Religion
Related: About this forumNewly elected House member Ilhan Omar will
accomplish something that has needed doing for 181 years. Because of her a rule against wearing religious headwear will be changed. The patriarchy will change a rule that has prevented male Jewish members from wearing the kippah as well. The Christian intolerance that has prevailed for so long will end because of a young Muslim woman.
It's long past time.
cilla4progress
(26,080 posts)Not a big fan of religion, but of equality.
MineralMan
(148,398 posts)religious freedom and equality, despite being an atheist. My freedom from religion depends on that.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Did not realize that was the history or, frankly, even an issue. Find it stunning that it took a Muslim woman to make it right again. Wonder if Jewish men will actually start wearing their kippah? (Just learned that term, as well) That would be one thing that would stand out in the Republican's photo ops.
It is a new day...thanks to all these new, young, minority, female, energetic and groundbreaking voters, resulting in same as members of the House.
MineralMan
(148,398 posts)TomSlick
(12,107 posts)Said another way, has there ever been a Congressman who usually wore a kippah but did not on the House floor?
As best I can tell, the purpose of the rule was to prevent male Congressman from wearing hats in the chamber. From internet research, wearing hats in the chamber was thought to be a British parliamentary tradition when the rule passed in 1837.
https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1800-1850/The-debate-over-the-rule-to-ban-hats-on-the-House-Floor/
You would think that in the years since 1837, surely some Congressman would have worn a kippah in the chamber.
TwistOneUp
(1,020 posts)Mr.Bill
(24,906 posts)to stop wearing those ridiculous toupees.
sandensea
(22,850 posts)They've gotten a little less obvious since the days of Bob Walker (Pennsylavia Republican, and a total Gingrich lackey); but not much.
Pope George Ringo II
(1,896 posts)On the one hand, it's definitely good that keeping somebody else's invisible friend happy doesn't dictate their attire.
On the other hand, it's actually rather sad that their own invisible friend does.
MineralMan
(148,398 posts)What a person wears on his or her head is totally up to them, as far as I'm concerned. What I like is that an old patriarchal, religious rule is going away with this change. All the better.
Pope George Ringo II
(1,896 posts)But the right to wear silly clothes and waste large chunks of your life performing silly rituals is better observed in the breach than in the observance. However important it may be that they're not prevented from doing so, it's always sad to see somebody actually do it.
MineralMan
(148,398 posts)I'm sure I do, as well, in the eyes of some. I would rather that my personal silliness not be objected to by others, in favor of their own silliness.
Pope George Ringo II
(1,896 posts)Excelsior.
MineralMan
(148,398 posts)I'm for the windmill!