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

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Christian sharia exists....anyone trying to force the 10 Commandments on us as a country....those trying to force their version of christianity on the rest of us when it comes to laws. Fore example that county clerk in Kentucky. She tried and had support of so-called Presidential candidates for it. That's christian sharia.

LOL...that's two individuals with religious views you don't approve of. Some wild imagination with your whine, sir?

 

[bodecea]

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.

As stated, I did not ask you because nobody cares about you.

You didn't ask, because you know that you are just spewing shit from your face anus, and that I would call you on it.

More name calling.

No, Faun is supporting violence against a child and lying about his reason for doing so.


That means he is putting out nothing but shit, on this pages.

Calling him on his vile lies, is a valid point.



You are being willfully ignorant on this issue.

Where had Faun supported violence against a child? How about you show us where he did that.......and at the same time, you still haven't given us a link to this claim tho I asked for it at least twice: Democrats Change 181 Year-Old Rule To Allow Ilhan Omar To Wear Hijab In The House

 

[bodecea]

Christian sharia exists....anyone trying to force the 10 Commandments on us as a country....those trying to force their version of christianity on the rest of us when it comes to laws. Fore example that county clerk in Kentucky. She tried and had support of so-called Presidential candidates for it. That's christian sharia.

LOL...that's two individuals with religious views you don't approve of. Some wild imagination with your whine, sir?

I don't approve of sharia whether it's christian or muslim or whatever....our laws are secular and are meant to stay secular. Are you not getting that part?

 

[Faun]

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.

As stated, I did not ask you because nobody cares about you.

You didn't ask, because you know that you are just spewing shit from your face anus, and that I would call you on it.

More name calling.

No, Faun is supporting violence against a child and lying about his reason for doing so.


That means he is putting out nothing but shit, on this pages.

Calling him on his vile lies, is a valid point.



You are being willfully ignorant on this issue.

Where had Faun supported violence against a child? How about you show us where he did that.......and at the same time, you still haven't given us a link to this claim tho I asked for it at least twice: Democrats Change 181 Year-Old Rule To Allow Ilhan Omar To Wear Hijab In The House

I supported one student punching another student because he’s a known nazi at their high school. He got smashed in the face after making a racist gesture at the student who struck him, who’s black.

What Correll lies about is his fallacious claim that I lied about why I supported the beat down when I said I supported it because I see nothing wrong with beating up nazi’s since they tried to wipe out Jews.

 

[Correll]

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!"

Change can be threatening. It should be carefully considered as to whether it is good change or bad.

 

[Correll]

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.

Wow. That was a lot of sound and fury, especially considering that you are the one pretending this is such a little and unimportant non issue.

Funny, how you have no problem extrapolating from my position on this to reach larger and more important conclusions about ME,


but I am not supposed to do the same, regarding the people making this change.

 

[Correll]

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?

When you embrace change without consideration, you get the bad along with the good.

That is my point.

 

[Correll]

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.

Your blindness to the issue, is a big part of the problem.

 

[Faun]

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?

When you embrace change without consideration, you get the bad along with the good.

That is my point.

There is no bad here. There’s the preservation of rights for U.S. citizens. That’s good, even if it does piss off a bigot like you who’s pissed that a female Muslim will get to wear her hijab in Congress.

 

[OldLady]

NO! A granite monument in a Court House, where the laws are adjudicated cannot put up a Christian monument to the Ten Commandments, the cornerstone of the Christian religion.

No one, least of all me, thinks what Roy Moore did was proper.

Where on her hijab does it say or list anything about Islam?

Nowhere. Are you disputing the hijab is a Muslim sign of women's second place status under the religion of Mohammad? That says plenty about the hijab, I would say.

This is what Judge Moore want to advertise:

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
   
   
2. You shall not make idols.
   
   
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
   
   
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
   
   
5. Honor your father and your mother.
   
   
6. You shall not murder.
   
   
7. You shall not commit adultery.
   
   
8. You shall not steal.
   
   
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
   
   
10. You shall not covet.

We know what the Ten Commandments say. By the way, Moses is venerated by Islam.

You want to ban hijabs because you are such a strong feminist that you cannot abide the underlying second place status it grants women, as symbolized by the hijab she freely and voluntarily wears in this country?

 

[Correll]

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.

It's a symbol of the utter lack of consideration given to our traditions and culture, in the larger course of events.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I don't approve of sharia whether it's christian or muslim or whatever....our laws are secular and are meant to stay secular. Are you not getting that part?

I don't approve of sharia whether it's christian or muslim or whatever....our laws are secular and are meant to stay secular. Are you not getting that part?

I'm not getting the part where two individuals who have been removed from their position of influence within the government (to the degree they had any influence) comprise some sort of existential threat to you. Your snowflakery is showing.
Didn't I make that clear before?

The real shariah law, an all encompassing system of laws and rules of conduct that govern Islamic life, actually exists in parts of the world where fundamentalist Muslims have control and Islamists, like the Muslim Brotherhood, actually have a long range plan to institute shariah law world wide. A world where gays can be killed, women are forced into burkas and servitude, criminals have hands lopped off, adulterers can be stoned, drawing funny pictures of Mohammad and apostasy means death!.

And you compare that to two civil servants who had a thing for the Ten Commandments and would not process marriage licenses for gay marriage? Whoa! Check your imagination. I think it's run away from you!

IF (if) you truly disliked and objected to real shariah law you would object to Ilhan Omar wearing her symbol of servitude on the floor of Congress and normalizing her medieval religion as an example for little girls around the nation to follow.
You would note that she has stated that parents of girls who have been mutilated by female circumcisions shouldn't be subject to harsh penalties or laws.
You would keep our government truly secular (as you claim to want) by not allowing this one particular religion (Islam) to be exempt from laws that prohibit any particular one religion from receiving the imprimatur of favor from our government that a hijab would signal.

Because if it was not singled out for special privileges or recognition it would not be exempt from the rules of the House that have existed for over 181 years just as Roy Moore or this other woman (whatever her name is) were sent packing because their religion was granted no special rights above all others.

But you don't truly mean what you claim and it shows.

 

[Correll]

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.

It's different when it's a religious minority, instead of Christians.

 

[Correll]

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.

Your refusal to listen to what I am actually saying, is part of the problem.

 

[depotoo]

It stands for a slap in the face of all the rights for women that have been fought for in this country.

NO! A granite monument in a Court House, where the laws are adjudicated cannot put up a Christian monument to the Ten Commandments, the cornerstone of the Christian religion.

No one, least of all me, thinks what Roy Moore did was proper.

Where on her hijab does it say or list anything about Islam?

Nowhere. Are you disputing the hijab is a Muslim sign of women's second place status under the religion of Mohammad? That says plenty about the hijab, I would say.

This is what Judge Moore want to advertise:

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
   
   
2. You shall not make idols.
   
   
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
   
   
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
   
   
5. Honor your father and your mother.
   
   
6. You shall not murder.
   
   
7. You shall not commit adultery.
   
   
8. You shall not steal.
   
   
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
   
   
10. You shall not covet.

We know what the Ten Commandments say. By the way, Moses is venerated by Islam.

You want to ban hijabs because you are such a strong feminist that you cannot abide the underlying second place status it grants women, as symbolized by the hijab she freely and voluntarily wears in this country?

 

[mdk]

The fact that this innocuous rule change is having the xenophobes piss their pants is just an added bonus. Get a life.

 

[Faun]

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.

It's a symbol of the utter lack of consideration given to our traditions and culture, in the larger course of events.

You dumbfuck, preserving and protecting constitutional rights is among our finest traditions and symbols of our culture.

It’s a pity you love your bigotry more than you hate the Constitution.

 

[bodecea]

As stated, I did not ask you because nobody cares about you.

You didn't ask, because you know that you are just spewing shit from your face anus, and that I would call you on it.

More name calling.

No, Faun is supporting violence against a child and lying about his reason for doing so.


That means he is putting out nothing but shit, on this pages.

Calling him on his vile lies, is a valid point.



You are being willfully ignorant on this issue.

Where had Faun supported violence against a child? How about you show us where he did that.......and at the same time, you still haven't given us a link to this claim tho I asked for it at least twice: Democrats Change 181 Year-Old Rule To Allow Ilhan Omar To Wear Hijab In The House

I supported one student punching another student because he’s a known nazi at their high school. He got smashed in the face after making a racist gesture at the student who struck him, who’s black.

What Correll lies about is his fallacious claim that I lied about why I supported the beat down when I said I supported it because I see nothing wrong with beating up nazi’s since they tried to wipe out Jews.

Well, he was defending a NAZI, eh?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You want to ban hijabs because you are such a strong feminist that you cannot abide the underlying second place status it grants women, as symbolized by the hijab she freely and voluntarily wears in this country?

I am not a feminist. I am a humanist. And if a slave decides he likes wearing his chains he is still a slave nevertheless.
The hijab signifies the second place status of women in Islam and it's just a small step away from a burka, philosophically.

 

[depotoo]

This is what the hijab represents. What it does not represent is what rights women have fought for and gained here in the US. The hijab is to a throw back era, and to think American women would see it as anything but, just astounds me.
Woman 'faces calls to be executed after going out without a hijab in Saudi Arabia' | Daily Mail Online