In 1848, as word spread that gold had been discovered in California, we saw a rush westward by people seeking to stake claims. Democrats today, set to seat a majority in the House of Representatives come January, rushed with similar rapidity, to remove a rule concerning the conduct of business in Congress – one that has existed since long before the gleam of gold could be seen in the eye of California-bound prospectors.
At first blush, a rule that is 181 years old might seem outdated and in need of revocation. But it is the underlying reason for the rule’s revocation that raises two subtle but all-important concerns.
The change in question ends the ban against wearing hats on the floors of Congress. The motivation almost two centuries ago for its implementation was somewhat silly. It was a slap in the face at Britain – a country with which America had fought a second war only a quarter of a century earlier. Since English parliamentarians were allowed to wear hats in their legislature’s hallowed halls, American legislators sought to ban hats in a gesture of disrespect for British parliamentarian tradition. The revocation motivation now was the election of the first Muslim woman to serve in Congress, Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.
Why should there be serious concerns over revoking an archaic practice solely instituted as a no-longer-relevant sign of disrespect toward a nation now considered a close ally?
The first reason is the message the revocation sends. As Omar, comporting with Muslim tradition, wears a headscarf, rule revocation supports the argument our legislators singled out Islam as the sole benefactor of their actions.
It raises the issue of whether in doing so, their actions demonstrate favoritism toward Islam since no similar initiative ever accommodated Orthodox Jewish members of Congress mandated to wear head coverings. The bottom line is that a rule originally implemented purely for secular purposes is now being revoked for religious purposes to accommodate Islamic tradition. Granted, we are only talking about a congressional rule of conduct and not a law of the land; however, the message remains the same.
The importance of not even giving the appearance Congress has crossed the line between church and state was underscored by President Andrew Jackson in 1832. As cholera plagued the United States, Sen. Henry Clay urged Jackson to support his resolution declaring a day of prayers to save Americans from this “scourge.” Jackson refused to do so, explaining, “I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President; and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion now enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government.”
Jackson was simply following the lead of an earlier president, Thomas Jefferson, who argued the First Amendment forbade the federal government “from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises” with the president having “no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.” [Emphasis added.]
Noteworthy is that while Clay’s resolution passed the Senate, it was rejected by the House – a House today seeking to slap down a much more knowledgeable and constitutionally concerned generation of legislators.
Interestingly, even if American legislators had envisioned 181 years ago one of their own would be a Muslim woman, it is unlikely this would have given them pause – even with an eye to gender fair-mindedness – to address the issue of a headscarf. This is because nowhere in the Quran does Islam mandate such garb need be worn. It is a tradition that only came into vogue most recently in the religion’s 1,400 year existence. Unlike the traditions mandated in the Quran and, thus, claimed to emanate directly from Allah, leaving no leeway to debate, the wearing of a headscarf is a “tradition” only imposed upon women by male Muslims. As such, it is a symbol of a female Muslims’ subjugation to the wishes of the much more dominant male Muslim – a dominance totally contrary to human equality in today’s world.
Interesting too is Rep.-elect Omar’s statement recognizing archaic American thinking while remaining oblivious to archaic Muslim thinking: “There are those kinds of policies that oftentimes get created because people who have blind spots are in positions of influence and positions of power. I think it will be really exciting to see the stuff that we notice within the rules that don’t work for a modern-day America.” [Emphasis added.] As Egyptian President Sisi has lamented on several occasions, there is much about Islam failing to fit into a modern-day world and, therefore, in need of reformation.
Austria, recognizing the need to instill in Muslim females at an early age that head coverings are not a religious mandate, recently announced plans to introduce legislation banning same for young girls under the age of 10.
There is a second reason this month’s House action should cause concern. Examining the once-secret plan of the Muslim Brotherhood to undermine U.S. law and promote Shariah, written in 1991 and accidentally discovered in 2004, reveals its dark intention. It calls for gradually undermining U.S. law, practices, etc., using American laws and political correctness to do so.
Confident the document would not be seen by Western eyes, it minces no words explaining Muslim leaders’ “work in America is kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers. …”
Despite now knowing Islam’s war plan against us, we not only allow it to be implemented, we assist it in doing so. Meanwhile, the Muslim belief in their religion’s superiority over all others continues to be fed by our own acts of submission.
Our founding fathers were framers of a Constitution under which we have thrived for over two centuries. The framers’ achievements are being undermined today by liberal-thinking politicos who naively plant the seeds of its demise.