thus your claim of "input" is, imo, NOT TRUE.


These changes are not something we as a community are choosing to do, it is being forced on us.

I have no reason to believe that the proposed rules change package didn't get every bit as much discussion as any rules change package does when the majority changes hands. If you can show me otherwise, go ahead.

I suspect you know even less about how rules changes are put in place than I do, and you're just running off half-cocked to pitch a fit over something you just noticed for the first time.

These changes are not something that has anything to do with any community WE are a part of, so not one damned thing is being "forced" on YOU at all.

This is an example of an the national mindset where it is on US to adjust to them instead of the other way around.


Plenty of changes are occurring that are effecting me and mine communities, and it is silly of you to pretend this is some isolated incident.

Do tell!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Such as?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So we should just allow old rules to stay in effect forever. Great thinking. Sometimes it is one case that pushes reform.

That is a nice strawman you have there. I'm sure you are proud of it. I respectfully decline your invitation to join you in playing with it.


My statement stands.



Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have. If it was, we basically wouldn't have any rules.

And good choice of the word "Privilege", because that is what we are seeing in the quest for "diversity" and "tolerance".


Some people get special treatment, with the rules being changed or just ignored for their convenience or benefit.

Nonsense. You have no evidence she receives special treatment because she’s a naturalized citizen.

lol!!! 181 year old rule, shit canned just for her? That's special treatment.


Ask me how many times some organization or group or community changed the rules just to make me happy?

You said it was because she was naturalized. That you abandoned that nonsense reveals even you know that assertion is ridiculous.

And no one cares what makes you happy.

I asked you to ask me how many times a organization or group or community changed the rules just to make me happy?



You did not ask me that, because you are afraid of the answer.

Nobody likes you because you are being a bigot and an asshole. That is why no one cares about making you happy!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking ABNORMALS and worthless, spineless Repukes are taking us down the path of destruction!....Wherr are the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE scumbags when they should be up in arms....but dont let a 66 year old cross stand on public property to memorialize our fallen war heros!

For 181 years, the U.S. House of Representatives has imposed a ban on its members wearing head coverings. With Ilhan Omar, one of the first Muslim women to be elected to Congress, set to take her oath of office in January, that rule—which would have prohibited her wearing her customary headscarves or the hijab—is slated to change.

The change was proposed jointly by Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Incoming Rules Chairman Jim McGovern and member-elect Ilhan Omar as part of a larger overhaul package.

When Omar is sworn in next year, she will become the first federal legislator to wear a religious headscarf. Her arrival will mark a number of other “firsts” as well. The Minnesota Democrat will be the first Somali-American in Congress and the first woman of color to represent her state in Washington. She’ll be joined by fellow Midwestern Democrat, Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib, as the first two Muslim women in Congress.

Hats of any kind have been banned from the House floor since 1837.

Read more at citizenfreepress.com ...

I wonder how much explosives she can hide in that scarf when she enters the Congressional chambers?

Then again, she would only do that if she were trying to save the country.

Oh, shut up! You are embarrassing yourself!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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


View attachment 233221

Back again to reinforce your ignorance?

 

[Montrovant]

Because a hijab is plainly visible
and jewelry is not. Because a hijab is a symbol of only one thing but a pinkie ring or necklace may not be.

Obviously we are talking about religious jewelry in this context. Did you think that wedding bands were being included in the conversation?

When did the visibility of the apparel become the determining factor in whether something is Constitutionally acceptable? Are crosses of a certain size no longer Constitutional? If that's the case, why is the difference in size between a hijab and a multi-ton granite monument of the 10 commandments not relevant?

A head cover. In the Senate Gallery. Not on the floor of the Senate itself. Not exactly pertinent, is it? No. It isn't. That's what you get for
quoting an absolute idiot and asshole!

You've got me there, it certainly is the gallery.

As I've said already (once again) there has never before been a case of a Muslim woman in Congress
to wear a hijab so how could anyone know about such a thing. Obviously, no one could.
What I do know is explicit expressions that exalt one religion over all others made by government entities is verboten.

How do you know that explicit expressions that exalt one religion over all others made by government entities is verboten? I've already pointed out one case to you in which that is not true (Van Orden v Perry).
You've not shown any evidence that the sort of expression in question here is prohibited. Do you know of any cases in which a government employee was deemed to be in violation of the Constitution for wearing a religious head cover? Hell, do you know of any cases in which a government employee was deemed to be in violation of the Constitution because of the religious nature of any apparel they wore? Once again, your argument appears to rest on your opinion alone.

Versus how many other times when they have literally sued people to have mountain top memorials torn down? The ACLU is smart enough
to take just enough cases that goes against their grain so people can't say they always do this or that.
Your few examples are the exception, not the rule. ACLU Survey/Fundraising Letter Confirms Its Anti-Christian Bias

I'm not trying to argue the merits of the ACLU, I'm pointing out that when you admit to knowing very little about an organization, your opinions of that organization lose weight.

Here's a question: Do you think the military allowing religious head covers for soldiers is unconstitutional?

 

[Correll]

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.

Could a member of Congress carry a gun into a session of Congress?

The answer is no, rendering your argument that she has a Constitutional right to wear her hijjab as stupid as you are.

No, absolutely NO member of Congress - or staffer, or anyone else who isn't law enforcement - can carry a gun in the Capitol. What the fuck that has to do with changing the dress code so she can wear her hijab is beyond anyone rational.

Seriously, between you and Eric, I have to wonder if the local mental hospital didn't just get a new computer in the dayroom or something.

Dude. He crushed you.

Dude, all that means is "He agreed with me, so it was OBVIOUSLY a win."

And I'm not a dude.

You made a point about Constitutional Rights, and he demonstrated that that point was invalid.


That's a crushing.


Don't project your inability to be objective.

 

[Correll]

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


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

Cause we wouldn’t want immigrants to assimilate to us, we gotta change for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And libs can't see an issue with that.

 

[Correll]

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.

There are conservative Jewish sects that require women to cover their hair, as well. I believe Hasidic Jewish women accomplish this by wearing wigs, rather than by wearing hats or scarves.

This might someday also become an issue from a cultural perspective as well as religious, since there are numerous cultures in the world which consider it shockingly immodest for women to go out without a head covering, on a par with showing up in a bikini.

Thank you.


MMm, so instead of asking the community to change their rules for a very small minority's benefit, they found a work around, ie wigs.


MMMmmm, interesting.


Funny how times have changed.


IMO, it is a change for the worse.

 

[Correll]

That is a nice strawman you have there. I'm sure you are proud of it. I respectfully decline your invitation to join you in playing with it.


My statement stands.



Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have. If it was, we basically wouldn't have any rules.

And good choice of the word "Privilege", because that is what we are seeing in the quest for "diversity" and "tolerance".


Some people get special treatment, with the rules being changed or just ignored for their convenience or benefit.

Nonsense. You have no evidence she receives special treatment because she’s a naturalized citizen.

lol!!! 181 year old rule, shit canned just for her? That's special treatment.


Ask me how many times some organization or group or community changed the rules just to make me happy?

Once again, the crux of the problem seems to be that you feel left out and are demanding special treatment. "How come she gets to wear a hat when I can't?" You do this on so many fronts, Correll. Grow up.

You are mistaken. My point is that she is receiving special treatment, having the rules changed for her.

Even if that were true, so what?

It is not fair to the community, to disregard it's choices and/or interests in favor of one individual, especially a newcomer.




When this type of privilege is granted and the stakes are higher, it rises to an Injustice.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Nonsense. You have no evidence she receives special treatment because she’s a naturalized citizen.

lol!!! 181 year old rule, shit canned just for her? That's special treatment.


Ask me how many times some organization or group or community changed the rules just to make me happy?

Once again, the crux of the problem seems to be that you feel left out and are demanding special treatment. "How come she gets to wear a hat when I can't?" You do this on so many fronts, Correll. Grow up.

You are mistaken. My point is that she is receiving special treatment, having the rules changed for her.

Even if that were true, so what?

It is not fair to the community, to disregard it's choices and/or interests in favor of one individual, especially a newcomer.




When this type of privilege is granted and the stakes are higher, it rises to an Injustice.

Why can't you just admit your bigotry and get it over with? We all see it in your writings!

 

[Correll]

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.

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.

I think it's more like the Republicans wouldn't bother, because who gives a shit?

You keep blathering about "we are not free to make changes", just as though you still labor under the mistaken idea that YOU have ever gotten to make changes in the day-to-day running of Congress. YOU are not a member of Congress. You are not a Congressional staffer. You aren't even the Capitol building janitor. This is 100% nothing to do with you and none of your business. NOTHING is being "forced down your throat", because it doesn't affect you except to the extent that you want to sit around stewing and being outraged by the knowledge that some "black Muslim" - to quote your frequent phrase - is DARING to be in Congress without knuckling under to how you think she should be.

Your pretense that this type of Privilege is limited merely to Congress or this specific incident is noted and dismissed as silly.


Now, my point stands. We are NOT free to make changes.

 

[Taz]

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.

Her first amendment rights aren’t protected, sharia law is outlawed.

I’m a Libertarian, not Republican.

 

[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.

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.

I just handed you your ass. Now get off the internet, you’re making it dumber.