Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ironically you know that hijabs are required wear for women according to the Koran, don't you?I could have sworn that the rights for women we have fought for in this country were all about individual women determining for themselves what they wanted and what was best for them. I didn't realize that we had ACTUALLY been fighting for the "right" of women to do things the way they're told they should want them by people who consider themselves much smarter than those stupid skirts who might dare to choose otherwise.
"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allaah is Ever Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful” [al-Ahzaab 33:59]"
In Pakistan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Iran a hijab is mandatory. Omar is actually promoting women NOT being able to dress as they wish. But you knew that, didn't you.
Clearly this is not about fashion per se or women's rights. It's about bringing your religious symbols onto the floor of Congress and promoting a particular religion over all others...a religion, by the way, that treats women like lesser creatures than men.Sorry, how is the "rights for women" you're espousing any different from the previous oppression, except for the identity of the people imposing their view of womanhood?
But in the US, whether or not a woman follows the Koran is a choice.
The proposed rule change would allow a religious exception to the House hat rule, not a Muslim exception or a hijab exception.
bad idea since it is almost impossible to DEFINE A RELIGION------creating a list of ACCEPTABLE RELIGIONS
is very NOT ACCEPTABLE
So, you say the fight was to allow women to let men subjugate them , if it’s ok with them? Wow.
I thought is was about lifting them up from that mentality. I guess if a woman decides it’s ok for their man to physically abuse them, then no one should step in to stop it, either, according to your logic.It stands for a slap in the face of all the rights for women that have been fought for in this country.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?No one, least of all me, thinks what Roy Moore did was proper.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.
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.Where on her hijab does it say or list anything about Islam?
We know what the Ten Commandments say. By the way, Moses is venerated by Islam.This is what Judge Moore want to advertise:
- You shall have no other gods before Me.
- You shall not make idols.
- You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
- Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
- Honor your father and your mother.
- You shall not murder.
- You shall not commit adultery.
- You shall not steal.
- You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
- You shall not covet.
I could have sworn that the rights for women we have fought for in this country were all about individual women determining for themselves what they wanted and what was best for them. I didn't realize that we had ACTUALLY been fighting for the "right" of women to do things the way they're told they should want them by people who consider themselves much smarter than those stupid skirts who might dare to choose otherwise.
Sorry, how is the "rights for women" you're espousing any different from the previous oppression, except for the identity of the people imposing their view of womanhood?
You dumbfuck, preserving and protecting constitutional rights is among our finest traditions and symbols of our culture.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.
It’s a pity you love your bigotry more than you hate the Constitution.
As has been pointed out, limitations on those rights occur all the time, such as not being allowed to carry firearms into the House.
You can shove your accusations of bigotry up your ass, asshole.
As has been pointed out, limitations on rights occur when there is an overriding reason for it.
Your dislike of Muslims doesn't qualify.
there is an overriding reason------no congressman should
be an advertisement for ANY religion
You dumbfuck, preserving and protecting constitutional rights is among our finest traditions and symbols of our culture.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.
It’s a pity you love your bigotry more than you hate the Constitution.
As has been pointed out, limitations on those rights occur all the time, such as not being allowed to carry firearms into the House.
You can shove your accusations of bigotry up your ass, asshole.
As has been pointed out, limitations on rights occur when there is an overriding reason for it.
Your dislike of Muslims doesn't qualify.
there is an overriding reason------no congressman should
be an advertisement for ANY religion
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.
1) I claim - correctly - that the House is trying to balance the needs of the old as well as the new. I call you a bigot - also correctly - because you are demanding that theycling to the old and ignore the new in perpetuity, in service solely of your personal hatreds.
2) You are bitching about changes in a group you are not part of. I am pointing out the idiocy in a group I AM part of, ie. this message board. Also, your belief that you're being less dramatic and emotional?
You dumbfuck, preserving and protecting constitutional rights is among our finest traditions and symbols of our culture.It's a symbol of the utter lack of consideration given to our traditions and culture, in the larger course of events.
It’s a pity you love your bigotry more than you hate the Constitution.
As has been pointed out, limitations on those rights occur all the time, such as not being allowed to carry firearms into the House.
You can shove your accusations of bigotry up your ass, asshole.
As has been pointed out, limitations on rights occur when there is an overriding reason for it.
Your dislike of Muslims doesn't qualify.
there is an overriding reason------no congressman should
be an advertisement for ANY religion
Religious garb isn't "advertisement".
Here's an example of hat-as-advertisement ---
Ironically you know that hijabs are required wear for women according to the Koran, don't you?I could have sworn that the rights for women we have fought for in this country were all about individual women determining for themselves what they wanted and what was best for them. I didn't realize that we had ACTUALLY been fighting for the "right" of women to do things the way they're told they should want them by people who consider themselves much smarter than those stupid skirts who might dare to choose otherwise.
"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allaah is Ever Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful” [al-Ahzaab 33:59]"
In Pakistan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Iran a hijab is mandatory. Omar is actually promoting women NOT being able to dress as they wish. But you knew that, didn't you.
Clearly this is not about fashion per se or women's rights. It's about bringing your religious symbols onto the floor of Congress and promoting a particular religion over all others...a religion, by the way, that treats women like lesser creatures than men.Sorry, how is the "rights for women" you're espousing any different from the previous oppression, except for the identity of the people imposing their view of womanhood?
You dumbfuck, preserving and protecting constitutional rights is among our finest traditions and symbols of our culture.It's a symbol of the utter lack of consideration given to our traditions and culture, in the larger course of events.
It’s a pity you love your bigotry more than you hate the Constitution.
As has been pointed out, limitations on those rights occur all the time, such as not being allowed to carry firearms into the House.
You can shove your accusations of bigotry up your ass, asshole.
As has been pointed out, limitations on rights occur when there is an overriding reason for it.
Your dislike of Muslims doesn't qualify.
there is an overriding reason------no congressman should
be an advertisement for ANY religion
Religious garb isn't "advertisement".
Here's an example of hat-as-advertisement ---
There are no Constitutional exceptions based on gender. Being a woman doesn't make you magically immune from our secular national values.American rules: universal freedom trumps prejudice.
Ms. Omar is a woman; you are not. Explain to me why you think it's okay for YOU to decide what her "rights" as a woman should be, rather than her deciding for herself.
So, you say the fight was to allow women to let men subjugate them , if it’s ok with them? Wow.
I thought is was about lifting them up from that mentality. I guess if a woman decides it’s ok for their man to physically abuse them, then no one should step in to stop it, either, according to your logic.It stands for a slap in the face of all the rights for women that have been fought for in this country.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?No one, least of all me, thinks what Roy Moore did was proper.
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.
We know what the Ten Commandments say. By the way, Moses is venerated by Islam.
I could have sworn that the rights for women we have fought for in this country were all about individual women determining for themselves what they wanted and what was best for them. I didn't realize that we had ACTUALLY been fighting for the "right" of women to do things the way they're told they should want them by people who consider themselves much smarter than those stupid skirts who might dare to choose otherwise.
Sorry, how is the "rights for women" you're espousing any different from the previous oppression, except for the identity of the people imposing their view of womanhood?
So you say the fight was for YOU to tell women what to do and who to be, instead of someone else? Wow.
You thought it was about "educating" women to all want what YOU thought was best for them. I thought, and still think, it was about assuming women are intelligent, capable individuals in their own right who should be allowed to make their own choices and live their own lives, even if I think their choices are bad.
There is no amount of "Well, that choice is bad, so it shouldn't be available" that's going to make you sound any less oppressive and dictatorial, just so you know.
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 ...
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.
As has been pointed out, limitations on those rights occur all the time, such as not being allowed to carry firearms into the House.
You can shove your accusations of bigotry up your ass, asshole.
As has been pointed out, limitations on rights occur when there is an overriding reason for it.
Your dislike of Muslims doesn't qualify.
there is an overriding reason------no congressman should
be an advertisement for ANY religion
Religious garb isn't "advertisement".
Here's an example of hat-as-advertisement ---
Of course religeous garments are an advertisement of your religion. That's PRECISELY why the Koran calls for women to cover their heads in pubic, to advertise that they are devout and pious women.
Oh, you meant they aren't a commercial advertisement like that orange bastard's hats.
Wow! So, according to your logic, if a woman wants to continue to be physically abused, her abuser should not be arrested? Because she doesn’t want to press charges, it is her choice to stay with them. Well, hell, why have any laws then, that deal with abusive relationships, if they are willing participants, even though their self esteem is so low, they don’t know any better! Who cares!
Makes me wonder if you are one of the repressed.
You just can’t make this stuff up.So, you say the fight was to allow women to let men subjugate them , if it’s ok with them? Wow.
I thought is was about lifting them up from that mentality. I guess if a woman decides it’s ok for their man to physically abuse them, then no one should step in to stop it, either, according to your logic.It stands for a slap in the face of all the rights for women that have been fought for in this country.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 could have sworn that the rights for women we have fought for in this country were all about individual women determining for themselves what they wanted and what was best for them. I didn't realize that we had ACTUALLY been fighting for the "right" of women to do things the way they're told they should want them by people who consider themselves much smarter than those stupid skirts who might dare to choose otherwise.
Sorry, how is the "rights for women" you're espousing any different from the previous oppression, except for the identity of the people imposing their view of womanhood?
So you say the fight was for YOU to tell women what to do and who to be, instead of someone else? Wow.
You thought it was about "educating" women to all want what YOU thought was best for them. I thought, and still think, it was about assuming women are intelligent, capable individuals in their own right who should be allowed to make their own choices and live their own lives, even if I think their choices are bad.
There is no amount of "Well, that choice is bad, so it shouldn't be available" that's going to make you sound any less oppressive and dictatorial, just so you know.
Now Jews can wear yarmulke’s. What, do you hate Jews?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 ...
No one hates the Jews because the Jews love the nation and put the nation before their religion.
The same can't be said of this selfish woman. The whole representative body needs to change the rules for her.
Really. You know her?
I don't need to.
All I need to know is that she ran for Congress because she wants to affect policy, yet she never had any intention of making a compromise of her faith.
She wants the tradition of the nation to bend to her will, OF THE ENTIRE NATION OF ISLAM.
So I already know what is more important to her. She reveals it by wanting the traditions of the entire body to change for ONE PERSON, exclusively for the demands of one religion.
Apparently all of her citizenship classes and the oath she took to become a citizen? meh, lip service.
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
. . . . lip service. It didn't mean shit to her.
LEARN SOMETHING.
Islamic concept of sovereignty - Wikipedia
she ran for Congress because she wants to affect policy, yet she never had any intention of making a compromise of her faith.
Honey, I am all woman, and no way is the subjugating of women a plus for us. Ever.
And your pouncing on a man that believes in the rights of women to be treated equally, well, this just confirms to me that you really aren’t for the better treatment of women, at all.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.
1) I claim - correctly - that the House is trying to balance the needs of the old as well as the new. I call you a bigot - also correctly - because you are demanding that theycling to the old and ignore the new in perpetuity, in service solely of your personal hatreds.
2) You are bitching about changes in a group you are not part of. I am pointing out the idiocy in a group I AM part of, ie. this message board. Also, your belief that you're being less dramatic and emotional?
You dumbfuck, preserving and protecting constitutional rights is among our finest traditions and symbols of our culture.It's a symbol of the utter lack of consideration given to our traditions and culture, in the larger course of events.
It’s a pity you love your bigotry more than you hate the Constitution.
As has been pointed out, limitations on those rights occur all the time, such as not being allowed to carry firearms into the House.
You can shove your accusations of bigotry up your ass, asshole.
As has been pointed out, limitations on rights occur when there is an overriding reason for it.
Your dislike of Muslims doesn't qualify.
there is an overriding reason------no congressman should
be an advertisement for ANY religion
Then it becomes an argument about whether personal expressions of religious belief become representative of the government. I don't think that a hijab, or a yarmulke, or a cross, or a bindi, worn by an individual rep would be construed as representing the stance of the government in and of themselves. I can understand disagreeing, however.
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.
As has been pointed out, limitations on those rights occur all the time, such as not being allowed to carry firearms into the House.
You can shove your accusations of bigotry up your ass, asshole.
As has been pointed out, limitations on rights occur when there is an overriding reason for it.
Your dislike of Muslims doesn't qualify.
there is an overriding reason------no congressman should
be an advertisement for ANY religion
Then it becomes an argument about whether personal expressions of religious belief become representative of the government. I don't think that a hijab, or a yarmulke, or a cross, or a bindi, worn by an individual rep would be construed as representing the stance of the government in and of themselves. I can understand disagreeing, however.
And in fact, here's a Congressional Rep defying that rule in, in this case, March of 2011.
That same Wiki link sez the rule is worded: "Every member shall remain uncovered during the sessions of the House." That should mean everybody has to be naked, so we could say this rule has been ignored for 181 years.
Might be interesting though.
No one forbids her to wear it, other than within the Congressional chamber. Where laws have been made to uphold the rights of women not to be enslaved.
One thing to consider is that of what our culture regards as 'religious symbols', which do we require that women wear? And where would a woman be punished for not wearing it?
This "head gear", this symbol is of repression of our sisters.
The only thing to consider is whether anyone is requiring Ms. Omar to wear the hijab, other than her god.
Beyond that, you have nothing whatsoever to consider about someone else's life choices if they don't affect you. And spare me the lofty claims of "repression for our sisters"; if you're telling her she can't wear it, that's no different from someone else telling her she has to. Both are the desire to decide for women who and what they have to be, instead of letting them decide for themselves.
