ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 2 of 8
< 12 3456 > Last »
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Dems want to foul the House even more
HonestChieffan 09:49 AM 12-02-2018
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...m_npd_nn_fb_ma

This is nothing more than a way to divide us more



WASHINGTON — Newly empowered Democrats plan to let lawmakers wear religious head coverings on the House floor by creating an exception to a hat ban that has existed since 1837 — when there was reportedly very little debate before the enactment of a rule prohibiting what one member then described as the “really harmless but apparently indecorous practice” of indoor hat-wearing.

In recent years, the rule hasn't been enforced to preclude members, staff or religious leaders from wearing head coverings on the floor, but the victory of Minnesota Rep.-elect Ilhan Omar, a Muslim who wears a headscarf, has put a spotlight on its continued existence.

Democrats say they will add an exemption for religious headwear under their new package of rules changes for the next Congress, which begins in January, so that the protection of religious expression is explicit. The language will also cover someone wearing a head covering due to illness and loss of hair.

"Democrats know that our strength lies in our diversity, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in a statement to NBC News. “After voters elected the most diverse Congress in history, clarifying the antiquated rule banning headwear will further show the remarkable progress we have made as a nation."

"This change will finally codify that no restriction may be placed on a member’s ability to do the job they were elected to do simply because of their faith," said incoming House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern, D-Mass., who is working on the amendment with Omar and Pelosi. "The American people just elected the most diverse Congress in history and our rules should embody that."

Omar applauded the plan.

"No one puts a scarf on my head but me. It’s my choice — one protected by the First Amendment," she wrote on Twitter. "And this is not the last ban I’m going to work to lift."
[Reply]
RodeoPants2 11:36 PM 12-02-2018
If you had read it / weren't an illiterate fuckwit you would know
[Reply]
banecat 03:30 AM 12-03-2018
[QUOTE=RodeoPants2;13931768]It doesn't. LOL I can't believe you're so stupid as to think that's what's happening here.

This is what I don't get about the left. All religion is ridiculous. Not just Christianity. I don't give a shit which space fairy makes you wear a hat. Belief is dangerous no matter where it's coming from
[Reply]
stevieray 05:26 AM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
I don't see how wearing a scarf or similar head covering is a symbol of oppression,

This is a harmless gesture, that hurts no one. You folks are acting like snowflakes here.
no, you're obtuse for the sole sake of wining an argument.

It's not oppression,....it's validation...It's no secret that they will use the 1st amendment to take us down.

Anyone looked at a TV latlely? Muslims and burkas are showing up on the reg, and it will continue to get more prominent
[Reply]
stevieray 05:29 AM 12-03-2018
[QUOTE=banecat;13932134]
Originally Posted by RodeoPants2:
It doesn't. LOL I can't believe you're so stupid as to think that's what's happening here.

This is what I don't get about the left. All religion is ridiculous. Not just Christianity. I don't give a shit which space fairy makes you wear a hat. Belief is dangerous no matter where it's coming from
God isn't religion, dude.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 08:15 AM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by Over Yonder:
I'm needing some help. Can you tell me where to look in the constitution? I'm not seeing anything about head dress in it.

Thanks in advance
It's covered under the First Amendment's free exercise of religion.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 08:19 AM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by stevieray:
no, you're obtuse for the sole sake of wining an argument.
Thank you for conceding the argument.

Originally Posted by :
It's not oppression,....it's validation...It's no secret that they will use the 1st amendment to take us down.
I didn't say it was oppression. I said it's protected by the First Amendment. That's a strawman argument.

Originally Posted by :
Anyone looked at a TV latlely? Muslims and burkas are showing up on the reg, and it will continue to get more prominent
It looks to me to part of the multicultural movement.

I suppose if you want to get rid of it, you should apply separation of church and state on govt property. Then we'd have to ban crosses on people's necks.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 08:28 AM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by banecat:
Show me where is it in the constitution that I have to wear a towel on my head?
WTF? The keffiyeh, or that towel you refer to which MidEast men wear on their heads, is not a religious head piece. It is worn for protecting them from the sun, dust and sand from living in desert conditions. I think that can be denied under a general hat ban.
[Reply]
Trolly McTrollson 08:28 AM 12-03-2018
Oh noes, women wearing headscarves, how will our nation survive this existential crisis.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 08:48 AM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by vailpass:
Eat another dick cosmo. What does 1A 6 have to do with not allowing the muzlim influence to creep into our government?
You don't have to like it — even if you agree it's protected under the Constitution.
[Reply]
vailpass 10:10 AM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
You don't have to like it — even if you agree it's protected under the Constitution.
Current history shows us that we need to apply separate rules to prevent muzlim infiltration. It's not a religion. It's a political ideology cloaked in religion with the goal of undermining our society from within.
It's as simple as that.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 10:21 AM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by vailpass:
Current history shows us that we need to apply separate rules to prevent muzlim infiltration. It's not a religion. It's a political ideology cloaked in religion with the goal of undermining our society from within.
It's as simple as that.
Current history? I'll stick with strict construction of the U.S. Constitution—something I thought Conservatives supported.

It's one of three Abrahamic religions and has been considered a religion for thousands of years.

I agree that their faith is intertwined with their politics, but that doesn't mean their faith is not a religion. If that's the criteria to determine that, then Christianity and Judaism isn't a religion either. Again, if they demand prayer rugs, sinks and try to pass laws that are based on Islam I would protest with you. But a headscarf isn't going to change what they think or do in DC either.

Like I said, you don't have to like something even if its Constitutional —speech, art, a religion.

We're getting more of them in this country after each military intervention over there too. It also creates refugees. This is another reason, I have been opposed to these ME wars or in Muslim dominated countries. The folks complaining about this, have been the biggest advocates for these wars—except for one. It's another unintended consequence from govt action. I am on record here as supporting a moratorium on immigration in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
[Reply]
vailpass 10:35 AM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
It's one of three Abrahamic religions and has been considered a religion for thousands of years.

I agree that their faith intertwined with their politics but it doesn't mean their faith doesn't is not a religion. If that's the criteria to determine that, then Christianity and Judaism isn't a religion either. Again, if they demand prayer rugs, sinks and try to pass laws that are based on Islam I would protest with you. But a headscarf isn't going to change what they think or do in DC either.

Like I said, you don't have to like something even if its Constitutional —speech, art, a religion.

We're getting more of them in this country after each military intervention over there too. It also creates refugees. This is another reason, I have been opposed to these ME wars or in Muslim dominated countries. The folks complaining about this, have been the biggest advocates for these wars—except for one. It's another unintended consequence from govt action. I am on record here as supporting a moratorium on immigration in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
None of that matters.
The muzlim religion is not compatible with Western civilization. Radical iszlam is the enemy of the US and the West. Period. We must be on full alert or they will do to us what they are doing to the UK. NO EXCEPTIONS.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 10:39 AM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by vailpass:
None of that matters.
Unfortunately it does—just not to you. If the SC were to decide, I bet it would hold up with enough on the right side of the court too.


Originally Posted by :
The muzlim religion is not compatible with Western civilization. Radical iszlam is the enemy of the US and the West. Period. We must be on full alert or they will do to us what they are doing to the UK. NO EXCEPTIONS.
What does that have to do with the power of a scarf? Nothing.

I think your attention should be focused on judges who apply Sharia law in our courts. I oppose that—just not a harmless scarf. Tho', again, I never said I liked it. I am just citing the Constitution, which your arguments have not refuted.
[Reply]
vailpass 10:41 AM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by BucEyedPea:
Unfortunately it does—just not to you. If the SC were to decide, I bet it would hold up with enough on the right side of the court too.



What does that have to do with the power of a scarf? Nothing.

I think your attention should be focused on judges who apply Sharia law in our courts. I oppose that—just not a harmless scarf. Tho', again, I never said I liked it. I am just citing the Constitution, which your arguments have not refuted.
The camel cannot be allowed to get it's nose under the tent.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 10:46 AM 12-03-2018
Originally Posted by vailpass:
Current history shows us that we need to apply separate rules to prevent muzlim infiltration. It's not a religion. It's a political ideology cloaked in religion with the goal of undermining our society from within.
It's as simple as that.
Who gets to decide which religions get 1st Amendment protection and which don’t?
[Reply]
Page 2 of 8
< 12 3456 > Last »
Up