Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Igel

(35,270 posts)

24. No.

Reply to not_the_one (Reply #21)

Sun Nov 18, 2018, 07:02 PM

Nov 2018

No kippahs. No hijabs. No top hats or cowboy hats. No Carmen Miranda fruit bowls. No Indian headdresses.

Toupes and wigs are in a different category. But like tables and chairs, if you try hard you can blur what's usually a pretty obvious difference.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Democrats Want to Change a 181-Year-Old Rule to Allow Religious Headwear in the House [View all] sheshe2 Nov 2018 OP

Incredible this is a thing, and it's just a turban. JHan Nov 2018 #1

Thanks, JHan. sheshe2 Nov 2018 #2

a scarf is not a hat and women have always been allowed to wear hats indoors. demigoddess Nov 2018 #3

And with that, these idiots heads will explode: AZ8theist Nov 2018 #4

Yep. That they will! sheshe2 Nov 2018 #5

No, cause now they get to wear their cult-hats in the chamber lol...Wins for everyone! Volaris Nov 2018 #19

Decades ago they made NYC Congresswoman Bella Abzug take off her trademark hat and.... George II Nov 2018 #6

Like Rand Paul? sheshe2 Nov 2018 #8

Bazinga! George II Nov 2018 #9

That thing on his head is frightening. sheshe2 Nov 2018 #11

I think its a snap-on 912gdm Nov 2018 #28

It's an endangered species. Leave it alone. Yavin4 Nov 2018 #36

OMG sheshe2 Nov 2018 #37

Hey she. SixString Nov 2018 #38

181 years ago? Must have been anti-Jewish for then. keithbvadu2 Nov 2018 #7

Most likely. sheshe2 Nov 2018 #10

I looked it up and it wasn't rpannier Nov 2018 #33

Interesting... link? keithbvadu2 Nov 2018 #34

Here's one of them rpannier Nov 2018 #35

Thanks.... interesting term - 'Father of the House' keithbvadu2 Nov 2018 #40

I expect to see a few red MAGA hats in the chamber. JustABozoOnThisBus Nov 2018 #12

Make it religous only Fatemah2774 Nov 2018 #13

To Republicans, the two are indistinguishable. nt JustABozoOnThisBus Nov 2018 #14

"Congress shall make no law..." Iggo Nov 2018 #31

So if a nun who wears a habit and head cover were elected to Congress??? TNNurse Nov 2018 #15

the law would be for things like that JI7 Nov 2018 #17

But not now. TNNurse Nov 2018 #25

"I told you Sharia Law was comin' Sue Ellen! Git me my AR-15, woman!" sandensea Nov 2018 #16

Please Congress, join us in the 21st Century. LakeArenal Nov 2018 #18

why grant privege to the religionists. allow all headwear. nt msongs Nov 2018 #20

Why is this a thing? It is not a burka. It is a head scarf. Equinox Moon Nov 2018 #22

Yarmulkes are not allowed either (n/t) leftynyc Nov 2018 #41

As discussed earlier Fatemah2774 Nov 2018 #23

Are yarmulkes allowed? not_the_one Nov 2018 #21

No. Igel Nov 2018 #24

The headline states that it has to do with religious head wear. sheshe2 Nov 2018 #27

I agree Raine Nov 2018 #39

here come the MAGA hats. nt MadDAsHell Nov 2018 #26

Sheesh. They need to concentrate on important stuff, not headwear. Red Raider 85 Nov 2018 #29

This IS Important Stuff. MineralMan Nov 2018 #30

What other monumentous legislation do you think they should have come up with... Iggo Nov 2018 #32

Democratic House Rules Proposal sl8 Nov 2018 #42

OK, what about Pastafarianism? HAB911 Nov 2018 #43