No, it is not. Christians, unless ordained clergy acting as such, do not wear hats.
-
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?
- Thread starter Faithofchristian
- Start date
No, it is not. Christians, unless ordained clergy acting as such, do not wear hats.
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.
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:
Some Quakers (though admittedly a small number these days) still refuse to take off their hats for reasons of religion and conscience:
Testimony of equality - Wikipedia
Thanks.
SoiEiMeSil
Member
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
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?
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.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,
That's because accommodating her hurts nobody and helps the cause of democracy.
Why don't you want Muslim women to serve in Congress?
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
We don't care if someone wants to wear headgear (religious or otherwise) in Congress.
Moreover, I'd love to see this there....
You will see tRump pass out aluminum foil helmets first to protect against illegal aliens.
Your refusal to acknowledge the important differences doesn't mean they don't exist.
You're just not interested in honest discussion on this, are you?
This is one of the dumbest threads I've seen in a while. 
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.
I don't believe that I am the one with this problem.
Tom
exchemist
Veteran Member
Face it, you are up in arms about this because it is a muslim
.I simply do not believe we would have this thread if it were a Sikh wanting to wear his turban.
The Constitution doesn't mention hats.
Similarly, I wouldn't force a Sikh to lose the turban.
Hells bells...I'd ditch the whole dress code.
It's the reason we have no Pastafarians in power.
Shad
Veteran Member
Oh look one the target demographics of the Dems is getting special consideration. I will just leave this here.
List of Jewish members of the United States Congress - Wikipedia
List of Jewish members of the United States Congress - Wikipedia
Actually, it is to accommodate diversity.
Because generally we support diversity in Government.
You really think that's in the Constitution?
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