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

[danielpalos]

Women won the franchise. We can no longer get corporal with private women for simply being brazen enough and pornographic enough to "bare their ankles" in public.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Huge straw man! No one is trying to prevent someone from following their own religion. Rashida Tlaib, also a Muslim entering Congress this year, wears no hijab. I really have to say your reading comprehension or ability to discern patterns of thought must really be very low.
The issue is wearing the hijab.
Roy Moore cannot post the Ten Commandments in his courthouse. Ilhan Omar should not be able to proselytize her religion through her hijab on the floor of Congress.

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.

Clearly it is not! How dense are you? Very very dense, I would say. Omar's hijab amounts to promotion of one particular religion over all others and that does not belong on the floor of Congress. Read the fucking Constitution, for God's sake.

"No one is trying to prevent someone from following their own religion. All we're trying to do is stop her from dressing the way she believes Allah wants her to!"

"If ALL Muslim women don't wear hijabs, that means it's not really her religious beliefs!"

"She is forcing her religion on me by not keeping it a secret!"

Fortunately, I don't have to bother actually answering any of these absurdities, because Roy Moore = you automatically lose. Again.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I hate to break this to you Sparky, but this woman did figure out how to live in our system, she figured out that the rule against headwear can be changed, and it will be. So your argument that she isn't living within our system is 100% dead wrong.

She is not living in our system, she is changing it to be HER system. We are the ones that are going to have to learn to live in it now.

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

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

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

So we have to defend our traditions and culture - which include tolerance of and freedom for individual personal religious beliefs - by suppressing freedom of individual personal religious beliefs?

Or is it just that you've decided that religious freedom is a much less important part of our traditions and culture than "Damn it, only what descendants of Western European white people is okay!"?

That is what I am talking about.


You CAN'T have due consideration of the value of a change, if one side, the LOUDER side, is screaming RACIST,


EVERY FUCKING TIME, there is any attempt to discuss the issue.

Are you really so fragile, that you become unable to think the instant someone says something you don't like? I'd like to believe our elected officials are made of sterner stuff.

 

[Cecilie1200]

She is not living in our system, she is changing it to be HER system. We are the ones that are going to have to learn to live in it now.

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

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

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

So we have to defend our traditions and culture - which include tolerance of and freedom for individual personal religious beliefs - by suppressing freedom of individual personal religious beliefs?

Or is it just that you've decided that religious freedom is a much less important part of our traditions and culture than "Damn it, only what descendants of Western European white people is okay!"?

As has been amply illustrated to you several times in this thread now, this woman does NOT have a right to wear her hoodie in Congress any more than I have a right to carry a gun into a court room.

Pretty simple fucking concept , why you can't just be honest is obvious.

YOu made a point, they called you racist.


In the lib mind, that's a win for them.

You're not making much of a case for your position being at all intelligent, if you kneejerk to "Cecilie is a liberal" the instant I dare to disagree with you on something.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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?

Your argument goes out the window when you consider that you're not being called a racist because "They're all liberals, and that's just what they say." I'M calling you a racist, and I'm so conservative, I make you look like a new dealer.

Face it, hon. You're being called a racist because you sound like one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

As has been pointed out, limitations on rights occur when there is an overriding reason for it.

Your dislike of Muslims doesn't qualify.

Your argument would have more merit, if it was not made so emotionally.

Says the guy who just called ME a "liberal" simply because I disagreed with him. Yeah, you're ALL about the cool, reasoned logic. "Shove it up your ass, asshole" turns up in a lot of formal debates, so I hear.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why can't you just admit your bigotry and get it over with? We all see it in your writings!

Because it is not true.


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


Freaking morons.

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

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

1. I am not targeting Muslims. This particular change is about a Muslim, but my stance on change needing due consideration is pretty much universal.

2. I did not call them dot heads.

3. Enough with the "hate". I can oppose change without "hating" the people involved. You are being unreasonable.

4. There are plenty of whites that I do not like and plenty of non-whites that I do like. YOu are simply incorrect.

Your stance on "due consideration" appears to be "I don't approve of it, so don't do it". I guess that's universal, but I don't know that you should be proud of it.

Nothing in my posts gives you reason to make such a statement.


I can only conclude that you are projecting your lib assumption that all change is good, and any due consideration equals, just do it.

Lib = You lose.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I have no desire to "dictate to women" any more than any rule "dictates" to the people under it.


Save your Gender Card for someone who might care.

Riiiiiight. Why would anyone think a person's religious beliefs and exercise thereof have anything to do with who they are as a person? It's not like religion is IMPORTANT, or anything.

As for your Gender Card snipe, perhaps you might notice that depot brought gender issues into it, not me. But hey, why read and understand what's being said when you can just "know" that your kneejerk bigotry is correct and proper and the epitome of Truth, Justice, and The American Way?

 

[Montrovant]

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.

You said I hadn't made any other argument. I had. That you ignored my argument is your own issue.

Do you not see a distinction between a part of a government building and an individual's personal apparel?

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.

I've challenged you to produce any evidence that supports your claims about the Supreme Court's stance on religious expression. It doesn't have to be specifically about hijabs, it just has to support your point. You continue to provide absolutely no evidence to support your claims, but you certainly do complain that evidence is asked for a lot!

Breaking a tie? Do you think that is how the court works? And it was the Supreme Court which ruled in both of the 10 commandment monument cases I've mentioned to you (and provided links for Van Orden v Perry). The USSC rules differently about things depending on the specific circumstances in a given case. You seem to think they consider every religious expression case to be the same, despite the clear evidence that they do not.

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.?

Once again, the commandment monuments was a different situation. Not every religious expression question is dealt with exactly the same. The context, the circumstances, actually matter. Someone wearing a religious head covering does not make their religious belief part of a government building. Someone placing a religious monument in a courthouse does. I guess that distinction is too complicated for you.

I understand your continuous whining about Roy Moore. I can't help it if you can't understand that the two situations were different.

I've invited you to provide some evidence that shows that all forms of religious expression are treated the same by the Constitution: you have failed to do so. I have provided you evidence that the Supreme Court treats situations far more similar to each other than Roy Moore and Ilhan Omar differently; it was even the exact same court, ruling on the same day, that made the different rulings. So the only evidence that's been presented indicates that all religious expression is not treated the same, and since that seems to be the basis for your argument, your argument pretty much fails.

There's also the way you claimed that religious jewelry is not an unconstitutional religious expression because it is not easily visible, which, per usual, you also didn't provide evidence for. That claim contradicts your claim about "Religious expression by government actors that express a preference for a specific religion." You seem to have dropped that jewelry idea pretty quickly.

Roy Moore's monument was not the same as a representative wearing a religious head cover on the floor. Even if both are unconstitutional, they are still not the same. Perhaps one day you'll learn that context can be important and circumstances matter, even in Supreme Court cases and even when dealing with the Constitution.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Public officials swearing in on the Holey Babble for two-plus centuries and a "pledge of allegiance" foisted on children invoking a deity, and NOW you're suddenly worried about 'expressions of religion'?

Check your First Amendment, where religious freedom is articulated. Its first five words are "Congress shall make no law".

The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to cover any religious expression (such as the Ten Commandments, a popsicle stick cross on public land or a hijab) by a government entity and finds it an illegal de facto endorsement of a particular religion over others. That's the law! Take it up with the Supreme Court.

First of all, she is not a "government entity". She's a human being, who happens to have a government job. Her personal clothing choices are just that: PERSONAL. At no point in time has the Supreme Court EVER interpreted the personal activities of government officials to be official government acts, and I defy you to prove otherwise. Likewise, the Supreme Court has never stated that individuals lose their Constitutional rights when they become employees of the government.

And I will "take it up with the Supreme Court" the instant you prove me wrong, and NOT the instant you incorrectly cite their position on the relevant issues.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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.

All I heard was "Freedom from the things I think she shouldn't want. Freedom to be what I think is best for her."

Your lack of listening, is on you.

I'm listening. It's not my fault that all of you are conveying different messages than you think you are.

 

[Correll]

She is not living in our system, she is changing it to be HER system. We are the ones that are going to have to learn to live in it now.

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

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

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

So we have to defend our traditions and culture - which include tolerance of and freedom for individual personal religious beliefs - by suppressing freedom of individual personal religious beliefs?

Or is it just that you've decided that religious freedom is a much less important part of our traditions and culture than "Damn it, only what descendants of Western European white people is okay!"?

That is what I am talking about.


You CAN'T have due consideration of the value of a change, if one side, the LOUDER side, is screaming RACIST,


EVERY FUCKING TIME, there is any attempt to discuss the issue.

Are you really so fragile, that you become unable to think the instant someone says something you don't like? I'd like to believe our elected officials are made of sterner stuff.

"Not being able to have a serious debate", does Not EQUAL "not being able to think".


That you had to lie about that obvious fact, shows that on some level, you know I am right and you are wrong.


And screaming "racist" is more than just something I don't like. It poisons the debate, and divides people.


That you defend that, shows what type of person you are.

 

[Correll]

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.

So we have to defend our traditions and culture - which include tolerance of and freedom for individual personal religious beliefs - by suppressing freedom of individual personal religious beliefs?

Or is it just that you've decided that religious freedom is a much less important part of our traditions and culture than "Damn it, only what descendants of Western European white people is okay!"?

As has been amply illustrated to you several times in this thread now, this woman does NOT have a right to wear her hoodie in Congress any more than I have a right to carry a gun into a court room.

Pretty simple fucking concept , why you can't just be honest is obvious.

YOu made a point, they called you racist.


In the lib mind, that's a win for them.

You're not making much of a case for your position being at all intelligent, if you kneejerk to "Cecilie is a liberal" the instant I dare to disagree with you on something.

Your behavior has demonstrated my position to be true. Thank you, btw.

 

[Correll]

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.

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?

Your argument goes out the window when you consider that you're not being called a racist because "They're all liberals, and that's just what they say." I'M calling you a racist, and I'm so conservative, I make you look like a new dealer.

Face it, hon. You're being called a racist because you sound like one.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'm calling it a duck. YOu don't like it, improve your behavior.

 

[Correll]

Because it is not true.


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


Freaking morons.

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

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

1. I am not targeting Muslims. This particular change is about a Muslim, but my stance on change needing due consideration is pretty much universal.

2. I did not call them dot heads.

3. Enough with the "hate". I can oppose change without "hating" the people involved. You are being unreasonable.

4. There are plenty of whites that I do not like and plenty of non-whites that I do like. YOu are simply incorrect.

Your stance on "due consideration" appears to be "I don't approve of it, so don't do it". I guess that's universal, but I don't know that you should be proud of it.

Nothing in my posts gives you reason to make such a statement.


I can only conclude that you are projecting your lib assumption that all change is good, and any due consideration equals, just do it.

Lib = You lose.

Nothing in my posts gives you reason to make such a statement.


I can only conclude that you are projecting your lib assumption that all change is good, and any due consideration equals, just do it.

 

[Correll]

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.

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.

I have no desire to "dictate to women" any more than any rule "dictates" to the people under it.


Save your Gender Card for someone who might care.

Riiiiiight. Why would anyone think a person's religious beliefs and exercise thereof have anything to do with who they are as a person? It's not like religion is IMPORTANT, or anything.

As for your Gender Card snipe, perhaps you might notice that depot brought gender issues into it, not me. But hey, why read and understand what's being said when you can just "know" that your kneejerk bigotry is correct and proper and the epitome of Truth, Justice, and The American Way?

You made a comment about me, that was false. I corrected it. ANd told you to save such bullshit for someone who might care.


I dont' see what in your response, really addresses that, so consider it to stand.

 

[Correll]

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.

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.

All I heard was "Freedom from the things I think she shouldn't want. Freedom to be what I think is best for her."

Your lack of listening, is on you.

I'm listening. It's not my fault that all of you are conveying different messages than you think you are.

I think it is. I think your preconceived notions and biases are preventing you from hearing what I am actually saying.


YOu said what you heard. I said nothing like that, and challenge you to show me saying anything like that.

 

[danielpalos]

The point is, we can no longer assume a Corporalcy over private women merely to enforce our version of morality since their acquisition and possession of the franchise.

 

[Faun]

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.

Huge straw man! No one is trying to prevent someone from following their own religion. Rashida Tlaib, also a Muslim entering Congress this year, wears no hijab. I really have to say your reading comprehension or ability to discern patterns of thought must really be very low.
The issue is wearing the hijab.
Roy Moore cannot post the Ten Commandments in his courthouse. Ilhan Omar should not be able to proselytize her religion through her hijab on the floor of Congress.

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.

Clearly it is not! How dense are you? Very very dense, I would say. Omar's hijab amounts to promotion of one particular religion over all others and that does not belong on the floor of Congress. Read the fucking Constitution, for God's sake.

She’s not proselytizing. Do you ever stop lying?

 

[Faun]

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.

Dumbfuck, this rule change doesn’t favor any religion.