General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJeanine Pirro on Fox News: Ilhan Omar wearing a hijab means she's not loyal to Constitution
Fox's Jeanine Pirro says Rep. Omar's hijab may mean that she's against the Constitution
Pirro: "Omar wears a hijab. ... Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to sharia law which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?"
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2019/03/10/foxs-jeanine-pirro-says-rep-omars-hijab-may-mean-shes-against-constitution/223095
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)Or any other religious symbol.
ck4829
(35,079 posts)So I guess there's only one way to be truly loyal to the Constitution.....
Glamrock
(11,802 posts)Christian law being antithetical to the constitution.
AJT
(5,240 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Next....
ck4829
(35,079 posts)SharonClark
(10,014 posts)TV for the mega-stupid, who cares?
marybourg
(12,633 posts)every utterance of a RWNJ, no matter how demented, be reported here, just in case one of us missed it and missed the opportunity to disburse it further by telling all our friends. And then we wonder how everything they say gets media attention.
mitch96
(13,923 posts)Does the same hold true for a Jewish yarmulka? A Christians zucchetto?
What a putz... Like most FauxNoise comments, just used to stir up the bases MAGA pot..
They LOVE to play victim in the blame game... OH THE HORROR she wares something on her head...
m
exboyfil
(17,865 posts)JHB
(37,161 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 10, 2019, 01:07 PM - Edit history (1)
The answer, in case you don't already know, is "yes".
You'd think someone with Italian roots would know that, but... FOX.
On Edit: Thanks to texasleo for the correction about her family's roots.
texasleo
(11,298 posts)JHB
(37,161 posts)Still, it's not something that changes my original point. For a long time in this country there was a prejudice that Catholics were incapable of being 'real Americans' because of divided loyalty: the head of their religion was a medieval foreign prince. Getting their marching orders straight from the Vatican, as it were.
That was crap, of course, but the attitude was real. From Thomas Nast cartoons to the 20s Klan to Kennedy having to explicitly say he didn't answer to Rome, Catholics had to deal with precisely the attitude Pirro promotes against Omar.
procon
(15,805 posts)unc70
(6,117 posts)ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)So shove it up your ass, "judge".
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)This women on tv is sending dangerous vibes to fake news (Murdoch) insane crowd.
Democracy doesn't work that way.
spanone
(135,857 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,377 posts)Chin music
(23,002 posts)Atticus
(15,124 posts)cocktail waitress at an off-Strip casino, is criticizing another female's attire.
H2O Man
(73,581 posts)Minister Malcolm X said that the louder his opponents squealed, the better he knew he was doing.
What about Yamakas? Or, if we elected a Sikh, he might wear a turban.
Frankly, I think the whole hijab is just one more way men try to dominate women. Why do they wear a hijab? For modesty? What's modest about hair. Oh, we don't want to inflame men's passions? IS that it? IS hair considered
"vain". I don't get it. Men's rules. But then again, I despise all religions (most if not all created by men for men) so take it with a grain of salt.
underpants
(182,861 posts)I'm not sure there's a way to actually read this correctly but I think she thinks the Constitution either allows or supports molestation.
Think about this. She's not getting this anti-Israel sentiment doctrine from the Democrat party. So if it's not rooted in the party, where is she getting it from? Think about it. Omar wears a hijab, which according to the Quran 33:59, tells women to cover so they won't get molested. Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to sharia law which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?
procon
(15,805 posts)She relies on her audience to be ignorant and I'll informed, a prerequisite for Fox news viewers. As a purported judge, she must have some vague familiarity with the laws founded on the Constitution; merely a presumption on my part.
Article Six states; people "...shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required..."
She should be informing her knuckle dragging fans that Americans are free to subscribe to any religion they chose, and everyone can wear the traditional accoutrements of their chosen faith. As a free people, we can wear a hijab, or a yamaka, don a prayer shawl, wear crosses or put a scarf over our heads, or carry a kirpan, because the Constitution is (for the time being) still the law of the land.
Vinca
(50,300 posts)to the Pope or is it just Muslims? Have another drink, Jeanine, and go away.
ornotna
(10,805 posts)Evil effin' nuns.
That lady is nuts.
Peacetrain
(22,878 posts)seriously strange person..