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

[Montrovant]

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.

If Congress also allows Jews to wear a yarmulke, or Christians to wear a bonnet, or Sikhs to wear a turban, how is it tacitly approving Islam over any other religion?

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Feel free to show where the Supreme Court has interpreted the wearing of a yarmulke as violating separation of church and state. Or do you expect everyone to take it on faith?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

Nope. An expression of one's religion is an expression of one's religion whether a hijab, a stone slab or a Cadillac with John 3:16 painted all over it. Try another argument. This one of yours doesn't work.

 

[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.

If Congress also allows Jews to wear a yarmulke, or Christians to wear a bonnet, or Sikhs to wear a turban, how is it tacitly approving Islam over any other religion?

You make the point, how is one judge putting the ten commandments in his court room tactically acknowledging an official state religion? The answer, of course, is that it does not. But liberals sure scream that it does.

That's the kind of quandary you find yourself in if you don't have any principles. I myself have little doubt that if a GOP led House were changing this exact same rule because a Christian woman were wanting to wear her bonnet that you would be in here screaming "we can't allow Congress to endorse Christianity like this" I have ZERO doubt on that point.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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...

Separation of Church and State is relevant to my argument.
It is the entire reason why letting Omar wear her hijab under brand new House rules is counter to the Constitution.
And it would be the same if the rules were changed so someone could wear their yarmulke, turban or Pope's mitre. That's what a legal principle is. An across the board prohibition
against religious wear in Congress. Learn it, children.

 

[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.

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.

I'm simply saying that saying we're protected by the First Amendment for religious freedom is a strawman argument because the First doesn't really protect anyone religious rights.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Yeah, you kinda do. That's what it means when something is listed in the Bill of Rights: that you have a right to it.

And yes, of course, there are tons of shadings, nuances, and compromises involved depending on circumstances, because human interactions are always going to be complicated and involve the balancing of one person's demands and rights against another person's.

Generally speaking, however, I would pitch an ungodly hissy fit if any official government body tried to interfere in any way with my personal obedience to God as I understood it, without an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so. Therefore, because I believe that my freedoms are only secured insofar as I am willing to secure them for others, I must therefore object to any official government body interfering in any way with Ms. Omar's personal obedience to her god as she understands it, absent an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so.

No one has yet identified or explained that overwhelmingly compelling reason.

So there we have it.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Nope. An expression of one's religion is an expression of one's religion whether a hijab, a stone slab or a Cadillac with John 3:16 painted all over it. Try another argument. This one of yours doesn't work.

I imagine you want me to accept that on faith?

I'll take the fact that the Supreme Court does not view every expression of religion the same as every other as evidence that you are wrong.

 

[Montrovant]

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...

Separation of Church and State is relevant to my argument.
It is the entire reason why letting Omar wear her hijab under brand new House rules is counter to the Constitution.
And it would be the same if the rules were changed so someone could wear their yarmulke, turban or Pope's mitre. That's what a legal principle is. An across the board prohibition
against religious wear in Congress. Learn it, children.

When you can provide evidence that the Supreme Court has ruled there is "an across the board prohibition against religious wear in Congress," or that the Constitution has such a prohibition, I'll take your argument seriously. As long as your argument consists of "separation of church and state always applies to any form of religious expression (unless I say otherwise)," I'll continue to disagree with you.

Oh, and I'll provide some evidence that actually supports me. You should try it.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

When did the Supreme Court remove religion from all of society?

People already can bring religion out of their homes and places of worship. What you have to show is that wearing a religious head cover constitutes a government endorsement of religion. There may be a good argument that, in the case of Congressional representatives, religious head covers do create such an endorsement. Unfortunately, all you've done is whine about Roy Moore and try to create a link between the alteration of a government building and the personal apparel of individuals. You've repeatedly claimed that the Supreme Court views such things the same, but have not actually shown where the court has done so.

 

[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. 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.

Yeah, you kinda do. That's what it means when something is listed in the Bill of Rights: that you have a right to it.

And yes, of course, there are tons of shadings, nuances, and compromises involved depending on circumstances, because human interactions are always going to be complicated and involve the balancing of one person's demands and rights against another person's.

Generally speaking, however, I would pitch an ungodly hissy fit if any official government body tried to interfere in any way with my personal obedience to God as I understood it, without an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so. Therefore, because I believe that my freedoms are only secured insofar as I am willing to secure them for others, I must therefore object to any official government body interfering in any way with Ms. Omar's personal obedience to her god as she understands it, absent an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so.

No one has yet identified or explained that overwhelmingly compelling reason.

So there we have it.

No you certainly do not have a right to wear a Hoodie during a session of Congress, and this is EASILY proven.

Go to court in your local city wearing a hat, any hat. You will quickly be asked to remove the hat. Why? Because it is considered to be a lack of respect to wear a hat in court. Not exactly a compelling reason is it.

AND if some judge decided "I don't care about hats in my court room" he could allow it, because it's a rule, not a law.

Same thing here. You most certainly do NOT have a right to wear a hoodie in Congress. They simply had a rule against it, but now they are changing that rule.

Same reason courts routinely toss out cases against school dress codes, because you do not have a right to wear for example a t shirt with a marijuana leaf on it to school. I suppose a school could allow it within their rules if they wanted to, but there is no right.

 

[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.

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

Given that the case I've been bringing up (Van Orden v Perry) takes things like the historical context of the monument in question into account, and given that a variety of things which were acceptable in the past would be considered unconstitutional today, I think my points stand.

 

[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

Given that the case I've been bringing up (Van Orden v Perry) takes things like the historical context of the monument in question into account, and given that a variety of things which were acceptable in the past would be considered unconstitutional today, I think my points stand.

Well, it's quite clear that SCOTUS isn't infallible and the Justices are quite capable of outright making shit up to justify their rulings in general, not specific to this case. So I don't just say "well SCOTUS ruled, so that's that"

However, can we agree that people who complain about such things that have no real impact on their lives are losers who we would be better off without?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Yeah, you kinda do. That's what it means when something is listed in the Bill of Rights: that you have a right to it.

And yes, of course, there are tons of shadings, nuances, and compromises involved depending on circumstances, because human interactions are always going to be complicated and involve the balancing of one person's demands and rights against another person's.

Generally speaking, however, I would pitch an ungodly hissy fit if any official government body tried to interfere in any way with my personal obedience to God as I understood it, without an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so. Therefore, because I believe that my freedoms are only secured insofar as I am willing to secure them for others, I must therefore object to any official government body interfering in any way with Ms. Omar's personal obedience to her god as she understands it, absent an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so.

No one has yet identified or explained that overwhelmingly compelling reason.

So there we have it.

No you certainly do not have a right to wear a Hoodie during a session of Congress, and this is EASILY proven.

Go to court in your local city wearing a hat, any hat. You will quickly be asked to remove the hat. Why? Because it is considered to be a lack of respect to wear a hat in court. Not exactly a compelling reason is it.

AND if some judge decided "I don't care about hats in my court room" he could allow it, because it's a rule, not a law.

Same thing here. You most certainly do NOT have a right to wear a hoodie in Congress. They simply had a rule against it, but now they are changing that rule.

Same reason courts routinely toss out cases against school dress codes, because you do not have a right to wear for example a t shirt with a marijuana leaf on it to school. I suppose a school could allow it within their rules if they wanted to, but there is no right.

Oh, is that a fact? You have evidence that courts routinely ask people to divest themselves of religiously-related clothing, do you? Because I can tell you just from anecdotal evidence that I work for a legal transcription firm owned by an Orthodox Jewish man. Not only are a lot of our employees Orthodox Jews themselves (meaning the men all wear yarmulkes), but we deal with a LOT of different courts and legal cases. Never once have I encountered any occasion on which a judge thought it appropriate or legal to ask a Jewish man to remove his yarmulke, or a Muslim woman to remove her hijab.

And if some judge DID decide he had a right to do so, the legal uproar would be deafening. Because he's acting as a government official when he's in court, which makes it a violation of the First Amendment.

Same thing here. The House of Representatives is as "official government body" as you can get. And not only does it not have the right to interfere in someone's personal religious exercise, it would also be utterly inappropriate and wrong. Which is why they are correctly proposing to change the rule, now that it has become a matter of religion, rather than simply one of fashion.

Public schools can set dress codes, but they cannot legally set dress codes which violate the student's First Amendment rights. A t-shirt with a marijuana leaf on it is not remotely comparable to a hijab or yarmulke. Any public school that tried to ban such things on campus would 1) get slapped down by the district, 2) get slapped down by the school board, and 3) get sued out the ass.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Yeah, you kinda do. That's what it means when something is listed in the Bill of Rights: that you have a right to it.

And yes, of course, there are tons of shadings, nuances, and compromises involved depending on circumstances, because human interactions are always going to be complicated and involve the balancing of one person's demands and rights against another person's.

Generally speaking, however, I would pitch an ungodly hissy fit if any official government body tried to interfere in any way with my personal obedience to God as I understood it, without an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so. Therefore, because I believe that my freedoms are only secured insofar as I am willing to secure them for others, I must therefore object to any official government body interfering in any way with Ms. Omar's personal obedience to her god as she understands it, absent an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so.

No one has yet identified or explained that overwhelmingly compelling reason.

So there we have it.

No you certainly do not have a right to wear a Hoodie during a session of Congress, and this is EASILY proven.

Go to court in your local city wearing a hat, any hat. You will quickly be asked to remove the hat. Why? Because it is considered to be a lack of respect to wear a hat in court. Not exactly a compelling reason is it.

AND if some judge decided "I don't care about hats in my court room" he could allow it, because it's a rule, not a law.

Same thing here. You most certainly do NOT have a right to wear a hoodie in Congress. They simply had a rule against it, but now they are changing that rule.

Same reason courts routinely toss out cases against school dress codes, because you do not have a right to wear for example a t shirt with a marijuana leaf on it to school. I suppose a school could allow it within their rules if they wanted to, but there is no right.

I posted a link to a list of ACLU cases earlier. A number of them involved religious head covers. At least one involved an individual having the right to wear religious head cover in court.
NJ Appellate Division dismisses contempt finding against ACLU-NJ client who refused to remove religious head-covering in court

 

[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.

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

Given that the case I've been bringing up (Van Orden v Perry) takes things like the historical context of the monument in question into account, and given that a variety of things which were acceptable in the past would be considered unconstitutional today, I think my points stand.

Well, it's quite clear that SCOTUS isn't infallible and the Justices are quite capable of outright making shit up to justify their rulings in general, not specific to this case. So I don't just say "well SCOTUS ruled, so that's that"

However, can we agree that people who complain about such things that have no real impact on their lives are losers who we would be better off without?

Certainly I agree SCOTUS isn't always correct. My arguments with other posters in large part revolve around claims that the court has made certain rulings and interpretations that it has not, to my knowledge.

And I agree that complaining against someone wearing a hijab in the House is pretty ridiculous.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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

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.

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.

Yeah, you kinda do. That's what it means when something is listed in the Bill of Rights: that you have a right to it.

And yes, of course, there are tons of shadings, nuances, and compromises involved depending on circumstances, because human interactions are always going to be complicated and involve the balancing of one person's demands and rights against another person's.

Generally speaking, however, I would pitch an ungodly hissy fit if any official government body tried to interfere in any way with my personal obedience to God as I understood it, without an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so. Therefore, because I believe that my freedoms are only secured insofar as I am willing to secure them for others, I must therefore object to any official government body interfering in any way with Ms. Omar's personal obedience to her god as she understands it, absent an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so.

No one has yet identified or explained that overwhelmingly compelling reason.

So there we have it.

No you certainly do not have a right to wear a Hoodie during a session of Congress, and this is EASILY proven.

Go to court in your local city wearing a hat, any hat. You will quickly be asked to remove the hat. Why? Because it is considered to be a lack of respect to wear a hat in court. Not exactly a compelling reason is it.

AND if some judge decided "I don't care about hats in my court room" he could allow it, because it's a rule, not a law.

Same thing here. You most certainly do NOT have a right to wear a hoodie in Congress. They simply had a rule against it, but now they are changing that rule.

Same reason courts routinely toss out cases against school dress codes, because you do not have a right to wear for example a t shirt with a marijuana leaf on it to school. I suppose a school could allow it within their rules if they wanted to, but there is no right.

Oh, is that a fact? You have evidence that courts routinely ask people to divest themselves of religiously-related clothing, do you? Because I can tell you just from anecdotal evidence that I work for a legal transcription firm owned by an Orthodox Jewish man. Not only are a lot of our employees Orthodox Jews themselves (meaning the men all wear yarmulkes), but we deal with a LOT of different courts and legal cases. Never once have I encountered any occasion on which a judge thought it appropriate or legal to ask a Jewish man to remove his yarmulke, or a Muslim woman to remove her hijab.

And if some judge DID decide he had a right to do so, the legal uproar would be deafening. Because he's acting as a government official when he's in court, which makes it a violation of the First Amendment.

Same thing here. The House of Representatives is as "official government body" as you can get. And not only does it not have the right to interfere in someone's personal religious exercise, it would also be utterly inappropriate and wrong. Which is why they are correctly proposing to change the rule, now that it has become a matter of religion, rather than simply one of fashion.

Public schools can set dress codes, but they cannot legally set dress codes which violate the student's First Amendment rights. A t-shirt with a marijuana leaf on it is not remotely comparable to a hijab or yarmulke. Any public school that tried to ban such things on campus would 1) get slapped down by the district, 2) get slapped down by the school board, and 3) get sued out the ass.

Oh, you don't think public schools can ban students from wearing head coverings? LOL of course they can, for obvious reasons.

Same reason, for example, some dumb Muslim bitch who wants to wear her face covering in her DL picture can be told "um no" is that a violation of her first amendment rights ? I mean she's free to wear a garbage bag over her head in accordance to her religion, isn't she ? Well, yes yes she is, but that doesn't mean she can do whatever she wants while doing so.

And of course on the subject of Muslim women who want to practice their religion, I must once again ask. Isn't serving in Congress, going to school, driving, working, or even being out in pubic without a male escort all violations of her religion? Yes they are. Meaning, of course, that they are fake Muslims, only practicing their faith when it is convenient for them.

 

[DandyDonovan]

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

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.

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.

Yeah, you kinda do. That's what it means when something is listed in the Bill of Rights: that you have a right to it.

And yes, of course, there are tons of shadings, nuances, and compromises involved depending on circumstances, because human interactions are always going to be complicated and involve the balancing of one person's demands and rights against another person's.

Generally speaking, however, I would pitch an ungodly hissy fit if any official government body tried to interfere in any way with my personal obedience to God as I understood it, without an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so. Therefore, because I believe that my freedoms are only secured insofar as I am willing to secure them for others, I must therefore object to any official government body interfering in any way with Ms. Omar's personal obedience to her god as she understands it, absent an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so.

No one has yet identified or explained that overwhelmingly compelling reason.

So there we have it.

No you certainly do not have a right to wear a Hoodie during a session of Congress, and this is EASILY proven.

Go to court in your local city wearing a hat, any hat. You will quickly be asked to remove the hat. Why? Because it is considered to be a lack of respect to wear a hat in court. Not exactly a compelling reason is it.

AND if some judge decided "I don't care about hats in my court room" he could allow it, because it's a rule, not a law.

Same thing here. You most certainly do NOT have a right to wear a hoodie in Congress. They simply had a rule against it, but now they are changing that rule.

Same reason courts routinely toss out cases against school dress codes, because you do not have a right to wear for example a t shirt with a marijuana leaf on it to school. I suppose a school could allow it within their rules if they wanted to, but there is no right.

I posted a link to a list of ACLU cases earlier. A number of them involved religious head covers. At least one involved an individual having the right to wear religious head cover in court.
NJ Appellate Division dismisses contempt finding against ACLU-NJ client who refused to remove religious head-covering in court

That ruling didn't say what you thought it said.

 

[Faun]

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.

Says who?

 

[Faun]

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.

And no one will be banning her when she shows up for work in the Capitol.