• 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?

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
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,
 
Last edited:

Altfish

Veteran Member
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.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
I just want to point out all head wear has been banned in congress on the house floor for the last 181 years. That includes kippahs, hijabs, etc.
 

Faithofchristian

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

.

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.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
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.

Again, this is about a ban on hats. Remind me again what kind of hats are exclusive to Christianity...
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
Wearing a headscarf (or even a crucifix for that matter) when in a building temporarily is not the same as literally placing religious symbolism that stays there forever. Even I know that much about Merican politics.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Again, this is about a ban on hats. Remind me again what kind of hats are exclusive to Christianity...

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.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
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.
That's outright support though. This lady can argue that she literally cannot remove her headscarf and still consider herself practicing her faith. I mean fine whatever. Christians are perfectly capable of practicing their faith in a government setting without their religous symbols anywhere.
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Wearing a headscarf (or even a crucifix for that matter) when in a building temporarily is not the same as literally placing religious symbolism that stays there forever. Even I know that much about Merican politics.

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.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium 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.
Christians always claim this slippery slope of "look what happens next." I have yet to see anything happen despite countless encounters of such warnings.
I mean maybe someone will sue for religious imagery or something. Then it'll be up to your government to interpret your constitution to see if said suit is correct or not.
I, for one, won't be holding my breath however.
 
Top