I think you need to relax. You are going ahead of yourself.
-
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
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Nope not at all, it shouldn't matter what religion a person is, the rule and laws stands as is, for everyone.
If one person can get rules and laws changed because of their Religious belief's so can Christians, otherwise it's discriminating against another Religious belief's.
The Christians can wear crosses and crucifixes; she can wear her headscarf. Where is the discrimination?
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
You’re not comparing like-with-like. You can already have religious symbols in government buildings; individuals can wear or carry them, keep them in their offices etc. What is being requested for the floor of Congress is already permitted elsewhere.
The examples your thinking of is government imposition of specific religious symbols in public areas. You can make arguments either way in those cases but they’re not entirely comparable to this one.
Not for simple accommodation. There are a few - not many, but a few - Christian denominations that have headwear requirements; they're now accommodated, too.
I think you're having trouble differentiating between two things:
- accommodating a diverse spectrum of people so that their voices can be heard.
- imposing beliefs and practices from one religion on others.
Separation of church and state isn't about preventing religious people from participating in government or expressing their religious views; it's about ensuring that religions and religious organizations don't get special treatment by the government, whether that means special benefits or special impositions.
And I also think you need to recognize something: American institutions have accommodation of Christians built in:
- the standard work week avoids your weekly days of worship.
- offices close on your holidays.
- every uniform and dress code has been designed to accommodate mainstream Christian views on modesty.
- cafeterias generally provide food options to accommodate mainstream Christian dietary restrictions (e.g. fish on Fridays).
The accommodation we're talking about here is much less than what Christians already get.
"We have to keep Muslims away from power! If we don't, what will stop them from using that power to abuse non-Muslims the way that Christians have used their power to abuse non-Christians?!"
Why do you think there was a ban on hats in the first place?
She isn't asking to put a scarf on a government building. She is asking to be allowed to *wear* a scarf. Christians can wear their symbols also, as can Jews. None of those should be put on the buildings.
There is a huge difference there.
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 problem of separation of church and state is not Muslim women wearing scarves, or as allowed Christians wearing crosses, or any other symbol, but with fundamentalist Christians trying to legislate religious beliefs in the states and the USA.
Not any more accommodation than any other member of Congress wearing a religious symbol which is allowed.
Of course not, because no religious symbols are allowed on government buildings.
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.
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.
Last edited:
Capital L on Lemon: from the case Lemon v Kurtzman. Lemon was a person.
Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia
When I grew up, gentlemen removed their hats when they came indoors, regardless. I suspect the custom is related to the reason.
We don't care if someone wants to wear headgear (religious or otherwise) in Congress.
Moreover, I'd love to see this there....
Back when that law was passed, an awful lot of standard hear wear was pretty darned intrusive, including male hats like stovepipes. Seems to me the law could use some updating.
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
It's a free election, and the voters of that district have chosen who they want to represent their interests in Congress. I don't know much about her, but the Wiki article about her said that "she supports a $15 hourly minimum wage[22] and free tuition for college students whose family income is below $125,000." Sounds good to me, regardless of her religion or whatever she wears on her head. Ilhan Omar - Wikipedia
She won with nearly 78% of the vote, although this appears to be a heavily Democratic district.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
There's is no different, when she asking for the rules and laws in Congress to be changed to accommodate her belief's.
And since the rule/law was established back in 1837, no one else complained.
Since and before the destruction of the twin towers in NYC. Muslims have been trying to over take the United States, as Muslims do no matter what Country they go to, sooner or later, they want to changed that Country in the way they all think and believe.
Muslims come here thinking that their Sharia law over rides our Constitution.
As Muslims do in every country they go into, thinking their Sharia law over rides the laws every Country they go into.
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.
It was originally to show respect, and failure of a man to remove his hat indoors or in the presence of nobility was seen as disrespectful.
But:
- "hat honour" as it was practiced in English-speaking countries never applied to women. In fact, there were many contexts where women were required to cover their heads indoors for the sake of decorum.
- wearing a hijab (or kippah, or turban) has no cultural connotation of disrespect.
- these garments don't cause practical problems (e.g. blocking people's view).
Reasons to wear hats in the House:
The Ban on Hats on the House Floor | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
...Echoing earlier objections, Father of the House Lewis Williams of North Carolina argued that if Members were “to sit without hats” they would have no place to put them (the Old House Chamber had no facilities such as the modern day cloakrooms). Other Members stressed the symbolic value of the tradition, noting that members of the British House of Commons wore hats during debate to symbolize that body’s independence from the King of England. John M. Patton of Virginia defended “the really harmless but apparently indecorous practice of wearing our hats” as a manifestation of the House’s resolute rejection of presidential meddlesomeness. “Regarding then this usage as merely ‘the outward and visible sign of the inward and spiritual’ freedom of this body from all executive control or interference, let us preserve it,” Patton declared on the floor. “And whenever, if ever, our executive magistrates shall attempt to employ any improper influence on this body, let us be found with our hats on.”
The Ban on Hats on the House Floor | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives