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

[Montrovant]

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.

You are so frustratingly stupid. You know Roy Moore brought his slab of rock into his courthouse because he was barred from posting a poster of the Ten Commandments in it.
It's an expression of his religion to the exclusion of others....just like Omar's hijab.

I don't have to prove that the Supreme Court would differentiate between the Ten Commandments or a Muslim hijab or a Christmas nativity scene in a public park, for that matter They are all viewed the same by the court. As a religious expression of one faith or another.

Period!
Prove other wise.

You continue to equate changing a building to wearing a garment, and you call ME "frustratingly stupid."

I don't need to disprove a claim you've made with 0 evidence. You have never shown that the Supreme Court views all expressions of religion the same way. I, on the other hand, have provided evidence that the court most certainly does not view all expressions of religion the same way; the USSC takes each case individually and judges it based on the context involved.

A monument is the same as a personal garment; the Supreme Court views all expressions of religion the same way despite the lack of evidence; you respond to one post without actually reading the post that it was made in response to; you expect others to disprove your claims rather than you having to prove them.

Your debating skills leave much to be desired.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Van Orden v. Perry - Wikipedia
There were many mitigating factors in Van Orden v Perry that differentiate it from Roy Moore's situation.
It's location, it's historical value, it's non religious value,etc. That you are comparing the two shows you really are in over your head. I'm not surprised.

You compare wearing a hijab to a ten commandments monument. Comparing 2 situations in which a ten commandments monument is placed on government property is a lot more similar than that.

Besides, I was pointing out that the USSC doesn't simply look at any given expression of religion and deem it unconstitutional, not comparing it to Roy Moore's situation. Since you seem to think every religious expression somehow relates to Roy Moore, I can see where you'd have trouble with that.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You continue to equate changing a building to wearing a garment, and you call ME "frustratingly stupid."

No. I continue to point out that the principle that connects the two are the same and that's what makes you such a disingenuous duplicitous a-hole!

I don't need to disprove a claim you've made with 0 evidence. You have never shown that the Supreme Court views all expressions of religion the same way. I, on the other hand, have provided evidence that the court most certainly does not view all expressions of religion the same way; the USSC takes each case individually and judges it based on the context involved.

Of course it does but a nativity scene on public land is always judged to be a violation of the separation of church and state and Ilhan Omar's hijab is nothing more than a member of Congress using her position to show her preference for Islam over all other religions. That's not allowed.

A monument is the same as a personal garment; the Supreme Court views all expressions of religion the same way despite the lack of evidence; you respond to one post without actually reading the post that it was made in response to; you expect others to disprove your claims rather than you having to prove them.

Your debating skills leave much to be desired.

The principle is the same. Not the things themselves. The Supreme Court views all expressions of religion that endorse one particular religion over others to be illegal. There is no lack of evidence there. It is clearly stated settled law. If a post is worth responding to and not recycled bullshit I respond.
And I don't have to prove that Supreme Court rulings on settled law are proper. You have to demonstrate why
Omar's hijab is not a clear government sponsored endorsement of Islam over all other religions.
Don't blame me because you cannot.

 

[Faun]

Neither does what is worn by individual people who happen to be employed by the government. For the 47th time, they do not stop being individual citizens with personal Constitutional rights just because they're elected to office.

The president is a private citizen with Constitutional protections however that doesn't give him the right to wear a John 3:16 ball cap or jacket when he goes out in public. When do you think you might finally understand?

That’s because wearing a John 3:16 cap is expressing one’s religion, not exercising it. Such a simple concept that confounds even a simpleton like you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Neither does what is worn by individual people who happen to be employed by the government. For the 47th time, they do not stop being individual citizens with personal Constitutional rights just because they're elected to office.

The president is a private citizen with Constitutional protections however that doesn't give him the right to wear a John 3:16 ball cap or jacket when he goes out in public. When do you think you might finally understand?

Where did you get the idea the President doesn't have the right to wear a John 3:16 ball cap if he chooses to?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You compare wearing a hijab to a ten commandments monument. Comparing 2 situations in which a ten commandments monument is placed on government property is a lot more similar than that.

Besides, I was pointing out that the USSC doesn't simply look at any given expression of religion and deem it unconstitutional, not comparing it to Roy Moore's situation. Since you seem to think every religious expression somehow relates to Roy Moore, I can see where you'd have trouble with that.

I have problems when I realize Roy Moore's expression of religion was the basis for him being removed from office and then comparing that to the democrats ending long standing House rules
so Ilhan Omar could do precisely what Moore did.
A clear double standard. A clear preference by the democrats for a specially protected religion.

Moore wasn't removed for putting a stone monument in this court house, per se. He was removed because that monument listed the Ten Commandments. That's something you and your ideological friends never mention or properly acknowledge. I wonder why.

 

[Pogo]

You compare wearing a hijab to a ten commandments monument. Comparing 2 situations in which a ten commandments monument is placed on government property is a lot more similar than that.

Besides, I was pointing out that the USSC doesn't simply look at any given expression of religion and deem it unconstitutional, not comparing it to Roy Moore's situation. Since you seem to think every religious expression somehow relates to Roy Moore, I can see where you'd have trouble with that.

I have problems when I realize Roy Moore's expression of religion was the basis for him being removed from office and then comparing that to the democrats ending long standing House rules
so Ilhan Omar could do precisely what Moore did.
A clear double standard. A clear preference by the democrats for a specially protected religion.

Moore wasn't removed for putting a stone monument in this court house, per se. He was removed because that monument listed the Ten Commandments. That's something you and your ideological friends never mention or properly acknowledge. I wonder why.

It doesn't seem to penetrate your impervious cranium that "Roy Moore" is not "the courthouse".

"Roy Moore" can express whatever religious diatribe he wants. "The courthouse" cannot.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Where did you get the idea the President doesn't have the right to wear a John 3:16 ball cap if he chooses to?

You mean while not at home? Because it's Christian proselytizing! That's why.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

It doesn't seem to penetrate your impervious cranium that "Roy Moore" is not "the courthouse".

"Roy Moore" can express whatever religious diatribe he wants. "The courthouse" cannot.

You mean Roy Moore cannot use his courtroom for religious purposes?
Yes. I know. Just like Ilana Omar shouldn't be able to use Congress for hers.

 

[Pogo]

It doesn't seem to penetrate your impervious cranium that "Roy Moore" is not "the courthouse".

"Roy Moore" can express whatever religious diatribe he wants. "The courthouse" cannot.

You mean Roy Moore cannot use his courtroom for religious purposes?
Yes. I know. Just like Ilana Omar shouldn't be able to use Congress for hers.

You let us know when she does, Sparkles.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You let us know when she does, Sparkles.

The second she takes the floor of Congress in her Muslim approved head wear, Champ.

 

[bodecea]

It doesn't seem to penetrate your impervious cranium that "Roy Moore" is not "the courthouse".

"Roy Moore" can express whatever religious diatribe he wants. "The courthouse" cannot.

You mean Roy Moore cannot use his courtroom for religious purposes?
Yes. I know. Just like Ilana Omar shouldn't be able to use Congress for hers.

A courtroom cannot be used for religious purposed. Correct.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

A courtroom cannot be used for religious purposed. Correct.

No one seems to debate this. The question is can the House of Representatives be used for religious purposes?
Another Muslim woman entering that body this year is Rashida Tlaib, who doesn't feel the need to wear a hijab.
Ilhan Omar's choice to wear one on the floor of Congress can only be seen as a religious statement in a place where, supposedly, that sort of thing is not allowed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Where did you get the idea the President doesn't have the right to wear a John 3:16 ball cap if he chooses to?

You mean while not at home? Because it's Christian proselytizing! That's why.

I'm sorry, Mensa Boy. Perhaps I should have made it clearer. I wasn't asking you what crazy logic you were following. I was asking you to cite any official entity - like a law, a regulation, a court ruling - prohibiting the President from wearing anything he pleases. Or from proselytizing, for that matter, if that floats his boat.

It would probably be politically stupid, but that's not the same as "not allowed to".

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I'm sorry, Mensa Boy. Perhaps I should have made it clearer. I wasn't asking you what crazy logic you were following. I was asking you to cite any official entity - like a law, a regulation, a court ruling - prohibiting the President from wearing anything he pleases. Or from proselytizing, for that matter, if that floats his boat.

It would probably be politically stupid, but that's not the same as "not allowed to".

No, it's me who should apologize. I didn't realize your brain was damaged and you don't realize that even the president
is subject to Constitutional restrictions like separation of church and state (an extremely basic facet of our nation).

Have the driver in your short bus explain it to you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm sorry, Mensa Boy. Perhaps I should have made it clearer. I wasn't asking you what crazy logic you were following. I was asking you to cite any official entity - like a law, a regulation, a court ruling - prohibiting the President from wearing anything he pleases. Or from proselytizing, for that matter, if that floats his boat.

It would probably be politically stupid, but that's not the same as "not allowed to".

No, it's me who should apologize. I didn't realize your brain was damaged and you don't realize that even the president
is subject to Constitutional restrictions like separation of church and state (an extremely basic facet of our nation).

Have the driver in your short bus explain it to you.

In other words, you have nothing besides your own ASSumptions as to "He's not allowed to do that, because . . . I'm just sure he's NOT!"

Have the driver on your short bus slap you for talking where people can hear you. That's never, EVER a good thing.

 

[Pogo]

You let us know when she does, Sparkles.

The second she takes the floor of Congress in her Muslim approved head wear, Champ.

No no, I mean actual, in your words (which you again cut out to run away from), "uses Congress for religious purposes".

That means something the subject ACTIVELY DOES, not something you choose to plug in and infer because you'd like it to be in play.

Integrating some religion-based apparel into one's wardrobe doesn't mean they're by virtue of that apparel "using" whatever facility they're in.

​

If a Congresswoman walks into Congress wearing a crucifix and proceeds to opine on commerce legislation, is she "using Congress for religious purposes"?

Is this Congresswoman interacting with the Australian PM, or is she "using" him for "religious purposes"?


If a nun walks into a Burger King is she "using" that Burger King for "religious purposes"? Or is she there to eat junk food?

Is this gal "using the game of baseball for religious purposes"?

​

--- or did she just hit a short pop fly to second base?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

In other words, you have nothing besides your own ASSumptions as to "He's not allowed to do that, because . . . I'm just sure he's NOT!"

Have the driver on your short bus slap you for talking where people can hear you. That's never, EVER a good thing.

That's correct. I have no reason whatever to believe that Donald Trump, or any other president, can do whatever he wants.
Your point is especially stupid considering what Trump is going through right this very moment for trying to avoid following the law (if you believe his accusers). How brainless are you? Do the daily events that go on all around you make no impact on you at all?
I do hope your bus driver tries to help you.

 

[danielpalos]

they should change the rule to raise tax revenue by raising the minimum wage.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

No no, I mean actual, in your words (which you again cut out to run away from), "uses Congress for religious purposes".

The same way in which Roy Moore used his monument for religious purpose. Does the concept throw you? That's a pity.

That means something the subject ACTIVELY DOES, not something you choose to plug in and infer because you'd like it to be in play.

Integrating some religion-based apparel into one's wardrobe doesn't mean they're by virtue of that apparel "using" whatever facility they're in.

Wearing a hijab, or yarmulke or turban or Pope's mitre IS actively doing something!
I don't know what else you could call it, just the same as placing a Jesus in the manger display in the park is actively doing something. I get it that you want your agenda so badly it can fry your own brain trying to justify it, but in this case somebody doing something of a religious nature is someone doing something of a religious nature.
Try again.

If a Congresswoman walks into Congress wearing a crucifix and proceeds to opine on commerce legislation, is she "using Congress for religious purposes"?

Yeah, in my opinion a crucifix on the forehead violates separation of church and state principles. If I'm a Jew or Muslim or Sikh looking at Pelosi I would have to wonder why she is bringing her religion onto the floor of Congress.

If a nun walks into a Burger King is she "using" that Burger King for "religious purposes"? Or is she there to eat junk food?

Is this gal "using the game of baseball for religious purposes"? or did she just hit a short pop fly to second base?

Whatever a nun at Burger King does or an Amish girl playing softball, neither one represents any sort of religious endorsement on behalf of our government. I'm sure you thought you had a pertinent point here...but you don't.