Hijabs and religious head coverings okay in Congress, secular hats not? Religion once again gets a pass

Time for this man to run for congress:


(1) Constitutional law matters. The Founding Fathers didn’t want to repeat the religious strife of centuries of European history. So they found a middle ground.

(2) Compromises in regard to diversity can be a very good thing.

(3) Congress can change its rules to reflect changes in cultural values. There is greater respect for diversity than in 1837 when the no-head-covering rule was established.

I remember how deadly serious was the issue of men and boys wearing a hat inside a building in the 1950’s and 1960’s. (I even think that there were occasional arrests for such under the label of “disorderly conduct” laws but I don’t know if I could document that memory.) In school we were always told that wearing a hat indoors was a terrible act of disrespect. That societal prohibition was very slow to soften.


Pastafarians seem very much guilty of what ID is accused of, but in the opposite way. They are pretending to be religious, when they are clearly secular. If ID is going to be treated as a religious claim, despite their claims, shouldn’t Pastafarians be treated as secular gamesmanship?


There is no “seeming”. FSM is very deliberate mockery of Intelligent Design. If you were not already aware, here is a bit of history:


This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.