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

[danielpalos]

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

We have a First Amendment in the US. It can't be about Religion. It must be about natural rights.

 

[there4eyeM]

I googled "christian sharia law," and nothing came up. Sorry, I do not know what that is.

It is utter babble and a pathetic attempt at equating Islamic theocracy and Christianity. That's what it is.

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.

When all our words have finally become meaningless, none will mean anything.
There is nothing about Sharia seriously comparable to Christian doctrine and practice. We can critique and criticize Christianity (and rightly so) all day long (and not have a 'fatwa' pronounced against us), but we cannot honestly compare the attitudes and acts of those who follow the two regimes. Nowhere are Christians conducting themselves the way those are who would inflict Sharia law upon the world.
Let's keep our use of words under control.

 

[MisterBeale]

I googled "christian sharia law," and nothing came up. Sorry, I do not know what that is.

It is utter babble and a pathetic attempt at equating Islamic theocracy and Christianity. That's what it is.

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.

When all our words have finally become meaningless, none will mean anything.
There is nothing about Sharia seriously comparable to Christian doctrine and practice. We can critique and criticize Christianity (and rightly so) all day long (and not have a 'fatwa' pronounced against us), but we cannot honestly compare the attitudes and acts of those who follow the two regimes. Nowhere are Christians conducting themselves the way those are who would inflict Sharia law upon the world.
Let's keep our use of words under control.

But. . . but . . . . but . . . .

bodies arguments make SOOOO much sense?!

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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

Democrat rules: Muslims trump women.

 

[bodecea]

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

Democrat rules: Muslims trump women.

Not at all.

Republican rules: we are frightened of women

 

[depotoo]

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

Democrat rules: Muslims trump women.

Not at all.

Republican rules: we are frightened of women

Frightened? No, it is Dems frightened of upsetting Muslims.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Not at all.

Republican rules: we are frightened of women

What a clever lie.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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?

I don't know. Why?

Change, dumbass! Change!

No one cares anymore, so nobody enforces the rules.

 

[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.

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

Women have been in the House for a long time now, living without hats.

Why did they have a rule then?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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!

Because it is not true.


If you've been following my writings, you should have noticed that I am just as annoyed with changes from white liberals.


Freaking morons.

No, you are targeting Muslims because of their religious beliefs. You even erroneously call them "dot heads" because your bigotry is fed by your ignorance.

You simply hate anyone who is not white. It's OK to admit it. That way we will know to blame it on your ignorance.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I googled "christian sharia law," and nothing came up. Sorry, I do not know what that is.

It is utter babble and a pathetic attempt at equating Islamic theocracy and Christianity. That's what it is.

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.

Actually, she was following the law as written.

 

[bodecea]

Not at all.

Republican rules: we are frightened of women

What a clever lie.

I see evidence of it almost every day here in threads like this one. This is an INCEL haven.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I see evidence of it almost every day here in threads like this one. This is an INCEL haven.

Well, it's probably not a lie if you've convinced yourself it's true.

 

[Correll]

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.

That is silly on top of silly


1. You claim that we are balancing the needs of the old as well as the new, and then call me a bigot for supporting the old. Self aware much? NOT.


2. You're not a member of the House either, but you are here pussy-aching too. And with more drama and emotion than I.

 

[Correll]

View attachment 232366

I recall a report from a nice Long Island neighborhood several years ago.


A young gay male was killed.


The locals were horrified. They said "this is not who we are".


BUT, they had welcomed the influx of hispanic immigration until there was a large hispanic population with a serious gang problem and the gang was upset that one of it's members was behaving in a not macho fashion.


So they killed him.


A community that invites in a large and alien population, gives up the right to define itself.

That's what happened to the Indians.
Let white convicts in here

From their perspective, correct.

 

[Correll]

Twenty-six pages of panty staining hysterics. How delightful.

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.

. . . and yet, the left is completely insulted when the majority of folks want images and monuments of the ten commandments in courthouses and in public squares?

I am having a hard time believing you.

Or hell, being wished a Merry Christmas.

 

[Correll]

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.

. . . and yet, the left is completely insulted when the majority of folks want images and monuments of the ten commandments in courthouses and in public squares?

I am having a hard time believing you.

So you are FOR christian sharia law, eh?

And by equating some monuments with "Christian Sharia Law" the lib shows how they fight against Christianity in a thread where they weakly submit to a "symbol of Islam" quickly and cheerfully.



Demonstrating my point, that we are NOT balancing the needs/interests of the "old" with the desires/interests of the new.

 

[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.

. . . and yet, the left is completely insulted when the majority of folks want images and monuments of the ten commandments in courthouses and in public squares?

I am having a hard time believing you.

So you are FOR christian sharia law, eh?

It must be about natural rights once our Government gets involved.

That almost made sense. Are you ok?

 

[Correll]

Other people have tried to get the rule changed.


They didn't get special treatment, they were told to obey the rules like everyone else.


The black muslim is just to privileged in dems eyes though. THey cannot be denied.

And now you're going to share the specifics of these "other people" and their reasons for wanting the rules changed, right?

No offense, but I don't accept anyone else's word for anything, and you've made it clear how opposed you are to special treatment.

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

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

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

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

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

OK, asshole, if it means that much to you, though I doubt it does.

House Democrats hope to change 181-year-old rule barring hats to include exemption for religious headwear


"Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson, known for her wide collection of hats, tried to get the rule evoked in 2010, calling it “sexist,” according to the Miami Herald.

“It dates back to when men wore hats and we know that men don't wear hats indoors, but women wear hats indoors,” Wilson said. “Hats are what I wear. People get excited when they see the hats. Once you get accustomed to it, it's just me. Some people wear wigs, or high heel shoes or big earrings or pins. This is just me.” "

You dumbfuck, Wilson didn’t seek to get the rule changed in order to preserve her First Amendment right to exercise her religion. She wanted to wear hats on the House floor for fashion purposes, which violates the intent of the rule. The rule was put in place as a symbol of respect for that chamber. It was never intended to deny anyone their religious freedoms.

Others here are right. You’re fueled by nothing but bigotry.

I said the rule had been challenged before. Your moving of the goal posts is nothing but the standard intellectual and moral cowardice that defines the modern "liberal".


And, as your post was basically nothing but a name calling. You are an asshole.

 

[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.

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

It does raise the question of why change it now.


And that answer seems to be that newcomers have precedence and the rest of US have to change for them.

Because NOW is the time when it is conflicting with someone's exercise of religion.

That's when one usually modifies rules: when they become irrelevant or problematic. Duhhh.

The answer only seems to be, "The newcomers are more important and WAAAHHH!" because you're being a bigoted little tit.

Jews have been serving in Congress for generations. I doubt this is the first time this has come up.

Your guesses are worthless.... prove it.

Because you give a damn about the answer? LOL!! Piss off.