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

[Taz]

And I've explained to you why the monument Moore had placed in the courthouse is different from Omar wearing a hijab.

NOT when it comes to separation of church and state you haven't. Stop with your fucking idiocy.

I've provided evidence from a Supreme Court case that not all religious expression is treated the same. You, on the other hand, continue to repeat the same claim without providing any evidence at all.

Invoking your particular religion's God in any governmental context is forbidden as I've proved with my link giving Supreme Court decisions
on the matter. U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State
You haven't proved your case at all as you keep claiming as the circumstances and rationale of the court in each decision you cite can very greatly depending on the particulars.
Analyze, detail and explain the court's rationales in each case and then get back to me, or not.
In any event don't forget the Supreme Court has the last word so unless your few pitiful examples are from the Supreme Court itself, I don't want to hear about it.

It would be like you looking at a murder with a gun, and a self-defense case with a gun, and getting upset that only one was prosecuted. After all, both involved someone being shot! They must be treated exactly the same!

It's OK. I understand that you can't actually support your claim.

That is funny because you want me to take it on faith that the couple of cases you cite have the exact same case facts and circumstances as Roy Moore's, the most pertinent example of a government representative being removed from office for failing to separate his job from his religion. But thanks for ironically pointing out your own erroneous contention.

actually it IS different. someone wearing a hijab IS protected because the first amendment protects HER religion, the same as someone wearing a yarmulke. Someone putting a religious symbol in front of a courthouse isn't because THAT is equating the state with a religion and trying to create a state religion. \

you should probably stop pretending you understand the issue.

The First Amendment doesn't protect anyone's religion, as sharia law cannot be fully implemented here.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Neither is protected you idiot. You don't have a RIGHT to wear a hijab in Capitol building.

Forgive them. They know not what the hell they are talking about.

 

[DandyDonovan]

And I've explained to you why the monument Moore had placed in the courthouse is different from Omar wearing a hijab.

NOT when it comes to separation of church and state you haven't. Stop with your fucking idiocy.

I've provided evidence from a Supreme Court case that not all religious expression is treated the same. You, on the other hand, continue to repeat the same claim without providing any evidence at all.

Invoking your particular religion's God in any governmental context is forbidden as I've proved with my link giving Supreme Court decisions
on the matter. U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State
You haven't proved your case at all as you keep claiming as the circumstances and rationale of the court in each decision you cite can very greatly depending on the particulars.
Analyze, detail and explain the court's rationales in each case and then get back to me, or not.
In any event don't forget the Supreme Court has the last word so unless your few pitiful examples are from the Supreme Court itself, I don't want to hear about it.

It would be like you looking at a murder with a gun, and a self-defense case with a gun, and getting upset that only one was prosecuted. After all, both involved someone being shot! They must be treated exactly the same!

It's OK. I understand that you can't actually support your claim.

That is funny because you want me to take it on faith that the couple of cases you cite have the exact same case facts and circumstances as Roy Moore's, the most pertinent example of a government representative being removed from office for failing to separate his job from his religion. But thanks for ironically pointing out your own erroneous contention.

actually it IS different. someone wearing a hijab IS protected because the first amendment protects HER religion, the same as someone wearing a yarmulke. Someone putting a religious symbol in front of a courthouse isn't because THAT is equating the state with a religion and trying to create a state religion. \

you should probably stop pretending you understand the issue.

The First Amendment doesn't protect anyone's religion, as sharia law cannot be fully implemented here.

Sharia Law has nothing to do with this. If this was about Sharia, we would be talking about a law that required ALL women wear a hijab while in the Capitol building, as well as at all other times. Instead , we're talking about a rule that allows it , or not.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a First Amendment, it must be about equality and equal protection of the law.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The First Amendment doesn't protect anyone's religion, as sharia law cannot be fully implemented here.

A lawsuit filed by the ACLU would be helpful. If Congress allows Ilhan Omar to wear her hijab in Congress it would signal
they are tacitly approving her religious preference of Islam over any other religion and therefore, they themselves are giving Islam a thumbs up, which is absolutely forbidden!
Some people here should have to go back to school.

 

[danielpalos]

The First Amendment doesn't protect anyone's religion, as sharia law cannot be fully implemented here.

A lawsuit filed by the ACLU would be helpful. If Congress allows Ilhan Omar to wear her hijab in Congress it would signal
they are tacitly approving her religious preference of Islam over any other religion and therefore, they themselves are
giving Islam their own preference which is absolutely forbidden!
Some people here should have to go back to school.

the ethical issues are that it is a symbol of submission not a symbol of equality or equal rights before Men in Congress, assembled.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Sharia Law has nothing to do with this. If this was about Sharia, we would be talking about a law that required ALL women wear a hijab while in the Capitol building, as well as at all other times. Instead , we're talking about a rule that allows it , or not.

Yeah...sharia law is a side issue. This is all about the US Constitution and separation of church and state.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

the ethical issues are that it is a symbol of submission not a symbol of equality or equal rights before Men in Congress, assembled.

I agree but like sharia law, it's also a side issue. We can't stop people from worshiping a religion that treats women like live stock. But we should be free from that medieval relic inside the halls of Congress.

Unfortunately some people are so idiotic and morally decayed they don't care.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

actually it IS different. someone wearing a hijab IS protected because the first amendment protects HER religion, the same as someone wearing a yarmulke. Someone putting a religious symbol in front of a courthouse isn't because THAT is equating the state with a religion and trying to create a state religion.

Actually it ISN'T different and here is yet another person who has problems discerning principles of law and Constitutionality.
Omar can wear her hijab at home or away from Congress until it literally falls apart. What she may NOT do is
wear it in her capacity as a member of the House of Representatives.
Btw, wearing a yarmulke is also interpreted by the Supreme Court as violating the separation of church and state.
We live in a secular nation. Not in an Islamic state.Or Israel.

you should probably stop pretending you understand the issue.

Good one! I love irony. Especially when it makes you look a clueless fool.

 

[danielpalos]

the ethical issues are that it is a symbol of submission not a symbol of equality or equal rights before Men in Congress, assembled.

I agree but like sharia law, it's also a side issue. We can't stop people from worshiping a religion that treats women like live stock. But we should be free from that medieval relic inside the halls of Congress.

Unfortunately some people are so idiotic and morally decayed they don't care.

only if they keep it to themselves. if they "lose faith" and bring it to the attention of the secular and temporal Government, it must be about due process, and equality and equal protection of the law.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

lack of rule------a good rule would be "NO RELIGIOUS
DRESS in congress" ----just standard USA style clothes.
For covering specific body parts if you must----IMPROVISE----using standard USA stuff

I tried Googling "standard USA stuff". Nothing relevant came up.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

And I've explained to you why the monument Moore had placed in the courthouse is different from Omar wearing a hijab.

NOT when it comes to separation of church and state you haven't. Stop with your fucking idiocy.

I've provided evidence from a Supreme Court case that not all religious expression is treated the same. You, on the other hand, continue to repeat the same claim without providing any evidence at all.

Invoking your particular religion's God in any governmental context is forbidden as I've proved with my link giving Supreme Court decisions
on the matter. U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State
You haven't proved your case at all as you keep claiming as the circumstances and rationale of the court in each decision you cite can very greatly depending on the particulars.
Analyze, detail and explain the court's rationales in each case and then get back to me, or not.
In any event don't forget the Supreme Court has the last word so unless your few pitiful examples are from the Supreme Court itself, I don't want to hear about it.

It would be like you looking at a murder with a gun, and a self-defense case with a gun, and getting upset that only one was prosecuted. After all, both involved someone being shot! They must be treated exactly the same!

It's OK. I understand that you can't actually support your claim.

That is funny because you want me to take it on faith that the couple of cases you cite have the exact same case facts and circumstances as Roy Moore's, the most pertinent example of a government representative being removed from office for failing to separate his job from his religion. But thanks for ironically pointing out your own erroneous contention.

actually it IS different. someone wearing a hijab IS protected. Someone putting a religious symbol in front of a courthouse isn't.

you should probably stop pretending you understand the issue.

Neither is protected you idiot. You don't have a RIGHT to wear a hijab in Capitol building.

It is called "freedom of religion". I think you can find that.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

It is called "freedom of religion". I think you can find that.

Well, "Admiral", no one is preventing Ilhan Omar from worshiping her regressive religion and wearing a head covering, away from Congress, because she is a woman, and in Islam women are to be controlled and covered up.
You seem to be confused.

 

[DandyDonovan]

the ethical issues are that it is a symbol of submission not a symbol of equality or equal rights before Men in Congress, assembled.

I agree but like sharia law, it's also a side issue. We can't stop people from worshiping a religion that treats women like live stock. But we should be free from that medieval relic inside the halls of Congress.

Unfortunately some people are so idiotic and morally decayed they don't care.

Sir , you shouldn't be and are not free FROM any religion. This is why people who oppose say a nativity scene on public land are stupid. The FA says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Not that this is a first amendment issue anyway.

 

[DandyDonovan]

The First Amendment doesn't protect anyone's religion, as sharia law cannot be fully implemented here.

A lawsuit filed by the ACLU would be helpful. If Congress allows Ilhan Omar to wear her hijab in Congress it would signal
they are tacitly approving her religious preference of Islam over any other religion and therefore, they themselves are giving Islam a thumbs up, which is absolutely forbidden!
Some people here should have to go back to school.

See, again you have this completely backwards. Allowing this woman to wear her hoodie does not violate anyone's rights.

Now , if the rule passes, and it will, and a Jewish man wishes to wear his beanie and he's told no then he certainly would have a valid claim that his rights have been violated, but allowing this woman to wear her hoodie in and of itself does not violate your rights.

The only thing it really does is further illustrate the outright hypocrisy of many on the left who complain that simply having to look at a nativity scene on public land violates their rights, but this is different. Somehow. No , they are the same. Simply allowing religion on public land does not equate "official religion" and the argument is stupid whether from the left or the right.

Let this woman wear her hoodie, let that town put up with their cross. Be an adult and move on with your life.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

See, again you have this completely backwards. Allowing this woman to wear her hoodie does not violate anyone's rights.

Now , if the rule passes, and it will, and a Jewish man wishes to wear his beanie and he's told no then he certainly would have a valid claim that his rights have been violated, but allowing this woman to wear her hoodie in and of itself does not violate your rights.

The only thing it really does is further illustrate the outright hypocrisy of many on the left who complain that simply having to look at a nativity scene on public land violates their rights, but this is different. Somehow. No , they are the same. Simply allowing religion on public land does not equate "official religion" and the argument is stupid whether from the left or the right.

Let this woman wear her hoodie, let that town put up with their cross. Be an adult and move on with your life.

Well either everyone will get to bring religion out of the home and church (mosque, synagogue) and into the public arena, or no one should have that right (Ilhan Omar most notably).
But since this is how the Supreme Court has called this ballgame then each team should have to play by the same rules.

And we aren't about to un-ring the bell of separation of church and state though I personally feel the Supreme Court took an extreme stance in order remove religion from ALL of society, ideally in the left's view.

 

[DandyDonovan]

See, again you have this completely backwards. Allowing this woman to wear her hoodie does not violate anyone's rights.

Now , if the rule passes, and it will, and a Jewish man wishes to wear his beanie and he's told no then he certainly would have a valid claim that his rights have been violated, but allowing this woman to wear her hoodie in and of itself does not violate your rights.

The only thing it really does is further illustrate the outright hypocrisy of many on the left who complain that simply having to look at a nativity scene on public land violates their rights, but this is different. Somehow. No , they are the same. Simply allowing religion on public land does not equate "official religion" and the argument is stupid whether from the left or the right.

Let this woman wear her hoodie, let that town put up with their cross. Be an adult and move on with your life.

Well either everyone will get to bring religion out of the home and church (mosque, synagogue) and into the public arena, or no one should have that right (Ilhan Omar most notably).
But since this is how the Supreme Court has called this ballgame then each team should have to play by the same rules.

And we aren't about to un-ring the bell of separation of church and state though I personally feel the Supreme Court took an extreme stance in order remove religion from ALL of society, ideally in the left's view.

I find the Congressional Black Caucus to be far more offensive and illegal than allowing this woman to wear a hoodie, but that's just me.

 

[Montrovant]

NOT when it comes to separation of church and state you haven't. Stop with your fucking idiocy.

Actually, yes, it's in the context of separation of church and state. There is a difference between altering a government building and wearing a religious garment, even when it comes to separation of church and state.

Invoking your particular religion's God in any governmental context is forbidden as I've proved with my link giving Supreme Court decisions
on the matter. U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State
You haven't proved your case at all as you keep claiming as the circumstances and rationale of the court in each decision you cite can very greatly depending on the particulars.
Analyze, detail and explain the court's rationales in each case and then get back to me, or not.
In any event don't forget the Supreme Court has the last word so unless your few pitiful examples are from the Supreme Court itself, I don't want to hear about it.

You did not prove anything of the sort with your link. If you think you have, please point to where any of the cases in the link say that "invoking your particular religion's God in any governmental context is forbidden." Just posting some USSC cases on religious expression doesn't prove your point; the cases have to be relevant to your point. A school having a prayer recitation is not the same thing as an individual wearing religious garb. Displaying a nativity scene in a government building is not the same as an individual wearing religious garb. Etc. etc.

I may not have proven my case, but I have provided evidence directly relevant to the argument that not all religious expression cases are treated the same. If you don't yet realize that the cases I referenced regarding 10 commandment monuments, one of which I provided a couple of links to, are USSC cases, then clearly you aren't going to bother paying attention to any evidence shown to you which contradicts your current belief. The rationales in the two cases are certainly different, and I never claimed otherwise. I merely pointed them out to you to show that all 10 commandment monument cases, and all religious expression cases, are not treated the same. Context matters.

That is funny because you want me to take it on faith that the couple of cases you cite have the exact same case facts and circumstances as Roy Moore's, the most pertinent example of a government representative being removed from office for failing to separate his job from his religion. But thanks for ironically pointing out your own erroneous contention.

I don't want you to take anything on faith, certainly not the statement you just made which I've never said or implied. You seem to be opposed to actually looking at any evidence I provide you, though, I guess because it makes it easier for you to tell yourself I'm trying to get you to take things on faith. I provided a link to many ACLU cases, and you thought it only contained the 2 examples I pulled from the link to quote in the thread. I provided a link to a Supreme Court case in which a 10 commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol was ruled Constitutional, and you don't know if I've shown you rulings from the Supreme Court. You expect me to analyze and detail the reasoning behind the cases I present to you to make a point I've never put forth, yet you don't seem to feel a need to even point to any specific cases or how they support your argument, simply posting a link with some USSC religious expression cases as though any case related to religious expression or the Establishment Clause supports you.

Please, don't take this on faith. Go actually look at the 2 cases I mentioned and see for yourself that in 1 case, a 10 commandments monument was deemed unconstitutional, while in the other case it was not. See for yourself that the cases were decided by the same court on the same day. See for yourself that the court did not simply decide whether the monuments were a form of religious expression, but instead took the context of the monuments into account. Then ask yourself if your argument that any religious expression is the same as any other, in terms of the Establishment Clause, makes sense.

You could further ask yourself if the idea that religious jewelry is not a prohibited expression makes sense when you argue that one religious expression is the same as any other. Perhaps you might contemplate why you believe that being easily visible is a required test for whether a particular expression of religion violates the Establishment Clause, and what made you believe that to be true. You might find the part of the Constitution or court rulings which show that easy visibility is a measure of Constitutionality and point that out.

Or you could just wait for a long time, then post a link to some Supreme Court cases without explaining how any of them are relevant to your argument.

 

[Montrovant]

In which of those cases did the Supreme Court interpret the personal activities of government officials to be official government acts?

Wait, do you think just posting a link to some USSC decisions on religious expression is evidence of your point, even if none of the cases actually deal with the question at hand?

I provided what you wanted....examples of the Supreme Court dealing with the issue of separation of church and state.
Now if you want to dispute what I've provided, have fun! Go at it! Give me examples of my citation does not prove my point.
The ball is in your court now. Stop being a big baby.

I didn't want Supreme Court cases dealing with separation of church and state. I wanted cases relevant to your particular argument. If you honestly think that any Establishment Clause case is evidence of your argument...

 

[DandyDonovan]

NOT when it comes to separation of church and state you haven't. Stop with your fucking idiocy.

Actually, yes, it's in the context of separation of church and state. There is a difference between altering a government building and wearing a religious garment, even when it comes to separation of church and state.

Invoking your particular religion's God in any governmental context is forbidden as I've proved with my link giving Supreme Court decisions
on the matter. U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State
You haven't proved your case at all as you keep claiming as the circumstances and rationale of the court in each decision you cite can very greatly depending on the particulars.
Analyze, detail and explain the court's rationales in each case and then get back to me, or not.
In any event don't forget the Supreme Court has the last word so unless your few pitiful examples are from the Supreme Court itself, I don't want to hear about it.

You did not prove anything of the sort with your link. If you think you have, please point to where any of the cases in the link say that "invoking your particular religion's God in any governmental context is forbidden." Just posting some USSC cases on religious expression doesn't prove your point; the cases have to be relevant to your point. A school having a prayer recitation is not the same thing as an individual wearing religious garb. Displaying a nativity scene in a government building is not the same as an individual wearing religious garb. Etc. etc.

I may not have proven my case, but I have provided evidence directly relevant to the argument that not all religious expression cases are treated the same. If you don't yet realize that the cases I referenced regarding 10 commandment monuments, one of which I provided a couple of links to, are USSC cases, then clearly you aren't going to bother paying attention to any evidence shown to you which contradicts your current belief. The rationales in the two cases are certainly different, and I never claimed otherwise. I merely pointed them out to you to show that all 10 commandment monument cases, and all religious expression cases, are not treated the same. Context matters.

That is funny because you want me to take it on faith that the couple of cases you cite have the exact same case facts and circumstances as Roy Moore's, the most pertinent example of a government representative being removed from office for failing to separate his job from his religion. But thanks for ironically pointing out your own erroneous contention.

I don't want you to take anything on faith, certainly not the statement you just made which I've never said or implied. You seem to be opposed to actually looking at any evidence I provide you, though, I guess because it makes it easier for you to tell yourself I'm trying to get you to take things on faith. I provided a link to many ACLU cases, and you thought it only contained the 2 examples I pulled from the link to quote in the thread. I provided a link to a Supreme Court case in which a 10 commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol was ruled Constitutional, and you don't know if I've shown you rulings from the Supreme Court. You expect me to analyze and detail the reasoning behind the cases I present to you to make a point I've never put forth, yet you don't seem to feel a need to even point to any specific cases or how they support your argument, simply posting a link with some USSC religious expression cases as though any case related to religious expression or the Establishment Clause supports you.

Please, don't take this on faith. Go actually look at the 2 cases I mentioned and see for yourself that in 1 case, a 10 commandments monument was deemed unconstitutional, while in the other case it was not. See for yourself that the cases were decided by the same court on the same day. See for yourself that the court did not simply decide whether the monuments were a form of religious expression, but instead took the context of the monuments into account. Then ask yourself if your argument that any religious expression is the same as any other, in terms of the Establishment Clause, makes sense.

You could further ask yourself if the idea that religious jewelry is not a prohibited expression makes sense when you argue that one religious expression is the same as any other. Perhaps you might contemplate why you believe that being easily visible is a required test for whether a particular expression of religion violates the Establishment Clause, and what made you believe that to be true. You might find the part of the Constitution or court rulings which show that easy visibility is a measure of Constitutionality and point that out.

Or you could just wait for a long time, then post a link to some Supreme Court cases without explaining how any of them are relevant to your argument.

Given that many of our historic government building were originally designed with religious symbolism included, your point is stupid