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

[bodecea]

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....

We don’t allow stoning of rape victims, nor chopping off the hand of petty thieves... you have been schooled, now stfu.

You’re merely list some of their laws that are outlawed. Some are not. Sharia law is not outlawed.

None of sharia holds weight in court. Now go kiss a fucking carpet. Can't you hear Allah calling you?

You are correct....sharia law holds no weight in our courts of law....just like any other religious law.

Let's think on the 10 Commandments, a form of Sharia Law for Jews and Christians

The Ten Commandments

1 Thou shalt have no other gods before me
2 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
3 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
4 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
5 Honour thy father and thy mother
6 Thou shalt not kill
7 Thou shalt not commit adultery
8 Thou shalt not steal
9 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
10 Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's slaves, animals, or anything else)


1 is not a secular law
2 is not a secular law
3 is not a secular law
4 is not a secular law
5 is not a secular law
6 IS a secular law in all cultures/countries
7 is not a secular law (tho it probably will get you divorced)
8 IS a secular law in all cultures/countries
9 is not a secular law (unless under oath in a court of law)
10 is not a secular law

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I'm certain she doesn't even know Taz exists. Heck, the people talking to Taz are only barely aware of that.

 

[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.

Separation of church and state


View attachment 233221

Only thing that trumps it is common sense AND the law. At no point in time has the law ever said, or been interpreted to say, that elected officials lose their individual civil rights. Therefore, "separation of church and state" - which doesn't even appear in the law as such - is not applicable to the individual First Amendment rights of Representatives, no matter how many times you parrot it in the gleeful tones of a 3-year-old who thinks he's finally outsmarted his parents.

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....

We don’t allow stoning of rape victims, nor chopping off the hand of petty thieves... you have been schooled, now stfu.

You’re merely list some of their laws that are outlawed. Some are not. Sharia law is not outlawed.

None of sharia holds weight in court. Now go kiss a fucking carpet. Can't you hear Allah calling you?

You are correct....sharia law holds no weight in our courts of law....just like any other religious law.

Let's think on the 10 Commandments, a form of Sharia Law for Jews and Christians

The Ten Commandments

1 Thou shalt have no other gods before me
2 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
3 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
4 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
5 Honour thy father and thy mother
6 Thou shalt not kill
7 Thou shalt not commit adultery
8 Thou shalt not steal
9 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
10 Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's slaves, animals, or anything else)


1 is not a secular law
2 is not a secular law
3 is not a secular law
4 is not a secular law
5 is not a secular law
6 IS a secular law in all cultures/countries
7 is not a secular law (tho it probably will get you divorced)
8 IS a secular law in all cultures/countries
9 is not a secular law (unless under oath in a court of law)
10 is not a secular law

I'm agnostic, I don't believe in fairy tales.

 

[Taz]

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.

I'm certain she doesn't even know Taz exists. Heck, the people talking to Taz are only barely aware of that.

Ceci, as long as you care, it's all good.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Not being Catholic, I can't really say for sure, but I don't think it was a rule so much as a custom. And I believe it is still observed by more traditional Catholic women.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I made a point about Constitutional rights. He made a false analogy, and you creamed your pants because you thought someone had validated your bigotry.

That's laughable and pathetic.

Don't project your inability to think without your glands.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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.

I made a point about Constitutional rights. He made a false analogy, and you creamed your pants because you thought someone had validated your bigotry.

That's laughable and pathetic.

Don't project your inability to think without your glands.

That you are too stupid to understand an analogy doesn't make it false.

You have a right to carry a gun, you also have a right to express your religion.

Those are both rights as much as the left would like one of them not to be, and the other as well if it's a Christian expressing their religion, but that's a topic for another thread.

Having those rights doesn't have shit to to do with The House, or any other organization saying "fine , but you can't exercise that right here" meaning for example that just because I have a right to carry a gun, that doesn't mean I have a right to carry around inside a bank because the bank has a right to set rules. Just as Congress does.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

What in the actual fuck are you talking about? Where did anyone at any time say that Hasidic Jewish women WANT the rules changed?

Do the entire world a favor, and stop making ASSumptions based on your desperation to justify your xenophobia.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

More mindless blather about a community you're not part of, and how "unfair" the procedures are when you know very little about what the procedures actually are, and only just became aware of them five minutes ago.

Just another repetition of "NOooooo!!! Nothing can ever change, because I feel threatened by it!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 dismissenond as silly.


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

Your pretense that we're talking about anything OTHER than Congress, simply because you feel threatened by anything ever changing anywhere, is noted and pitied.

Now, your point is as non-existent as ever. YOU are not free to make changes; not because of some apocryphal "privilege" or "PC catering" to people you've personally designated as undesirables, but because YOU are not part of the House of Representatives, YOU therefore have zero say or stake in their rules of conduct, and YOU are butting your nose into something that does not affect you and is not any of your business, because YOU think you should be able to dictate the entire world be just like you so that YOU don't have to feel bad.

In other words, you're thinking an awful lot like a leftist.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Pretty sad that so many Americans get worked up over the dumbest things.

They've been up in arms over it in Europe for ages. In France, the hijab is not allowed in schools. The full-face veil is outlawed in several countries. It is definitely seen as a symbol of Islam, which is exactly why it causes such an uproar. Kinda sad.

Why is it sad?

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

As long as they're practicing it peacefully, I don't consider Muslims any more or less wrong and misguided than a number of other religions I routinely ignore. I only have a problem with Muslims when they want to exercise their religion by killing and enslaving people and mutilating women's genitals.

Big case charging a doctor for mutilating women's genitals, just got dismissed.


Federal judge dismisses charges in female genital mutilation case in Detroit


9 girls that they know of. And the core charges were dropped. BUt hey, it's not my community, and doesn't affect me, so why should I care?


That's your stance on the issue, right?

Yeah, uh, are you actually telling the entire world right at this moment that you're so pig-stupid that you can't tell the difference between a dress code about hats and a law about physically maiming people? That's really how you want to present yourself?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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....

We don’t allow stoning of rape victims, nor chopping off the hand of petty thieves... you have been schooled, now stfu.

Correll should be so proud to know that he's thinking on the exact same wavelength as you. If that doesn't make him suicidal, nothing on Earth will.

 

[Taz]

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....

We don’t allow stoning of rape victims, nor chopping off the hand of petty thieves... you have been schooled, now stfu.

Correll should be so proud to know that he's thinking on the exact same wavelength as you. If that doesn't make him suicidal, nothing on Earth will.

I bet you'd be right up there throwing the first stone.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm curious, are you also as upset or offended by the fact that the Senate changed their rules about family members on the floor to accommodate a representative (Tammy Duckworth) with a newborn she needed to breast feed?

Sen. Tammy Duckworth Can Now Breastfeed on Senate Floor Due to Rule Change

Well, as a native born American, she is not an immigrant demanding that we adapt to her, so not really relevant to the point I made.


But well I am not "upset" about it, I do disagree with it. Hand the kid off to someone for Christ's sake.

Why? It really affects no one but her, and breast-feeding doesn't always make that as practically possible as bottle-feeding.

And what the hell does "native-born" versus immigrant have to do with anything? Not to mention there's no more "adapting" involved in simply ignoring someone else's clothing than there is in ignoring someone breast-feeding a child.

My wife breast fed and worked.

Don't believe I ever said she couldn't. I said breast-feeding has practical concerns and issues that bottle-feeding doesn't. It's one of the reasons I didn't breast-feed with my kids. And I would hope we can agree that being a member of Congress is rather different from reguar jobs.

I do agree with that. I think it would be far easier. You don't need to be on the floor for 8 hours. You have a staff. You made a decent wage, though I grant that DC is probably expensive.

You don't need to be there for 8 hours, but you don't necessarily know WHAT time of day you'll be required to be there. Politicians love to schedule shit at weird times to keep the opposition from showing up, or in marathon sessions in the hopes that people will get tired. Expense isn't really the point.

Once again, you insist that people are being "privileged" because they refuse to change or give up something deeply important to them in order to accommodate the whims of some nobody without a dog in the fight, but who's going to get butt-chapped at the knowledge that someone, somewhere, is being different from him.

The only demand for special accommodation I'm seeing right now is YOU.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I hate to break this to you Sparky, but this woman did figure out how to live in our system, she figured out that the rule against headwear can be changed, and it will be. So your argument that she isn't living within our system is 100% dead wrong.

She is not living in our system, she is changing it to be HER system. We are the ones that are going to have to learn to live in it now.

Fucking hat bans on the fucking House floor are NOT "our system", for crying out loud unprintably! Please stop confusing your personal prejudices with essential American culture. It's a frigging dress code that applies to fewer than 500 people - none of whom are objecting, and none of whom are YOU - and matters to almost no one.

No one is asking you to "learn to live in" anything except for a world where everyone is not like you, and doesn't need to be, and where you just need to mind your own business and tend to your own life. And given the fact that you have ALWAYS lived in that world, whether or you were too ignorant to know it or not, I'd say it's long past time you learned that lesson.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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 dismissenond as silly.


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

Your pretense that we're talking about anything OTHER than Congress, simply because you feel threatened by anything ever changing anywhere, is noted and pitied.

Now, your point is as non-existent as ever. YOU are not free to make changes; not because of some apocryphal "privilege" or "PC catering" to people you've personally designated as undesirables, but because YOU are not part of the House of Representatives, YOU therefore have zero say or stake in their rules of conduct, and YOU are butting your nose into something that does not affect you and is not any of your business, because YOU think you should be able to dictate the entire world be just like you so that YOU don't have to feel bad.

In other words, you're thinking an awful lot like a leftist.

Now this is hilarious, when you see a liberal actually arguing that there is no requirement for a separation of church and state in this country. LOL just the sort of thing that happens when you have zero actual principles to live by.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Yeah, no. If we were talking about us having to actually change something about ourselves, that would be one thing. Since we're talking about us merely having to accommodate their presence and participation in our society without changing anything we ourselves do or don't do, you're way off-course.

Unless those "plenty of changes" you're talking about involve women wearing hijiabs and actually have some detrimental effect - or ANY effect - on you personally, it's irrelevant to the topic.

You change the way an institution operates and effects everyone in the institution.


She did not just participate in our society, she demanded and got a change.

We're not talking about a change in the way the House of Representatives operates, you pinhead. We're talking about the dress code. And not even a major change in THAT.

Super-majorities for cloture, THAT is a change in the operation. A head scarf? Not even.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Pretty damned hypocritical, when there's not a chance in Hell we would make a similar adoption if the roles were reversed.

Also, insignificant conduct rules that affect nothing of importance to most people and are based on fashion styles and etiquette that fell out of fashion over fifty years ago are hardly "our ways" that we need to demand conformity to.

Please remember that we're talking about an article of personal dress, not animal sacrifice on the steps of the Capitol.

If I joined a group that had a rule that all members had to wear hats, during meetings, I would buy a hat and freaking wear it at meetings.


I might grumble about the expense, complain about how stupid it is, or bitch about it.


But I would not expect an institution and people who have been doing things one way for generations to change for me, just because I don't normally wear a hat.

Yeah, this isn't "joining a group" like signing up for the Kiwanis. This is the federal legislature, which makes laws for the entire country. And you're suggesting that it is reasonable to expect citizens of the United States to forego their Constitutional right to run for elected office and participate in political policy-making because of an obscure, obsolete dress code rule? It is so damned important that no one ever wear a hat in the House chamber that it should supersede multiple Constitutional rights? That is actually the position you want to stake out here?!

It is on them to figure out how to live in our society, not the other way around.


Or at least, in a sane world, it would be.


That is the principle here.

So basically, that whole concept of universal Constitutional rights for all citizens is now bullshit if the citizens in question insist on being different from what you, in your almighty wisdom, have determined is "the only right way to be American"?

Never mind that centuries-long history of America accommodating a wide variety of cultures and religions, so long as there is no violation of other people's rights and the individuals abide by our laws and give the same respect to other people.

The new America is apparently "If your religion makes you look funny to me, no rights for you!"

"It is on them to figure out how to live in our society" = "You'd better change to be exactly like us"

That is not what I said.

That is EXACTLY what you said. You just don't like having it pointed out to you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

"Completely reasonable" in what sense? Because it serves a useful purpose meaningful to the greater purposes and goals of the House? Or because you're going to put that damned Muslim in her place and show her that she has to be just like you?

How many times have you joined an organization or community, and before you even join, they changed the rules for your convenience?

Never, but that could have something to do with the fact that I've never asked.

On the other hand, I can cite you any number of occasions when organizations of all sorts have changed their rules because people with a stake in the organization asked them to. One that springs to mind is the number of businesses which became non-smoking areas even before smoking laws were passed, because their customers and employees asked for it. Another is the fact that increasing numbers of businesses are scent-free (meaning they require their employees not to wear perfume or cologne at work) to accommodate people with allergies and breathing issues (not to mention people like me, who just hate perfume).

The House of Representatives gym was men-only for decades, but then changed to allow women when women started to be elected in large numbers. Ditto for the House pool.

People change rules all the time to reflect changing and evolving requirements. I have no idea where you got the notion that the world used to, or should, remain static and unchanging forever, and that there's something inherently bad about evaluating current needs and adjusting to fit. That's not conservative; that's fossilized.

Such change should be made with an eye to balancing the needs of the old and well as the new.


That is not happening today.


The interests of the old, is considered irrelevant, if not WRONG, or BAD somehow.

The change IS being made with an eye to balancing the needs of the old as well as the new.

What YOU want is for the change to be made with an eye to pleasing the bigots who have no say in it, but are going to piss and moan anyway.

You can tell me about how "the interests of the old are considered bad" when someone WHO ACTUALLY HAS A RIGHT TO A SAY IN THE HOUSE DRESS CODE complains. Right now, the irrelevance in your pussy-aching comes not from "the interests of the old", but from the fact that YOU'RE NOT A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE.

 

[Faun]

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....

We don’t allow stoning of rape victims, nor chopping off the hand of petty thieves... you have been schooled, now stfu.

You’re merely list some of their laws that are outlawed. Some are not. Sharia law is not outlawed.

None of sharia holds weight in court. Now go kiss a fucking carpet. Can't you hear Allah calling you?

Praying 5 times a Day is part of Sharia law. That is protected by our Constitution and is not outlawed in the U.S.