Democrats have not only expressed little interest in protecting religious liberties, but they have actively tried to infringe upon them. Suddenly they want to pass a measure that will allow members to wear religious head coverings on the floor of Congress. This is not because of a sudden urge to defend religious freedoms, but because one of their new stars, Rep.-elect IIhan Omar, D-Minn., is devoutly Muslim (her faith, like many others, requires her to wear a head covering, or a hijab). Still, the urgent step to become an ally of religious members of Congress via a specific head-covering exemption seems disingenuous given the timing.
Of course, Omar applauded this formal step.
No one puts a scarf on my head but me. It’s my choice—one protected by the first amendment.
And this is not the last ban I’m going to work to lift. https://t.co/7U3ZLTaWur
— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) November 17, 2018
In 1837, there was a ban on covered heads, but it has not been enforced. The proposed amendment would create an explicit religious exemption.
In a statement to NBC News, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said, “Democrats know that our strength lies in our diversity, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion. After voters elected the most diverse Congress in history, clarifying the antiquated rule banning headwear will further show the remarkable progress we have made as a nation.” The Speaker of the House has power to amend and enforce the House’s dress code.
Incoming House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern, D-Mass., has been working on the amendment with Omar and Pelosi. “This change will finally codify that no restriction may be placed on a member’s ability to do the job they were elected to do simply because of their faith,” he said. “The American people just elected the most diverse Congress in history and our rules should embody that.”
While the sudden interest in the details of devoutly devoted people of faith is certainly endearing, if not altogether appropriate for a country founded on the basis of religious freedom, the timing is unfortunate, disingenuous, and hypocritical.
Currently, Jewish members of Congress do not wear yarmulkes on the House floor. Perhaps this will change that. Furthermore, religious coverings are merely a symbol of belief and practice: What about freedom of speech related to religious issues? What about dozens, if not hundreds, of monuments peppering this country that are religious in nature and are at risk of being torn down because they supposedly violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment?
From the looks of it, Democrats have not cared this much about religious liberties since former President Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That one measure alone, according to the Becket Fund, “has successfully protected Native Americans, Jews, Sikhs and many other faith groups.”
It’s good to see Democrats care about the religious expression of the newest members of Congress. It will be interesting to see if this same zeal will be applied in earnest in the future to the concerns of other faith groups, such as Christians and Jews, particularly those who are Republicans.
Nicole Russell (@russell_nm) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota.
