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
Sure, there's the possibility someone might try to abuse the exception. I don't think that's a very big threat, but I don't deny it could happen. "This fruit basket on my head is an integral part of my religion!"
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
Again -- so you know her?
Or do you have magic glasses that peer into people's thoughts, simply by looking at a picture?
Narrowmind much?
Back to the top here:
she ran for Congress because she wants to affect policy, yet she never had any intention of making a compromise of her faith.
Why the fuck would running for, or being a member of, Congress, require a 'compromise of one's faith'?
Summa y'all still don't seem to get that this is not a theocracy.
Holy SHIT.
“Interestingly, everyday dress for certain ethno-religious subcultures, such as Hasidic Jews, Amish, and conservative Mennonites, is considered sacred, especially in the symbolic separation of the ethno-religious subculture from a dominant culture. As religious groups encounter social change, dress often symbolically becomes important as certain items of a religious group's clothing may be classified as sacred in contrast to what is considered secular. Generally the most symbolic dress features of Amish and Mennonites (hats, beards, head coverings, bonnets, aprons) are considered sacred. Similarly, among conservative Muslim women, very fashionable clothing may be worn underneath the veils (sacred garments), known as chador, chadaree, or burqa, that are seen by outsiders. Sacred dress worn externally then becomes used intentionally to visually separate these religious groups from the larger culture. Often, the rules as to dress codes are imposed by male clergy on female members of the community, and in doing so, these patriarchal religious societies intentionally use dress codes to maintain a gendered imbalance of power.”
https://fashion-history.lovetoknow.com/fashion-history-eras/religion-dress
Yes, let’s re-enforce a patriarchal society, in a society that has fought to free itself from the patriarchal.
Let me ask you this, if someone from the Surma tribe migrated here, and was elected to Congress would you be ok with their attire of nothing, as that is part of their culture?
Now Jews can wear yarmulke’s. What, do you hate Jews?
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
Again -- so you know her?
Or do you have magic glasses that peer into people's thoughts, simply by looking at a picture?
Narrowmind much?
Back to the top here:
she ran for Congress because she wants to affect policy, yet she never had any intention of making a compromise of her faith.
Why the fuck would running for, or being a member of, Congress, require a 'compromise of one's faith'?
Summa y'all still don't seem to get that this is not a theocracy.
Holy SHIT.
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.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?
Honey, you may consider yourself "all woman", but you're not all WOMEN. There is no way subjugating women to other women in the name of "not subjugating women" is a plus for us. EVER.
Maybe the difference here is that one of us is a woman who considers other women too stupid to be allowed to think for themselves and make their own mistakes, and one of us is willing to treat women like real, autonomous people, even when she personally thinks they're screwing up.
Yeah, no "maybe" about that.
Your defending a man who wants to dictate who women should be against a woman who champions their freedom to be wrong, just because you personally like the dictates he outlines, confirms to me that you wouldn't recognize ACTUAL freedom if you fell over it. You couldn't care less about women being free; you just want us all to be like you.
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?
Ironically, there's no irony in holy books having rules for how people should live their lives. As long as they choose to follow those rules, it's none of my business. Again, there is no amount of "But her beliefs SUCK!" that is going to make a difference here. You can quote the Quran until your face turns blue trying to convince me that you should have the right to prevent someone from following it, and it still isn't going to happen.
Likewise, you can tell me about "Well, in Saudi Arabia" or "In Pakistan", and I'm not even going to read it, for the simple reason that WE'RE NOT IN THOSE COUNTRIES. We're in THIS country, and last time I checked, Ms. Omar is making her choices completely free of any legal persecution or oppression. If someone proposes that we make a law requiring hijabs (or forbidding them, for that matter), call me and we'll talk.
Clearly, this is about having the right to exercise your religious beliefs, even if other people think you shouldn't. Period.
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?
Disagreeing with YOU does not make a person a bigot.
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.
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?
Disagreeing with YOU does not make a person a bigot.
Never said it did.
Saying, "Can't let that Muslim look like a Muslim in the House", however, does.
“Interestingly, everyday dress for certain ethno-religious subcultures, such as Hasidic Jews, Amish, and conservative Mennonites, is considered sacred, especially in the symbolic separation of the ethno-religious subculture from a dominant culture. As religious groups encounter social change, dress often symbolically becomes important as certain items of a religious group's clothing may be classified as sacred in contrast to what is considered secular. Generally the most symbolic dress features of Amish and Mennonites (hats, beards, head coverings, bonnets, aprons) are considered sacred. Similarly, among conservative Muslim women, very fashionable clothing may be worn underneath the veils (sacred garments), known as chador, chadaree, or burqa, that are seen by outsiders. Sacred dress worn externally then becomes used intentionally to visually separate these religious groups from the larger culture. Often, the rules as to dress codes are imposed by male clergy on female members of the community, and in doing so, these patriarchal religious societies intentionally use dress codes to maintain a gendered imbalance of power.”
https://fashion-history.lovetoknow.com/fashion-history-eras/religion-dress
Yes, let’s re-enforce a patriarchal society, in a society that has fought to free itself from the patriarchal.
Let me ask you this, if someone from the Surma tribe migrated here, and was elected to Congress would you be ok with their attire of nothing, as that is part of their culture?
Now Jews can wear yarmulke’s. What, do you hate Jews?
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
Again -- so you know her?
Or do you have magic glasses that peer into people's thoughts, simply by looking at a picture?
Narrowmind much?
Back to the top here:
she ran for Congress because she wants to affect policy, yet she never had any intention of making a compromise of her faith.
Why the fuck would running for, or being a member of, Congress, require a 'compromise of one's faith'?
Summa y'all still don't seem to get that this is not a theocracy.
Holy SHIT.
Freedom from the fear of a man worried his wife might be seen as lustful because she exposes her head, is not freedom.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.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?
Honey, you may consider yourself "all woman", but you're not all WOMEN. There is no way subjugating women to other women in the name of "not subjugating women" is a plus for us. EVER.
Maybe the difference here is that one of us is a woman who considers other women too stupid to be allowed to think for themselves and make their own mistakes, and one of us is willing to treat women like real, autonomous people, even when she personally thinks they're screwing up.
Yeah, no "maybe" about that.
Your defending a man who wants to dictate who women should be against a woman who champions their freedom to be wrong, just because you personally like the dictates he outlines, confirms to me that you wouldn't recognize ACTUAL freedom if you fell over it. You couldn't care less about women being free; you just want us all to be like you.
“Interestingly, everyday dress for certain ethno-religious subcultures, such as Hasidic Jews, Amish, and conservative Mennonites, is considered sacred, especially in the symbolic separation of the ethno-religious subculture from a dominant culture. As religious groups encounter social change, dress often symbolically becomes important as certain items of a religious group's clothing may be classified as sacred in contrast to what is considered secular. Generally the most symbolic dress features of Amish and Mennonites (hats, beards, head coverings, bonnets, aprons) are considered sacred. Similarly, among conservative Muslim women, very fashionable clothing may be worn underneath the veils (sacred garments), known as chador, chadaree, or burqa, that are seen by outsiders. Sacred dress worn externally then becomes used intentionally to visually separate these religious groups from the larger culture. Often, the rules as to dress codes are imposed by male clergy on female members of the community, and in doing so, these patriarchal religious societies intentionally use dress codes to maintain a gendered imbalance of power.”
https://fashion-history.lovetoknow.com/fashion-history-eras/religion-dress
Yes, let’s re-enforce a patriarchal society, in a society that has fought to free itself from the patriarchal.
Let me ask you this, if someone from the Surma tribe migrated here, and was elected to Congress would you be ok with their attire of nothing, as that is part of their culture?
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
Again -- so you know her?
Or do you have magic glasses that peer into people's thoughts, simply by looking at a picture?
Narrowmind much?
Back to the top here:
she ran for Congress because she wants to affect policy, yet she never had any intention of making a compromise of her faith.
Why the fuck would running for, or being a member of, Congress, require a 'compromise of one's faith'?
Summa y'all still don't seem to get that this is not a theocracy.
Holy SHIT.
Maybe YOU fought to be free of "the patriarchy". Shockingly, SOME of us have fought to be free of EVERYONE. And if you're going to tell me I have to be "free" the way you determine is best for me, then you're no better than the patriarchy you're obessed with.
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
Yes, it was. Are you ever not, full of fallacy?Our federal Constitution was designed to be both gender and race neutral, from Inception.
It must about equality and equal protection of the law. It can't be about Religion.
The Religious must keep it themselves; asking for aid from a secular and temporal Government invokes our supreme law of the land.
The COTUS most certainly was not designed from its inception to be gender and race neutral.
Do you EVER write anything that is either worth reading or correct?
Democrats Change 181 Year-Old Rule To Allow Ilhan Omar To Wear Hijab In The HouseNow 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
Again -- so you know her?
Or do you have magic glasses that peer into people's thoughts, simply by looking at a picture?
Narrowmind much?
Back to the top here:
she ran for Congress because she wants to affect policy, yet she never had any intention of making a compromise of her faith.
Why the fuck would running for, or being a member of, Congress, require a 'compromise of one's faith'?
Summa y'all still don't seem to get that this is not a theocracy.
Holy SHIT.
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
That isn't the problem I have with it.
IDGF that she is a Muslim.
If she wants to advertise her faith on the floor of Congress? She can go for it.
Just as long as she follows the rules and customs of this nation. This etiquette it centuries old, I see no reason to change it for one woman. We are NOT the middle east. We are the West. Common culture is what binds us. Either integrate, or GO HOME!
Advice
Hats Off! Hat Etiquette for Everyone
Hats Off! Hat Etiquette for Everyone - The Emily Post Institute, Inc.
"While some of these customs are now historical footnotes, even in today’s casual culture men and women still remove their hats as a sign of respect. Cancer patients are exempt from hat rules. They may keep their hats or caps on at all times if they wish. Here’s when it’s fine to wear your hat and when it’s not:
Men
. . . .
Take hats off, including baseball caps …
- In someone’s home
- At mealtimes, at the table
- While being introduced, indoors or out (unless it’s frigid!)
- In a house of worship, unless a hat or head covering is required
- Indoors at work, especially in an office (unless required for the job)
- In public buildings such as a school, library, courthouse, or town hall
- In restaurants and coffee shops
- At a movie or any indoor performance
- When the national anthem is played
- When the flag of the United States passes by, as in a parade
Women
Fashion hats (not baseball-style caps) can be left on…
- In someone’s home
- At luncheons, weddings, garden parties
- At religious services
- At a movie or any indoor performance
- When the national anthem is played
- When the flag of the United States passes by, as in a parade
Take your fashion hat off…
Remove baseball-style (unisex) caps…
- Anytime it blocks someone’s view, such as at a wedding or in a theater
- Indoors at work
- In someone’s home
- At mealtimes, at the table
- While being introduced
- In a house of worship, unless a hat or head covering is required
- Indoors at work, unless required for the job
- In public buildings such as a school, library, courthouse, or town hall
- In restaurants and coffee shops
- At a movie or any indoor performance
- When the national anthem is played
- When the flag of the United States passes by, as in a parade"
Yes, it was. Are you ever not, full of fallacy?Our federal Constitution was designed to be both gender and race neutral, from Inception.
It must about equality and equal protection of the law. It can't be about Religion.
The Religious must keep it themselves; asking for aid from a secular and temporal Government invokes our supreme law of the land.
The COTUS most certainly was not designed from its inception to be gender and race neutral.
Do you EVER write anything that is either worth reading or correct?
Must be irony.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.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.” "
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.
“Interestingly, everyday dress for certain ethno-religious subcultures, such as Hasidic Jews, Amish, and conservative Mennonites, is considered sacred, especially in the symbolic separation of the ethno-religious subculture from a dominant culture. As religious groups encounter social change, dress often symbolically becomes important as certain items of a religious group's clothing may be classified as sacred in contrast to what is considered secular. Generally the most symbolic dress features of Amish and Mennonites (hats, beards, head coverings, bonnets, aprons) are considered sacred. Similarly, among conservative Muslim women, very fashionable clothing may be worn underneath the veils (sacred garments), known as chador, chadaree, or burqa, that are seen by outsiders. Sacred dress worn externally then becomes used intentionally to visually separate these religious groups from the larger culture. Often, the rules as to dress codes are imposed by male clergy on female members of the community, and in doing so, these patriarchal religious societies intentionally use dress codes to maintain a gendered imbalance of power.”
https://fashion-history.lovetoknow.com/fashion-history-eras/religion-dress
Yes, let’s re-enforce a patriarchal society, in a society that has fought to free itself from the patriarchal.
Let me ask you this, if someone from the Surma tribe migrated here, and was elected to Congress would you be ok with their attire of nothing, as that is part of their culture?
Now Jews can wear yarmulke’s. What, do you hate Jews?
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
Again -- so you know her?
Or do you have magic glasses that peer into people's thoughts, simply by looking at a picture?
Narrowmind much?
Back to the top here:
she ran for Congress because she wants to affect policy, yet she never had any intention of making a compromise of her faith.
Why the fuck would running for, or being a member of, Congress, require a 'compromise of one's faith'?
Summa y'all still don't seem to get that this is not a theocracy.
Holy SHIT.
Democrats Change 181 Year-Old Rule To Allow Ilhan Omar To Wear Hijab In The HouseNow Jews can wear yarmulke’s. What, do you hate Jews?
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
Again -- so you know her?
Or do you have magic glasses that peer into people's thoughts, simply by looking at a picture?
Narrowmind much?
Back to the top here:
she ran for Congress because she wants to affect policy, yet she never had any intention of making a compromise of her faith.
Why the fuck would running for, or being a member of, Congress, require a 'compromise of one's faith'?
Summa y'all still don't seem to get that this is not a theocracy.
Holy SHIT.
Our Original Constitution and Bill of Rights are Both, gender and race neutral.Yes, it was. Are you ever not, full of fallacy?Our federal Constitution was designed to be both gender and race neutral, from Inception.
It must about equality and equal protection of the law. It can't be about Religion.
The Religious must keep it themselves; asking for aid from a secular and temporal Government invokes our supreme law of the land.
The COTUS most certainly was not designed from its inception to be gender and race neutral.
Do you EVER write anything that is either worth reading or correct?
sorry danny-------neither gender neutral nor anti-homophobe
