Where's the Separation of Religion and State?

[icehorse]

"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.

From the OP:

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.

We have established a large body of laws to interpret the constitution. If we are to trust the OP, then one of those laws bans headwear in the house.

Booyah!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

The rule against headwear is a procedural rule. It isn't "the Constitution;" it isn't even a law.

 

[Sanzbir]

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

Because it fundamentally matters.

If it's just some person wearing something they own into a government building, I don't care.

If you want a cross to be erected at a government building, that's my tax dollars going into that.

So then I care because that would be the government taking money from me to build a monument. This woman is not taking my tax dollars to erect a minaret at the capital building, right?? Then I don't care what she wears.

So even if my religion condemns and bans the hijab (which it does), I don't care about this politician wearing whatever the heck she wants to wear. NOR do I care about Christian politicians carrying crucifixes or bibles into work with them, and I know of a few who do that openly. Nor do I care about Mitt Romney's underwear situation.

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

The cultural custom has always been for men to remove their headwear when indoors.

Not women.

If you don't like that fact, take it up with your own culture.

Also don't say "rules/laws". It isn't a "law", it's a rule and a cultural custom (at least a custom for men). Don't conflate laws into this when laws aren't what's at question here.

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

If there was a rule against Mitt Romney's underwear, I'd definitely be for letting him wear it because it doesn't effect me or my tax dollars in the slightest. So why would I care??

If there were rules against wearing crucifixes or the like, exceptions should be allowed for that too.

And you're statement here is totally freaking wrong because Pope Francis wore a hat in the building and was allowed to do so despite these rules and no one cared in the slightest.

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

Really?? Well then who cared when Pope Francis was given an exception??

But now here's comes a Muslim woman and not one peep from any Atheists or the gay communitys.

Sure, there's plenty of incidents where there are double standards in regards to the treatment of religion by the majority religion and minority faiths.

This isn't one, however, given Pope Francis' hat.

Wanting to changed the rules/laws just to accommodate her.

I don't think she knew about the rule or advocated this, but I could be wrong because I don't really like her politics or follow what she does as she's not my representative.

Likely this is an attempt by the Democrats to signal that they are inclusive by allowing yarmulkes and hijabs in the building formally. Likely they just want to capitalize on the PR of doing this and nothing else. Politics as usual.

When in fact no one had any problems with the rules/laws, since the rule/law that was established back 1837.

Here's the thing.

There were no problems with those rules or laws because everyone just took for granted an exception on religious garb. That's why Pope Francis wore his hat, and that's why many of the aides of congress people wear various types of religious hats already.

There hasn't been any problem because the rule hasn't been enforced against practicing Jews or other hats worn by political aides or guests in the past. Heck Rep. Carolyn Maloney once wore a full burqa as a publicity stunt and no one cared.

So making the exception formal is completely unnecessary, in my opinion, as it has been long since established that religious headwear and even other forms of head covering (like Maloney's stunt) are permitted as exceptions to the rule.

So the attempt to formalize an exception that already exists is probably just an attempt to virtue signal as a PR stunt.

But don't pretend like exceptions to this rule haven't always existed.

And certainly don't pretend like Christians would not be afforded the same exception, when just such an exception was made for the Pope.

 

[Sanzbir]

Look at this horrendous rule-breaker!!

A hat indoors!! They'd never allow a Christian to get away with such an exception to a law no one really knew or cared about for a hundred years!!

 

[Skwim]

So what your saying is, that accommodation doesn't equal support.

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.

They can ask whatever they like.

This is what your saying, as long the Government is Accommodating and not supporting,

Yup

So whats all the fuss about Religious symbol's on Government buildings, The Government is only Accommodating Christians.

Nope

But however if you had read what this Muslim woman is asking Congress, to Change the rules of Congress to support her Religious belief, So there's no accommodating when a person wants rules or laws changed to support their Religious belief's.

If the accommodation rises to the level of support it's verboten.

To accommodate means to Accommodate without any changes of rules or laws.

Your dictionary source please.

Then that would alright because, it's not a support, but accommodating the Christian in their beliefs.

If the accommodation rises to the level of support it's verboten.

So if people go by what your saying, then why are Atheist making all the fuss about Christians symbol's on Government buildings about ?

Because it amounts to supporting the religion.

The Government is only Accommodating Christians, by letting Christians put their Religious symbol's on Government buildings.So whats all the fuss about.

It would amount to more than "only accommodating." It would amount to supporting the religion.

I guess you stuck your foot in mouth on that one.

Poor guess.


.

 

[Jainarayan]

We have established a large body of laws to interpret the constitution.

Which are frequently overturned because our lawmakers know less of the Constitution than my Shih tzus do.

 

[icehorse]

Which are frequently overturned because our lawmakers know less of the Constitution than my Shih tzus do.

Well this particular law has been around for 180 years or so

 

[icehorse]

Listen guys, the separation of church and state is one of our most powerful tools in making a successful society. We should be very careful about screwing around with these tools. Even minor incursions should be thought through very carefully.

 

[Jainarayan]

Well this particular law has been around for 180 years or so

Maybe it won't see 181 years. Longevity is no indicator of it being right. It's just that it has never been challenged... until now. Same sex marriage was not legal in the US for over 220 years until the right case was brought before the SCOTUS.

 

[Skwim]

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

Because, while putting a Xmas tree on public property does accommodate the wishes of mindless Christians, it also amounts to supporting their religion. It would support Christians in their attempt to use public property, property that belongs to all of us, you and I, to promote their religious beliefs. On the other hand, allowing a person to wear clothes mandated by one's religion, which BTW is not done to promote their religion, simply doesn't rise to the level supporting that religion. None of us owns the bodies of others.


.

 

[shunyadragon]

Because, while putting a Xmas tree on public property does accommodate the wishes of mindless Christians, it also amounts to supporting their religion. It would support Christians in their attempt to use public property, property that belongs to all of us, you and I, to promote their religious beliefs. On the other hand, allowing a person to wear clothes mandated by one's religion, which BTW is not done to promote their religion, simply doesn't rise to the level supporting that religion. None of us owns the bodies of others.


.

Actually Christmas trees are more Germanic/Nordic tradition commemorating the Winter solstice than Christian.

 

[Sanzbir]

Actually Christmas trees are more Germanic/Nordic tradition commemorating the Winter solstice than Christian.

Yeah, they've clearly evolved into being more of a general cultural relic rather than purely a religious one. I've got one. They're popular in highly-atheistic Japan.

Christmas trees on public land should be fine. They're more of a staple of American culture than they are of specifically Christianity. I don't see how it would promote religion given the ubiquitiousness of the symbol and the prevalence of non-Christians such as myself setting them up.

Originally a Pagan Yule cultural relic. Then a Christian Christmas one. Now it's a common winter decoration for many cultures and religions. The symbol has evolved.

 

[Skwim]

Actually Christmas trees are more Germanic/Nordic tradition commemorating the Winter solstice than Christian.

I have a good idea that when Christians put an angel on top of their Christmas trees they're not thinking about the winter solstice.

.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So what your saying is, that accommodation doesn't equal support.

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.

Why are you trying to conflate an individual member's dress with symbols on the state buildings?
These are clearly NOT the same thing.

If this woman was asking for a crescent moon to be placed on the building, do you think there wouldn't be an outcry?
Do you have an issue with crucifix's being worn? Stars of David?

Or are you too busy trying to find something to complain about to worry about a little thing like intellectual consistency?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It doesn't matter whether its on a building or on a person, accommodating is still accommodating a religious beliefs.

Accommodating is not supporting.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have a good idea that when Christians put an angel on to of their Christmas trees they're not thinking about the winter solstice.

.

When this dirty atheist puts an angel on top of the tree, he's mostly wondering if he should have banned Tinkerbell movies from his house.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

*blinks*

Talk about self aware....

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This is the problem you make one exception, expect a flood of other similar requests. What about the Sikh's Kirpan, should that be allowed.

Are colanders allowed; they are sacred to Pastaferians.

I could care less if someone wears a colander on their head. I wouldn't vote for them, but whatevs. As long as their constituency knew when they voted, and their face isn't covered.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So what your saying is, that accommodation doesn't equal support.

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.

This is what your saying, as long the Government is Accommodating and not supporting, So whats all the fuss about Religious symbol's on Government buildings, The Government is only Accommodating Christians.

But however if you had read what this Muslim woman is asking Congress, to Change the rules of Congress to support her Religious belief, So there's no accommodating when a person wants rules or laws changed to support their Religious belief's.

To accommodate means to Accommodate without any changes of rules or laws.


Then that would alright because, it's not a support, but accommodating the Christian in their beliefs.

Yeah I can see already how that would fly off.
So if people go by what your saying, then why are Atheist making all the fuss about Christians symbol's on Government buildings about ?

The Government is only Accommodating Christians, by letting Christians put their Religious symbol's on Government buildings.So whats all the fuss about.

I guess you stuck your foot in mouth on that one.

BTW, why are you so bang on for atheists to fight your battle for you?
A Muslim wearing a headscarf in a Congress building where lip service belief in God has been an almost invariable requirement, and where atheists don't declare themselves atheist since they'll be booted from office?

And we're supposed to be up in arms?

Phhht.

At this point almost any diversity seems healthy.

 

[Milton Platt]

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,

If the pope were to address congress, would he have to remove his hat?