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

[Faun]

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

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

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

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

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

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.

While it’s true that limitations on all rights, including religious freedoms, do exist, the aspect of that you willfully choose to ignore is that when limitations are applied, there must be compelling interests by the government to restrict rights.

As has been woefully demonstrated, you can’t cite any compelling interests in this case to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment right to exercise their religion.

So there is no reason not to change the rule accordingly.

Your whining about being annoyed is not a compelling interest. Your bigoted bitching about her being Muslim is not a compelling interest. Your nonsense about others failing to change that rule over fashion statements is not a compelling interest.

You're are pretending that due consideration did take place?


Can you support that?

btw. your race baiting really, really undermines that claim.

Your incessant whining undermines yours. Either you can offer a compelling reason to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment right to exercise their religion in this case or anything you say is a waste of bandwidth. Which is it?

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

Well, he was defending a NAZI, eh?

Nothing I said could reasonably, not, SANELY be called a defense of a nazi.


You are an asshole.

Well that’s not true. Using the Correll methodology of making up any reason you want in lieu of unanswered questions means others can apply that same philosophy to you. So where you say it’s not ok to beat up nazi’s, according to the rules you play by, means you can be categorized as a nazi sympathizer.

But I did not do that. There were clues to what you meant by your refusal to answer.


I guessed that it was something dark and ugly.

And My God, was I right.

So, your claim as to my "methodology" is a lie.


And you are a godwinning asshole.

There were no clues. There was only your imagination which led you astray as always. I told you from the beginning your diversion about communists was irrelevant. You just didn’t want to believe me because you thought you could utilize your diversion to win an argument.

 

[Faun]

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.

LOL

And your example of the rule being challenged is one which is irrelevant to the reason the rule is being challenged now. The reason it’s being changed is due to its infringement on the First Amendment right to exercise religion. Your counter to that was to cite an example of where someone lost a challenge to change it based on a fashion statement, which violated no rights.

The practice of restricting rights in limited situations has already been established.


Your pretense otherwise, is either stupid, or dishonest.


I made a reference to the rule being challenged before, you lefties called on me to support it, even though I pointed out that nothing would change your minds, and you didn't care,

and so I did, and lo and behold, you are dismissing it.


Wow. What a surprise. I am shocked. Shocked I tell you.

Dumbfuck, the challenge to show where this rule has been challenged in the past was based on it being challened for the same reason it’s being challenged now. Challenges for any other reason are irrelevant. Damn, are you ever fucking stupid to not get that.

I stated that the rule has been challenged before.


You lefties called me on it.

If you heard "for the same reason" take that up with the voices in your head.

G’head, keep pretending as if you weren’t challenged to show something relevant.

 

[Faun]

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

Liar.

Said the man that still won't admit that he does not support violence against communists, nor his real reason for supporting violence against the child in the op.

The real reason I support beating up Nazi’s is, as stated, because of their attempted genocide of Jews. I’m Jewish. It’s my people they brutally tormented and killed. It was my family members they horrifically murdered. It’s personal for me. Your failed attempt to divert that thread to be about Communism was irrelevant, just as I told you repeatedly.

Mmm, so genocide is only worthy of violence when it is your own people?

Interesting.

My apologies. I could not conceive of such a viewpoint, and thus did not see it as an alternative.


It will take me some time to process that one.

Personal experience never occurred to you??

Not caring about genocide because it was not directly targeted at your people,


such callousness, and lack of humanity, is beyond my comprehension.

Most things are beyond your comprehension. Like your idiocy that wanting to wear a hat in the House as a fashion statement is relevant to wearing one as practice of religion.

 

[Faun]

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.

Then explain why she should be denied her constitutional right to exercise her religion in the House...?

 

[danielpalos]

Theocracies must be held to a more holy Standard. The Expense of Government is Proof, they not moral enough to Obey, Ten simple Commandments from a God.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Funny, you still have yet to point to a single Supreme Court ruling that indicates hijabs, or any other religious head covers, are unconstitutional if worn on the floor of the House of Representatives. Should I simply take your word for it that such a ruling exists?

If you had any brains at all, and your posts indicate otherwise, you could use your own ability to read and comprehend
the government's Constitutional view of religion and government entanglement with them to deduce that politicians and officials that bring their religious convictions into the realm of government are strictly forbidden, ala Roy Moore.

It's effing stupid to think that because there is no specific Supreme Court ruling on hijabs then that means there is no 1st Amendment conflict with her explicit promotion of Islam on the floor of Congress. I guess you believe everything that the Supreme Court has not specifically outlawed is therefore legal (although the SC has specifically outlawed government
showing a preference for one religion over all others, again, ala Roy Moore).
Why not tell me how Roy Moore's promotion of Christian doctrine is different from Omar's promotion of Islamic doctrine.
Oh, right...you can't.

 

[Montrovant]

As far as I can tell, this change to the rules has not actually been applied yet. The articles about the subject all talk about it as a proposed rule change. What makes you say that due consideration is not taking place? What constitutes due consideration?

Can you support the claim you seem to be making that due consideration is not taking place?

The way the libs scream "racist" the moment anyone questions any proposed change.


You CAN'T have due consideration in that kind of environment.


Not to mention there is the overall conduct of liberals. They NEVER give due consideration.


Surely you've noted them, making fun of conservatives for being "Afraid" of change?

You seem to be saying that no changes should ever be made as long as there are liberals...

Funny, I thought I was saying that I want liberals to stop being dishonest race baiting assholes, and have a real discussion about policy.


But, you seem to be saying that that is so out of the question, that it is inconceivable.


You may be right.

OK, are you saying that as long as liberals are "dishonest race baiting assholes," no changes should be made?

Nope. That is clearly not what I am saying.


You should really consider how much your perceptions are warped by your preconceived notions.

Perhaps. Of course, perhaps you should consider how poorly you are getting your intended point across.

 

[Montrovant]

Funny, you still have yet to point to a single Supreme Court ruling that indicates hijabs, or any other religious head covers, are unconstitutional if worn on the floor of the House of Representatives. Should I simply take your word for it that such a ruling exists?

If you had any brains at all, and your posts indicate otherwise, you could use your own ability to read and comprehend
the government's Constitutional view of religion and government entanglement with them to deduce that politicians and officials that bring their religious convictions into the realm of government are strictly forbidden, ala Roy Moore.

It's effing stupid to think that because there is no specific Supreme Court ruling on hijabs then that means there is no 1st Amendment conflict with her explicit promotion of Islam on the floor of Congress. I guess you believe everything that the Supreme Court has not specifically outlawed is therefore legal (although the SC has specifically outlawed government
showing a preference for one religion over all others, again, ala Roy Moore).
Why not tell me how Roy Moore's promotion of Christian doctrine is different from Omar's promotion of Islamic doctrine.
Oh, right...you can't.

Actually, I've explained to you multiple times how Roy Moore's actions differ from Ilhan Omar's potentially wearing a hijab on the floor of the House. So claiming that I can't do so is particularly foolish of you.

I very specifically asked about any religious head covers, not merely hijabs. Nor did I say any ruling you might bring up had to specify hijabs or even specify religious head covers; I said you haven't pointed to a single case which would indicate that such head covers are unconstitutional if worn on the floor of the House. Guess what? You haven't. You haven't brought up a single USSC ruling at all that I recall. You've claimed that the Roy Moore situation is the same as this one, but again, provided no actual evidence that that is the case.

Why don't you explain how allowing individual representatives to wear religious head coverings (regardless of the religion) shows a preference for one religion over all others by the government? Again, any relevant text from the Constitution and/or USSC rulings would be appreciated. Considering your failure to provide any evidence up to this point, however, I don't think I'll wait with baited breath.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Actually, I've explained to you multiple times how Roy Moore's actions differ from Ilhan Omar's potentially wearing a hijab on the floor of the House. So claiming that I can't do so is particularly foolish of you.

You've said a stone slab is different from a hijab before and that's never been disputed nor is it relevant. Both the hijab and rock are religious symbols of their respective religions and judges have already ruled on the stone.
If you have a different argument you should insert it here, though we both know you haven't.

I very specifically asked about any religious head covers, not merely hijabs. Nor did I say any ruling you might bring up had to specify hijabs or even specify religious head covers; I said you haven't pointed to a single case which would indicate that such head covers are unconstitutional if worn on the floor of the House. Guess what? You haven't. You haven't brought up a single USSC ruling at all that I recall. You've claimed that the Roy Moore situation is the same as this one, but again, provided no actual evidence that that is the case.

Well guess what? The courts have already decided that symbols of a particular religion are not appropriate or legal
in a government context as they could be construed as endorsement of that religion by the government.

So I don't know how many different ways I can say this: Because a religious symbol of Islam has not specifically been addressed by the courts is irrelevant! ALL and any religious expressions are covered by Supreme Court decisions
when they long ago said a secular nation can not allow religious expressions of any sort to be connected to our government.
I don't want to call you stupid...I just can't think of another word for someone who keeps insisting over and over again
on something that's already been disproved and dispensed with.

Why don't you explain how allowing individual representatives to wear religious head coverings (regardless of the religion) shows a preference for one religion over all others by the government? Again, any relevant text from the Constitution and/or USSC rulings would be appreciated. Considering your failure to provide any evidence up to this point, however, I don't think I'll wait with baited breath.

Because obviously allowing some people to indulge their religious message but not others is tacit approval and endorsement by the government.
How thick are you? How stupid can you be? You keep spouting the same fucking idiocy!

 

[there4eyeM]

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.

Then explain why she should be denied her constitutional right to exercise her religion in the House...?

There in no Constitutional right to exercise religion in the House of Representatives and rules in that House and for the Body of Legislature therein do not change Constitutional rights for citizens in 'daily life'. The clearly obvious nature of that fact puts in doubt the sincerity, or the intelligence, of the imperative statement of the post, demanding an explanation.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

There in no Constitutional right to exercise religion in the House of Representatives and rules in that House and for the Body of Legislature therein do not change Constitutional rights for citizens in 'daily life'. The clearly obvious nature of that fact puts in doubt the sincerity, or the intelligence, of the imperative statement of the post, demanding an explanation.

That you must explain such obvious truths to some people makes one realize what truly stupid people
there are on these boards.

 

[depotoo]

So, you will be ok, when she pulls out her prayer rug to exercise her religious rights in the chamber, as well?

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.

Then explain why she should be denied her constitutional right to exercise her religion in the House...?

 

[Correll]

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

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

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

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.

While it’s true that limitations on all rights, including religious freedoms, do exist, the aspect of that you willfully choose to ignore is that when limitations are applied, there must be compelling interests by the government to restrict rights.

As has been woefully demonstrated, you can’t cite any compelling interests in this case to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment right to exercise their religion.

So there is no reason not to change the rule accordingly.

Your whining about being annoyed is not a compelling interest. Your bigoted bitching about her being Muslim is not a compelling interest. Your nonsense about others failing to change that rule over fashion statements is not a compelling interest.

You're are pretending that due consideration did take place?


Can you support that?

btw. your race baiting really, really undermines that claim.

Your incessant whining undermines yours. Either you can offer a compelling reason to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment right to exercise their religion in this case or anything you say is a waste of bandwidth. Which is it?

Your dismissal of my point, is not a supporting argument.


My point stands.


You're are pretending that due consideration did take place?


Can you support that?

 

[Correll]

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

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

Well, he was defending a NAZI, eh?

Nothing I said could reasonably, not, SANELY be called a defense of a nazi.


You are an asshole.

Well that’s not true. Using the Correll methodology of making up any reason you want in lieu of unanswered questions means others can apply that same philosophy to you. So where you say it’s not ok to beat up nazi’s, according to the rules you play by, means you can be categorized as a nazi sympathizer.

But I did not do that. There were clues to what you meant by your refusal to answer.


I guessed that it was something dark and ugly.

And My God, was I right.

So, your claim as to my "methodology" is a lie.


And you are a godwinning asshole.

There were no clues. There was only your imagination which led you astray as always. I told you from the beginning your diversion about communists was irrelevant. You just didn’t want to believe me because you thought you could utilize your diversion to win an argument.

Not a diversion. Checking your stated reason for supporting violence against a white child.


And the relevance has been explained to you many times. YOu are just being a liar now.


Further more, I have had time to consider your shocking claim to not care about genocide targeted at your people.


I do not believe that you are that vile and repulsive of a lizard.


I think that you are indeed a marxist, and you give them a pass on their genocides due to in group bias.


You are a vile person, but not as vile as your stated reason for not caring about genocide implied.

 

[Correll]

The way the libs scream "racist" the moment anyone questions any proposed change.


You CAN'T have due consideration in that kind of environment.


Not to mention there is the overall conduct of liberals. They NEVER give due consideration.


Surely you've noted them, making fun of conservatives for being "Afraid" of change?

You seem to be saying that no changes should ever be made as long as there are liberals...

Funny, I thought I was saying that I want liberals to stop being dishonest race baiting assholes, and have a real discussion about policy.


But, you seem to be saying that that is so out of the question, that it is inconceivable.


You may be right.

OK, are you saying that as long as liberals are "dishonest race baiting assholes," no changes should be made?

Nope. That is clearly not what I am saying.


You should really consider how much your perceptions are warped by your preconceived notions.

Perhaps. Of course, perhaps you should consider how poorly you are getting your intended point across.

So, we've ruled out anything on your end, being the problem?

 

[Montrovant]

You've said a stone slab is different from a hijab before and that's never been disputed nor is it relevant. Both the hijab and rock are religious symbols of their respective religions and judges have already ruled on the stone.
If you have a different argument you should insert it here, though we both know you haven't.

As I've said multiple times now, a hijab is a personal expression of religious belief. A monument in a government building, on the other hand, is a public expression. The hijab Omar wears is specific to her, whereas the monument Moore had put up became part of the courthouse. This argument is nothing new, I've put it forth before, but I suppose you may not have bothered reading it, or perhaps your cognitive dissonance has taken hold.

Well guess what? The courts have already decided that symbols of a particular religion are not appropriate or legal
in a government context as they could be construed as endorsement of that religion by the government.

So I don't know how many different ways I can say this: Because a religious symbol of Islam has not specifically been addressed by the courts is irrelevant! ALL and any religious expressions are covered by Supreme Court decisions
when they long ago said a secular nation can not allow religious expressions of any sort to be connected to our government.
I don't want to call you stupid...I just can't think of another word for someone who keeps insisting over and over again
on something that's already been disproved and dispensed with.

I've already pointed out 2 USSC rulings made on the same day in which 10 commandment monuments were ruled both unconstitutional and Constitutional on government property. I never said that you needed to show a court ruling which covered a specific Islamic expression. Strangely, you are still focused on that thing I never said.

However, here you are again claiming that USSC decisions prohibit any and all religious expression. And, again, you are not providing any evidence to support this claim.

Because obviously allowing some people to indulge their religious message but not others is tacit approval and endorsement by the government.
How thick are you? How stupid can you be? You keep spouting the same fucking idiocy!

You say I'm spouting idiocy, but at least I've actually provided some evidence that you are incorrect. You, on the other hand, continue to get upset about how obvious your argument is and how the court has clearly ruled on this issue in the way you claim, yet you have not given a single shred of evidence to support that claim.

Not every religious expression is unconstitutional. I've already brought this case to your attention, but I'm guessing you never bothered looking into it. Here, follow this link: VAN ORDEN V. PERRY
Or this one: Van Orden v. Perry
If you bother to look, you'll see that the USSC upheld a decision that a monument with the 10 commandments at the Texas Capitol was Constitutional. So, apparently, not every religious expression is prohibited. Your argument debunked, with evidence provided from a Supreme Court ruling. See how that works?

I can show you a number of cases in which individuals won court cases affirming their First Amendment rights to wear religious head coverings in various places, from court to prison. That would seem to leave you needing to show that Representatives do not enjoy the same rights because, while on the floor of the House, any religious expression on their part constitutes a religious expression by the government. And before you once again whine "Roy Moore!" remember that this is a personal expression while Moore created a public expression; head coverings are limited to an individual while a monument becomes part of the building it is placed in. As I've said before, I'm far from a Constitutional or Supreme Court scholar, so I'm more than happy to admit I could be ignorant of of interpretations and rulings which would support your argument. You'd need to actually provide evidence of that, though.

 

[Montrovant]

You seem to be saying that no changes should ever be made as long as there are liberals...

Funny, I thought I was saying that I want liberals to stop being dishonest race baiting assholes, and have a real discussion about policy.


But, you seem to be saying that that is so out of the question, that it is inconceivable.


You may be right.

OK, are you saying that as long as liberals are "dishonest race baiting assholes," no changes should be made?

Nope. That is clearly not what I am saying.


You should really consider how much your perceptions are warped by your preconceived notions.

Perhaps. Of course, perhaps you should consider how poorly you are getting your intended point across.

So, we've ruled out anything on your end, being the problem?

Not if you actually read my last post.

Still, I'm curious how you think someone should interpret your post:

The way the libs scream "racist" the moment anyone questions any proposed change.


You CAN'T have due consideration in that kind of environment.

If you don't think changes should happen without due consideration, and you don't think due consideration is possible because liberals scream "racist," wouldn't that mean you don't think changes should happen while there are liberals to scream "racist"? Well, changes that liberals disagree with, at least; maybe you think changes that liberals agree with are OK because they won't scream "racist"?

 

[Correll]

Funny, I thought I was saying that I want liberals to stop being dishonest race baiting assholes, and have a real discussion about policy.


But, you seem to be saying that that is so out of the question, that it is inconceivable.


You may be right.

OK, are you saying that as long as liberals are "dishonest race baiting assholes," no changes should be made?

Nope. That is clearly not what I am saying.


You should really consider how much your perceptions are warped by your preconceived notions.

Perhaps. Of course, perhaps you should consider how poorly you are getting your intended point across.

So, we've ruled out anything on your end, being the problem?

Not if you actually read my last post.

Still, I'm curious how you think someone should interpret your post:

The way the libs scream "racist" the moment anyone questions any proposed change.


You CAN'T have due consideration in that kind of environment.

If you don't think changes should happen without due consideration, and you don't think due consideration is possible because liberals scream "racist," wouldn't that mean you don't think changes should happen while there are liberals to scream "racist"? Well, changes that liberals disagree with, at least; maybe you think changes that liberals agree with are OK because they won't scream "racist"?

YOu're the one suggesting the liberals are incapable of not screaming racist constantly.


I hope that someday, grownups will slap them down like the ill mannered and stupid children they are, and that normal discourse can resume.


Until then, we should be very, very careful and restrained in any "change", that is not changing BACK.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

As I've said multiple times now, a hijab is a personal expression of religious belief. A monument in a government building, on the other hand, is a public expression. The hijab Omar wears is specific to her, whereas the monument Moore had put up became part of the courthouse. This argument is nothing new, I've put it forth before, but I suppose you may not have bothered reading it, or perhaps your cognitive dissonance has taken hold.

If I read it before I immediately dismissed your point as absurd bull droppings. It's illogical and irrelevant.
Moore is responsible for the monument just as Omar is responsible for her hijab. Once again you are trying to make some sort of distinction between the stone and the hijab as if that makes any difference at all.
Lots of credit for stubbornness. None for an intelligent point.

I've already pointed out 2 USSC rulings made on the same day in which 10 commandment monuments were ruled both unconstitutional and Constitutional on government property. I never said that you needed to show a court ruling which covered a specific Islamic expression. Strangely, you are still focused on that thing I never said.

A very big LOL!....I've lost track of how many times you've challenged me to produce a specific Supreme Court ruling on hijabs on federal property. Wake the eff up!
As far as your two conflicting rulings I would say the appellate court judges that ordered Roy Moore removed from office for not removing his stone monument breaks the tie, even though a single contrary lower court ruling doesn't mean shit when you consider the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter.

However, here you are again claiming that USSC decisions prohibit any and all religious expression. And, again, you are not providing any evidence to support this claim.

Religious expression by government actors that express a preference for a specific religion, yes. That's right.
4. Government institutions must show neither official approval nor disapproval of religion, or favor one religion over another............
"or favor one religion over another"
The uber leftist People for the American Way know this. Why don't you? Allowing Ilhan Omar to wear her symbol of
submission to Islam while not allowing the Ten Commandments to be posted is favoring one religion over another.
She gets her way. Roy Moore does not. Can you comprehend such a simple statement.?