ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 6 of 8
« First < 23456 78 >
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 ó 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 ó when there was reportedly very little debate before the enactment of a rule prohibiting what one member then described as the ďreally harmless but apparently indecorous practiceĒ 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,Ē said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in a statement to NBC News. ďAfter 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 memberís 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. Itís my choice ó one protected by the First Amendment," she wrote on Twitter. "And this is not the last ban Iím going to work to lift."
[Reply]
GloryDayz 06:26 AM 12-04-2018
Originally Posted by RodeoPants2:
Right wing christian terrorists have killed many many more Americans than muslims this decade.
I suppose you aren't going to tally-up all those large city urban core murders against the left wing?

Sent from my 9+ using Tapatalk
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 07:43 AM 12-04-2018
Bigots on the left who spew hatred on religious people. Bigots on the right who are willing to suppress other religions than their own.
[Reply]
patteeu 10:14 AM 12-04-2018
Originally Posted by RodeoPants2:
Right wing christian terrorists have killed many many more Americans than muslims this decade.
I don't think that's true. How many Americans have right wing christian terrorists killed?
[Reply]
patteeu 10:24 AM 12-04-2018
This hat ban doesn't violate the first amendment because it's a generic ban on hats that doesn't target nor benefit any particular religion. There was no religious intent behind it. Laws that incidentally inconvenience a religion while serving a secular purpose don't run afoul of the 1st amendment.

Because of that, coupled with the fact that the Congress is a co-equal branch of government, I don't think it's likely that the SCOTUS would attempt to interfere with this House rule.
[Reply]
Trolly McTrollson 10:49 AM 12-04-2018
Originally Posted by :
. Laws that incidentally inconvenience a religion while serving a secular purpose don't run afoul of the 1st amendment.
lol, of course they do. What cereal box did you pull your law degree from?
[Reply]
patteeu 11:04 AM 12-04-2018
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson:
lol, of course they do. What cereal box did you pull your law degree from?
It was a cracker jack box. Cracker jack law degrees are far superior to cereal box law degrees. And you're wrong about the first amendment.
[Reply]
RodeoPants2 05:50 PM 12-06-2018
Originally Posted by banecat:
How about instead of swearing in on religious texts that not all of us agree on. And can't for whatever reason agree about even the symbolism anymore. That we start swearing in on a copy of the constitution? Hopefully we can all agree about it's importance. Maybe even for awhile it'll remind those swearing on it that are voted in of a reminded of what their job is
Just remembered about this perfection from George Carlin.

Originally Posted by :
Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!

[Reply]
Amnorix 05:53 PM 12-06-2018
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?

Allowing someone to wear a religiously required headgear is "muslim influence"?

Would you react so negatively if a Jewish person wanted the rule change to wear a yamaka? Did you even notice that the article stated that the rule hasn't been enforced in many years?

And you right wingers think liberals are easily triggered. JFC.
[Reply]
stevieray 06:13 PM 12-06-2018
Originally Posted by Amnorix:
Allowing someone to wear a religiously required headgear is "muslim influence"?

JFC.
Jesus has nothing to do with it.
[Reply]
stevieray 06:15 PM 12-06-2018
Originally Posted by RodeoPants2:
Just remembered about this perfection from George Carlin.
perfection? hardly.

God got the last laugh on that one.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 06:24 PM 12-06-2018
I think this is all academic anyway. Nobody is going to tell her she can't wear a headscarf.
[Reply]
vailpass 06:33 PM 12-06-2018
Originally Posted by Amnorix:
Allowing someone to wear a religiously required headgear is "muslim influence"?

Would you react so negatively if a Jewish person wanted the rule change to wear a yamaka? Did you even notice that the article stated that the rule hasn't been enforced in many years?

And you right wingers think liberals are easily triggered. JFC.
Muzz present a singularly unique danger to our country. It warrants treating them as a threat right now before they creep into our system as they have in the UK.

I know thatís a hard truth. I know itís not easy for some to admit. But we must be eyes wide open before itís too late.
[Reply]
vailpass 06:34 PM 12-06-2018
Originally Posted by NinerDoug:
I think this is all academic anyway. Nobody is going to tell her she can't wear a headscarf.
No. But they should.
[Reply]
NinerDoug 06:37 PM 12-06-2018
Originally Posted by vailpass:
No. But they should.
:-)
[Reply]
NinerDoug 06:38 PM 12-06-2018
Originally Posted by vailpass:
Muslims present a singularly unique danger to our country. It warrants treating them as a threat right now before they creep into our system as they have in the UK.

I know thatís a hard truth. I know itís not easy for some to admit. But we must be eyes wide open before itís too late.
If you're talking about some sort of government policy that treats them differently based upon the fact that they are Muslims, you're going to run into this problem with Amendment No. 1. Not going to happen.
[Reply]
Page 6 of 8
« First < 23456 78 >
Up