Where's the Separation of Religion and State?

[Curious George]

Take the Lemon test.
1.The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2.The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3.The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

Headwear does not dictate the government's action; it is not a government action that advances or inhibits a religion; and it does not entangle government with religion.

PS: It should also be protected as a private expression of person, but I don't know if the U.S. has a corresponding protection for such a right.

I think the endorsement test is the one to apply here.

 

[columbus]

Why don't you want Muslim women to serve in Congress?

Why is her headscarf more important than minimum wage reform?
Tom

 

[Shad]

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?
Conversely, didn't other people argue that the baker deserved a tiny exemption from the law, due to his "sincerely held religious beliefs"? Why is it different when it's a Muslim?
Tom

I think a better comparison is the clerk that refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on her religious views. Both are public servants so religious accommodation between government (system) and those that work within it are shared.

Davis was the last name I think.

 

[viole]

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

• By Tara Golshan
• on November 7, 2018 1:31 pm

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,

The separation of religion and state dows not entail that state officers cannot show signs of their religion. I don’t know there, but here nobody cares if a state officer wears a necklace with a cross, a moon, or some pasta symbols.

Separation entails that that girl cannot enforce public policy because it conflicts with her creed. That is where she will be tested against that value.

And if she succeed in keeping her religion and public policy separate, then she will be much better than people wearing secular ties while saying that abortion and gay marriages are against god.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Willamena]

I think the endorsement test is the one to apply here.

That test, too, is about an act of Government, which, in this case, is the proposal to change House rules to allow for greater diversity.

Government is composed of "We, The People," individuals that represent all walks of society. The greater the diversity of Representatives of The People, the better. There is nothing about this rule change that appears to support or favour any one religion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

Nope. That would be government endorsing and promoting Christianity, which goes beyond accommodating Christians complying with their religious beliefs..

So where's the out cry from Atheist and the Gay community,

Outcry over what? This woman being allowed to wear her hijab? I don't care. It doesn't affect anybody else. What I do object to is Christianity in government trying to reduce or eliminate access to safe, legal abortion. That gets an outcry from this atheist.

Maybe you don't understand what secular humanists (most atheists in the West) actually advocate. If you did, you might understand why this is not an issue for most of us.

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

A hijab is not religion, nor is wearing one or the right to wear one an endorsement of a religion.

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

Disagree, but if you think so, you should advocate for the removal of the Ten Commandments and all other religious symbols from government. And end government meetings beginning with prayer.

So if I'm getting you right, than a Christian can ask Congress to accommodate them by letting Christians have Christian symbol's on Government buildings.

How is that accommodating the Christian? The Christian has no religious precept commanding him to put his symbols on buildings in the way that the Muslim woman does regarding her dress code.

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.

I'm glad that you feel that the religious should not be allowed to change the rules for others, but that's going to happen in America anyway, and it will be the Christians doing it on their own behalf.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I never said there weren't any differences.

Yes, you did. You called the differences "nonexistent."

I pointed out that I see the similarities, and that I see those as more important.

Right: you're unwilling to consider the specifics in the cases that would lead to someone saying that the bake shop customers AND the Representative should both be accommodated.

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 a religious obligation. In practical terms, the choice isn't between having her fully serve her constituents wearing a hijab or having her fully serve them without; it's between:
- her fully serving her constituents wearing a hijab
- her serving her constituents, but in an impaired way.
- her stepping down and leaving her position vacant until a special election.

The last two options are an affront of the democratic rights of the citizens she represents.

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.

Or not hypocritical at all, if you were to put a bit more thought into the issues.

I don't believe that I am the one with this problem.
Tom

Of course you don't.

 

[columbus]

I think a better comparison is the clerk that refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on her religious views. Both are public servants so religious accommodation between government (system) and those that work within it are shared.

Davis was the last name I think.

I don't see the Davis thing as at all comparable.
She was pointedly refusing to follow a ruling from SCOTUS, and her bosses, to provide a government service. She didn't have to do it, she could resign. But she wouldn't do either.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is her headscarf more important than minimum wage reform?
Tom

What?

 

[shunyadragon]

The congresswoman's first duty ought to be to the constitution, lose the hat.

She is not wearing a hat.

 

[columbus]

Yes, you did. You called the differences "nonexistent."

Sorry I was not excruciatingly precise.
I've noticed how often that's a problem amongst extremists. I should have known better by now.

I was referring to important differences. I see the similarities as vastly more important than the differences.
Yes, of course it's true that the baker was Christian and the politician Muslim. I admit to being wrong, there definitely are differences.
Tom

 

[columbus]

What?

A plank in her platform was raising minimum wage to $15/hr.
I am not sure which is more important to her, Muslim headwear or minimum wage.
I would like to believe representing her constituency is her top priority, but religious people can be quite irrational at times.
Tom

 

[Curious George]

That test, too, is about an act of Government, which, in this case, is the proposal to change House rules to allow for greater diversity.

Government is composed of "We, The People," individuals that represent all walks of society. The greater the diversity of Representatives of The People, the better. There is nothing about this rule change that appears to support or favour any one religion.

I agree that a reasonable person would not see the allowing of an individual to wear a hijab would not amount to the government endorsing Islam. That said, I understand the argument that the OP is trying to make. The idea that a longstanding rule is changed seemingly for a Muslim when no action was taken for other faiths. The air it puts on is that of favoritism. Though one would be hard pressed to suggest that such favoritism exists for Muslims in the U.S.

The only reason I suggest the endorsement test is because of what the OP is trying to compare.

I often find myself at odds with some individuals who try to prop up the separation of church ans state to anything that is Christian. I can only assume that is why the OP has attempted to call out Athiests over the issue.

In other words, the poster is not so much worried about the actual rule change but by the fact that atheists (on here at least) are not bothered by it.

I think you went further to try to explain the process of thought which is more important than the wearing of hats.

 

[Willamena]

I agree that a reasonable person would not see the allowing of an individual to wear a hijab would not amount to the government endorsing Islam. That said, I understand the argument that the OP is trying to make. The idea that a longstanding rule is changed seemingly for a Muslim when no action was taken for other faiths. The air it puts on is that of favoritism. Though one would be hard pressed to suggest that such favoritism exists for Muslims in the U.S.

That's a spin, though: someone had to be first. That this proposal drafted by Pelosi, McGovern, and Omar, comes along now is timely, rather than suspect, in its appearance. Omar is a good excuse to introduce the proposal, rather than the reason to introduce it.

The only reason I suggest the endorsement test is because of what the OP is trying to compare.

I often find myself at odds with some individuals who try to prop up the separation of church ans state to anything that is Christian. I can only assume that is why the OP has attempted to call out Athiests over the issue.

In other words, the poster is not so much worried about the actual rule change but by the fact that atheists (on here at least) are not bothered by it.

I think you went further to try to explain the process of thought which is more important than the wearing of hats.

Thanks. I would suggest that atheists are not bothered about it because there is nothing to be bothered about. Appearances are in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Shad]

I don't see the Davis thing as at all comparable.
She was pointedly refusing to follow a ruling from SCOTUS, and her bosses, to provide a government service. She didn't have to do it, she could resign. But she wouldn't do either.
Tom

The SCOTUS ruling covered legislation not clerk duties. A clerk has no power to create legislation thus your point not applicable. It is the same as a religion conviction is preventing the public servant from performing their duties. In the end she was given an accommodation. She didn't have to follow a rule regarding her duties. The government expanded issuing marriage licenses beyond Davis and her position to avoid slowdowns due to said religious conviction.

My general point is when it comes to a targeted demographic Dems are quick to babble religious accommodations to prevent an issue but not for Christians in a similar case.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

There's no outcry because, unlike some Christians, atheists and gays recognize that accommodation doesn't equal support.

.

Excellent point. But why don't atheists also recognize that having a Christmas tree on public property also does not mean support, only accommodation?

 

[Curious George]

That's a spin, though: someone had to be first. That this proposal drafted by Pelosi, McGovern, and Omar, comes along now is timely, rather than suspect, in its appearance. Omar is a good excuse to introduce the proposal, rather than the reason to introduce it.


Thanks. I would suggest that atheists are not bothered about it because there is nothing to be bothered about. Appearances are in the eye of the beholder.

I agree that there is nothing bothering about this. That said, there have been times when people are bothered by what even I as an atheist think there is nothing about which to be bothered.

The important step in communication here is to articulate, as you have done, why the situation is not bothersome. In doimg this, hopefully we can show people like the OP that we are not just out to get the xians.

 

[Ellen Brown]

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

• By Tara Golshan
• on November 7, 2018 1:31 pm

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,

Doing my best not to laugh at or ridicule the ignorant. If a woman is Jewish, she can wear her "religious headgear" because certain sects of Judaism have the option of wearing a wig... Um so you'd likely never know.

If you are Christian and know your Bible, women are supposed to cover their hair.

I'd say that forbidding a woman from wearing Hijab is petty and mean spirited. It might be likely that some Muslims would then want Muslim prayer there, and then they'd begin stumping about Halal food in the Cafeteria.

I only came here to contribute to the chaos.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry I was not excruciatingly precise.
I've noticed how often that's a problem amongst extremists. I should have known better by now.

I was referring to important differences. I see the similarities as vastly more important than the differences.
Yes, of course it's true that the baker was Christian and the politician Muslim. I admit to being wrong, there definitely are differences.
Tom

BTW - you mentioned hypocrisy earlier; any insight on how being against the accommodation of the bakers' customers but in favour of accommodation of Rep. Omar's hijab isn't hypocritical?

... because that is your position, right?

 

[Jainarayan]

The congresswoman's first duty ought to be to the constitution, lose the hat.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". She's covered under the US Constitution. A Constitution, which I might add, trumps (ooh! he said "trump") all other laws.

Booyah! I win the thread.