It’s not playing grammar police, it’s playing syntax police.

Are we still respecting everyone’s religious beliefs about clothing? Probably not and with good reason.

Except there’s no sect within Christianity that believes you should always be holding a cross and bible, thus when someone is doing it it’s pretty logical to think they’re thinking about their religion at that specific moment. In contrast to a headscarf, which some Muslims do wear all the time. For instance, I don’t…

You’re just persistently mistaking the thing for the symbol of the thing. The problem with religion in government is legislators attempting to impose their religion on others by force of law (or force of arms). Wearing or not wearing a religious symbol has nothing to do with it, and would not affect the legislators’…

I’m good with removing the “under god” as well, along with any official mentions of religion or god from any speeches/statements that the MOCs make in their official capacity.

But they are citizens, and I believe they should be able to wear whatever personal items they want in their work places. For one thing, I think…

Which is still rather suspicious timing. Almost like due to a rising number of Jewish immigrants the Senate decided to take action. The hat ban is still Anti-Semetic (and Anti-Muslim and Anti-Sikh) in its current form regardless of its intent.

I would say that if they feel the need to have faith present in the guise of a chaplain they should rotate and have a rabbi and imam too. Allowing a headscarf or yarmulke to be worn is no big deal IMO.

You can protect freedom of religion and the separation of church and state without bans on personal religious adornments. And anyway, there’s no telling how such a ban would have any material effect in the first place. Evangelical fundamentalists use their faith as a reason to restrict women’s rights. But so do…

do we really want to encourage members of Congress to express their faith while they’re working?

The problem isn’t that minority groups are more religious, the problem is that a ban on religious garb would most especially, if not exclusively, impact members of religious minority groups.

Correct, it does not conflict. The House regulates plenty of speech in the context of their rules but that’s not unconstitutional. That clause doesn’t apply to internal rules.

There’s no ban on religious iconography. It’s very specific and bigoted ban that is impacting Muslim women specifically. 

Thanks for the help!

OMG I didn’t see it that way but that’s TOTALLY WHAT THAT WAS.

It’s particularly disturbing that it’s about a Jezebel commenter being raped, when obviously anyone who reads the story will also be a Jezebel commenter :-(

Everyone should flag his posts, dismiss his replies and stop replying to him. He’s probably getting exactly the reaction he was hoping for when he posted that BS.

Flag it.

Right, exactly and now I’m still stewing over his comment back to another person. About how he should go and pray for forgiveness if someone sends a naked pic. and he makes a comment about her anatomy. Ughh! Shut this person down into the greys already.

and please remember - the state health department needs to test the brain tissue to confirm or deny the presence of rabies. When you’re trying to determine the best method to humanely euthanize a possibly rabid family member, keep this in mind.

my family’s real tight, and our core body temp is too low to harbor the virus, so...