• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Where's the Separation of Religion and State?

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
That said, I am feeling a bunch of hypocrisy in this thread. Didn't a bunch of people argue that the Colorado baker should either follow the law or get out of the business? Why is it different when it's a Muslim?
It's not hypocrisy; it's the same principles at work: a Muslim woman should be accommodated in elected office just as an LGBTQ couple should be accommodated when accessing basic services. Moreso for the elected office than a wedding cake, in fact, since shutting a duly-elected representative out of their elected office is an affront to the values of a free democracy.

But it sounds like you're more interested in comparing the Colorado baker to the member of Congress. There are some important distinctions between them:

- the right to serve in Congress is a fundamental right that underpins denocracy. No person has the absolute right to operate a particular business in their particular desired way. All businesses have to deal with regulations and economic realities.

- accommodating the baker's bigoted business practices would hurt others. Accommodating Rep. Omar's hijab does not harm or disadvantage others in any way.

- the consequence of denying the baker the right to be bigoted in wedding cake sales is that he has to adjust his business slightly (e.g. keep baking, but nothing custom, for instance) or, if that doesn't work, that he has to follow his second-favourite career path instead of his #1 choice. The consequence of denying Rep. Omar her ability to sit in the House of Representatives is that her constituents' fundamental right to democratic representation would be infringed.

So all in all, very different cases.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Yeah, the rule in Congress is about hat's, so here comes a Muslim woman want to change the rule about her headscarf so by her religious beliefs can be up held.

So that means, That Christians can have Christians symbol's on Government buildings, Because the Government is only Accommodating Christians.

Wrong again. The government cannot endorse any one religion. The crucifix, pranava, Star of David, taijitu, and all other religious symbols are prohibited [on or in gov't bldgs] by the First Amendment.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
No, it is not. Christians, unless ordained clergy acting as such, do not wear hats.
Some Quakers (though admittedly a small number these days) still refuse to take off their hats for reasons of religion and conscience:

Friends' attitude towards egalitarianism is also demonstrated by their refusal to practice "hat honour" (Quakers refused to take their hats off or bow to anyone regardless of title or rank), and their rejection of styles and titles(such as Mr, Mrs, Lord, Dr, etc.), simply calling everyone by their first and last name only (i.e. John Smith rather than Mr Smith or Sir John). This testified to the Friends' understanding that, in the eyes of God, there was no hierarchy based on birth, wealth, or political power—such honours they reserved only for God. This practice was not considered by Friends to be anti-authoritarian in nature, but instead as a rebuke against human pretense and ego.

Today, resistance to "hat honour" does not prevail as it once did—most hat customs are not practiced in contemporary daily life—and the individual Friend is left to decide whether or not to practice "hat honour" as a matter of conscience.
Testimony of equality - Wikipedia
 

SoiEiMeSil

Member
But it's only Accommodating and not supporting.
So by this reasoning, Christians can say Christians symbol's on Government buildings, The Government is only Accommodating Christians, by having Christians symbol's on Government buildings.

That is a very convoluted belief that the government is using discrimination of other religions to make the Christian faith seem relevant to everyone

I'm not going to be here all day but i can't sense that you need to be a man of any necessary conviction. But as I say this I'm being misunderstood but no one here knows this yet.
So as of now I'm telling you to not be concerned about the government but the way you can change the way things work......
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
By "Accommodating Christians symbol's on Government buildings" do you mean, say, putting a cross on a government building, or do you mean allowing Christian politicians to wear crucifixes in a government building??

Because one of those things is equivalent to the above, and one is not, and your grammar is so bizarre I honestly can't tell what it is you are trying to say.


Why are you being so nitpicking, whether it's Government buildings or in a Government buildings.

It all comes down to changing rules/laws just to accommodate a person beliefs.

When in fact, people knows that if a Christian, whether it be Mormon's, JWs, Catholics or Seventh Day Adventist.

Ateists, the gay communitys would screaming ( Separation of Religion and State) and everyone knows that's a fact.

But now here's comes a Muslim woman and not one peep from any Atheists or the gay communitys.
Wanting to changed the rules/laws just to accommodate her.
When in fact no one had any problems with the rules/laws, since the rule/law that was established back 1837.
 

wandering peacefully

Which way to the woods?
Democrat Ilhan Omar becomes one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress
Omar will take Keith Ellison’s seat in the House.

AP_18229601542162.0.jpg

Democrat Ilhan Omar becomes one of the first Muslim women elected to the House of Representatives.
Jeff Baenen/AP
Minnesota state Rep. Ilhan Omar has become one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress, easily winning the election in Minnesota’s Fifth Congressional District — the Minneapolis-area district previously represented by Keith Ellison — on Tuesday.

Headwear of any kind has been banned from the House chamber since 1837. The rule, designed to outlaw the wearing of hats, was written at a time and by people who likely never imagined religious minorities rising up to help lead this nation. At Omar’s urging, Democratic leaders have proposed in their draft rules for the incoming Congress that religious headwear be permitted on the House floor.

Take notice of the last sentence --> ( that Religious headwear be permitted on the House floor)
Notice also, ( The rule, designed to outlaw the wearing of hats) Ok seeing there are Christians and other Religions who's Beliefs, are in wearing hats. So by changing the rule to accommodate the Muslim woman to wear her headscarf, would be discriminating against Christians for their wearing of hat's, or the Government not Accommodating Christians symbol's on Government buildings.

So if people want look at this as accommodating the Muslim woman, Than by all rights, Then Christians can have Christian symbol's on Government buildings, So the Government is only Accommodating Christians.

So the whole bottom line is, Not only does it involve Christians, but there is, Mormons, Jehovah witness, Catholics, Seventh Day Adventist, Ho but you don't understand, it's a Muslim, it doesn't matter, People can not discriminate against other Religions, just to up hold another Religion.

So where's the out cry from Atheist and the Gay community, About the Separation of Religion and State. A person would think the gay community and Atheists would be jumping all over this.

Even though she is Muslim, it's still trying to put Religion in the Government in Congress

One foot in the door, deserves another foot in the door.

If this was a Christian woman, could bet the gay community and Atheists would be out in numbers in the streets protesting, Sparation of State and Religion.

So whats next Muslims Sharia law, Muslims have been for some time trying to inforce their Sharia law here in the United States.

Heres the first step in that direction.

Atheists and the gay community haven't seen nothing yet.

No matter how a person trys to cut it, It's still putting Religion in the Government of the United States.

But it's only Accommodating and not supporting.
So by this reasoning, Christians can say Christians symbol's on Government buildings, The Government is only Accommodating Christians, by having Christians symbol's on Government buildings.

Stay Tune,
You have got to be kidding. Christians have gotten away with religious symbols in people's faces all over this country for 260 years. Public buildings, giant crosses on top of hills that have to be looked at every time you go to town, in God we trust every time you spend a buck, crosses around their necks on the house floor and endless other examples of Christianity shoved in people's faces. And someone is worried about a headscarf? Talk about narcissistic and having nothing better to do. When will they start opening each day congress is in session with a Muslim prayer? Will the Christians stop the ridiculous practice of opening with a Christian prayer? I certainly hope so.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
So all in all, very different cases.
You are creating a nonexistent difference by comparing apple to orange.
A Christian wants a minor exemption from law to accommodate his religious beliefs. SJWs respond "Follow the law or get out of the business".
A Muslim wants a minor exemption from law to accommodate her religious beliefs. SJWs respond "It's unreasonable to expect her to take off her scarf. We should accommodate her religious beliefs".
Tom
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
You are creating a nonexistent difference by comparing apple to orange.
Your refusal to acknowledge the important differences doesn't mean they don't exist.

A Christian wants a minor exemption from law to accommodate his religious beliefs. SJWs respond "Follow the law or get out of the business".


A Muslim wants a minor exemption from law to accommodate her religious beliefs. SJWs respond "It's unreasonable to expect her to take off her scarf. We should accommodate her religious beliefs".
Tom
You're just not interested in honest discussion on this, are you?
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Your refusal to acknowledge the important differences doesn't mean they don't exist.
I never said there weren't any differences. I pointed out that I see the similarities, and that I see those as more important.
In both cases the issue is petty to the point of irrelevance. She doesn't need the scarf and nobody needs a fancy cake.
It's the difference between people's reaction to one vs. the other that I am pointing out. Pretty darned hypocritical on the part of extremists on both ends of the spectrum.

You're just not interested in honest discussion on this, are you?
I don't believe that I am the one with this problem.
Tom
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
The congresswoman's first duty ought to be to the constitution, lose the hat.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
If you really stop and think about what your saying, even though it's only a headscarf, that's only a foot in the door with Muslims, the next things people will see, Hay we want on every buildings our symbol's of our religious beliefs.

Just Stay Tune, what will come up down the road with Muslims, one foot in the door, deserves the other foot in the door.
Face it, you are up in arms about this because it is a muslim :eek::eek:.

I simply do not believe we would have this thread if it were a Sikh wanting to wear his turban.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Why are you being so nitpicking, whether it's Government buildings or in a Government buildings.

It all comes down to changing rules/laws just to accommodate a person beliefs.
Actually, it is to accommodate diversity.

But now here's comes a Muslim woman and not one peep from any Atheists or the gay communitys.
Wanting to changed the rules/laws just to accommodate her.
When in fact no one had any problems with the rules/laws, since the rule/law that was established back 1837.
Because generally we support diversity in Government.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
The congresswoman's first duty ought to be to the constitution, lose the hat.
You really think that's in the Constitution? :rolleyes:

If everybody were being decent here,
The baker would have politely said, "That makes me uncomfortable. Anything but that." The gay couple would have politely said, "We're sorry. Who would you recommend? Please reconsider." And left it at that.
And Congress would have politely ignored an unobtrusive head scarf, since it doesn't really mean anything to anybody as much as it does to her.

But no, everybody has to get their panties in a wad to prove a point or something. The point clearly not being "I value a civil society more than ideological minutiae."

That's my point.
Tom
 
Top