New House Speaker flying christian nationalist flag outside his office.

Ilhan Omar's religion requires her to wear the hijab. There is no religious requirement for the flag.
So if your religion requires something, it's ok, but if your religion doesn't, but you just want to show pride in your faith, it's bad?
 
So if your religion requires something, it's ok, but if your religion doesn't, but you just want to show pride in your faith, it's bad?

Isn't Pride a sin?

And yes, an employer has to make allowances for something that is required by a religion.
 
Ilhan Omar's religion requires her to wear the hijab. There is no religious requirement for the flag.
I thought the complaint was that it was illegal to express your faith in a public space. There was no mention of it being different if it's required. Either way, he has something outside his office where you have to physically be present to see it while she wears it in the House chambers, when she votes, in front of the TV cameras.

Somehow, it's okay for her to make a constant, physical, in your face religious statement like that, but it's "Katy bar the door, the gremlins are attacking!" when he puts up a simple flag outside his office?

Or is it more likely that the complainers FEAR Christianity so much and FEAR Muslims will attack them that they want to suppress the one and not confront the other? You know, they know Christians won't riot and start cutting people's heads off, but Muslims just might.
 
I thought the complaint was that it was illegal to express your faith in a public space. There was no mention of it being different if it's required. Either way, he has something outside his office where you have to physically be present to see it while she wears it in the House chambers, when she votes, in front of the TV cameras.

Somehow, it's okay for her to make a constant, physical, in your face religious statement like that, but it's "Katy bar the door, the gremlins are attacking!" when he puts up a simple flag outside his office?

Or is it more likely that the complainers FEAR Christianity so much and FEAR Muslims will attack them that they want to suppress the one and not confront the other? You know, they know Christians won't riot and start cutting people's heads off, but Muslims just might.
I've seen Congress critters wearing religious jewelry on the floor. It doesn't matter to me.

But you want to call that "in your face"? You really didn't think, did you.

If Trump's lickspittle Mike Johnson wants to advertise his hypocrisy, and advertise his desire for a theocracy, then all Americans should know that.
 
Isn't Pride a sin?

And yes, an employer has to make allowances for something that is required by a religion.
Being prideful is a deadly sin, showing pride is not. Prideful is showing excessive love of ones own excellence...not showing pride in something. Either way, we aren't talking about Sins here...there are a lot of sins happening on Capitol Hill that nobody seems to care about....

Your second point is true, but doesn't have anything to do with my question. Is it wrong to show pride in something? Had he flown a Detriot Lions flag would that be wrong? Or if he had a sign that said, "I'm a Christian, if you would like to know more come in and we can talk" that's wrong?
 
Islam is a political cult, and one that demands murder and extortion of non-believers. Nuff said. Anybody who denies that is a fool or a homicidal sociopath. So yes, wearing a hijab is indeed a political statement and they should be banned from public property according to the commies and deviants own 'standards'. They are not even remotely compatible with American values and form of govt..
 
Every Christian wants to convert people…that’s kinda their thing. Just like every Muslim wants people to convert to Islam. As long as they don’t try and get government to implement their religious views on everyone else, I say let them preach.

lol rubbish.
 
I've seen Congress critters wearing religious jewelry on the floor. It doesn't matter to me.

But you want to call that "in your face"? You really didn't think, did you.

If Trump's lickspittle Mike Johnson wants to advertise his hypocrisy, and advertise his desire for a theocracy, then all Americans should know that.

lol you're insane.
 


No Islamic cults show up. No pagans, no witch covens, no satanists, no Hindus, no Buddhist sects, and zero atheists. States could indeed have established Christian sects, and some could levy taxes. The clause only restricts the Federal govt. from establishing a national sect. not Christianity itself. Even Thomas Jefferson handed out Federal funds to Christian missionaries, and attended church services held in govt. buildings while in Washington as President.
 
Last edited:
I've seen Congress critters wearing religious jewelry on the floor. It doesn't matter to me.

But you want to call that "in your face"? You really didn't think, did you.

If Trump's lickspittle Mike Johnson wants to advertise his hypocrisy, and advertise his desire for a theocracy, then all Americans should know that.

Where do you get that that flag represents Christian nationalism? I was doing some reading on that flag. I didn’t see anything that says anything about a theocracy.
 


No Islamic cults show up. No pagans, no witch covens, no satanists, no Hindus, no Buddhist sects, and zero atheists. States could indeed have established Christian sects, and some could levy taxes. The clause only restricts the Federal govt. from establishing a national sect. not Christianity itself. Even Thomas Jefferson handed out Federal funds to Christian missionaries, and attended church services held in govt. buildings while in Washington as President.

I agree that people completely misunderstand what separation between church and state was all about, but our cotus does say you have freedom of religion which means you have freedom from religion too. It also says that government will not establish a religion, while I believe that doesn’t prohibit religion from being IN government, it’s just that they can’t claim a national religion. As such. I also think that religious people can’t use the government to implement their agenda, unless we end up having every religion trying to use government to push their agendas.
 
Is this really who you guys want to be? Have you forgotten that state sponsored religion was the reason many people, including some of the first, came to America? Freedom of religion must include freedom from religion.

A new report confirmed that the House speaker is displaying an “Appeal to Heaven” flag outside his door.
1706181788334.jpeg


This gives you the vapors?
 
First and foremost it's anti-American.

Here's the definition for ya.


Your alphabet mafia pride flag would be inappropriate as a replacement.
 
I agree that people completely misunderstand what separation between church and state was all about, but our cotus does say you have freedom of religion which means you have freedom from religion too. It also says that government will not establish a religion, while I believe that doesn’t prohibit religion from being IN government, it’s just that they can’t claim a national religion. As such. I also think that religious people can’t use the government to implement their agenda, unless we end up having every religion trying to use government to push their agendas.


They didn't exclude others because they were entirely irrelevant at the time, not many outliers around, so no need to get specific, as the 'religions' were merely the different sects of Christianity. The Anglicans, before and after the war, were campaigning to make their sect the 'official' national religion; the Baptists, along with the other evangelical sects of the Great Awakenings, 1st and 2nd, were opposed, the Baptists even provided the establishment clause, as it was one of the main founding platforms of their sect. They all voted for Thomas Jefferson, almost to a man, according to Forrest McDonald. There was nothing preventing an individual state or local govt. from favoring a particular sect.

An example of Jewish synagogues founded in the colonies and states. As is obvious, they weren't very numerous. Jewish immigrants to the colonies tended to assimilate after being freed from European constraints and societies.



Hindus don't show up until 1906. Buddhists show up in 1853.
 
Last edited:
First and foremost it's anti-American.

Here's the definition for ya.

Britannica is not a valid source meatball
 

Forum List

Back
Top