My God.
Look what this administration has done to our military.
I would have refused to serve under this CIC…
Join the military and the complain when you have to shave…smh.
I guess I fail to see the big deal here?
[quote]The immediate commander can approve some of the religious accommodation, but some will have to be kicked up to higher headquarters.
In some cases wearing something that impacts the uniform (religious apparel), grooming (beards, longer hair), religious tattoos, and some jewelry with religious inscriptions.
The directive stresses that ?the importance of uniformity and adhering to standards, of putting unit before self, is more significant and needs to be carefully evaluated when considering each request for accommodation.?
It goes on to say that ?it is particularly important to consider the effect on unit cohesion.?[/quote]
So the military now gets to decide if something like this is allowed? As in they get to decide if a person CAN do something in this regards? Why is that bad again? To me it seems like an all or nothing thing. Either NO ONE can have anything to do with religion (cross necklace, stuff like that) or everyone can within reason (if a turban is going to get you killed your CO thinks you can’t have it).
I’m not a military guy I never served, but I don’t see this as the ZOMG worst thing ever. Why would some people get rights and not others? Hell that’s the part that doesn’t sound American to me. So now in some cases the military may decide that someone can have a goatee? And we’re up in arms about that? Doesn’t seem like much of a big deal to me. Are soldiers with a mustache more likely to die? If not and the military decides maybe changing the facial hair rule isn’t a big deal I guess I fail to see the reason for an uproar. Would Hitler have won if my Grandpa had a beard? He served and was clean shaven, but what if he wasn’t? Like I said I fail to see the big deal.
Seems to me as if people who are going to have the biggest problem are those who think freedom of religion should only apply to their religion. I’m assuming crosses or New Testament verses are quite prevalent among some soldiers? Now we’re mad if a Buddhist can do something in that regard?! 6,300 Buddhists according to the article. Do they not get rights?
Again seems to me as if ALL or NONE is the thing that makes by far the most logical sense.
…
[quote]H factor wrote:
I guess I fail to see the big deal here?
[quote]The immediate commander can approve some of the religious accommodation, but some will have to be kicked up to higher headquarters.
In some cases wearing something that impacts the uniform (religious apparel), grooming (beards, longer hair), religious tattoos, and some jewelry with religious inscriptions.
The directive stresses that ?the importance of uniformity and adhering to standards, of putting unit before self, is more significant and needs to be carefully evaluated when considering each request for accommodation.?
It goes on to say that ?it is particularly important to consider the effect on unit cohesion.?[/quote]
So the military now gets to decide if something like this is allowed? As in they get to decide if a person CAN do something in this regards? Why is that bad again? To me it seems like an all or nothing thing. Either NO ONE can have anything to do with religion (cross necklace, stuff like that) or everyone can within reason (if a turban is going to get you killed your CO thinks you can’t have it).
I’m not a military guy I never served, but I don’t see this as the ZOMG worst thing ever. Why would some people get rights and not others? Hell that’s the part that doesn’t sound American to me. So now in some cases the military may decide that someone can have a goatee? And we’re up in arms about that? Doesn’t seem like much of a big deal to me. Are soldiers with a mustache more likely to die? If not and the military decides maybe changing the facial hair rule isn’t a big deal I guess I fail to see the reason for an uproar. Would Hitler have won if my Grandpa had a beard? He served and was clean shaven, but what if he wasn’t? Like I said I fail to see the big deal.
Seems to me as if people who are going to have the biggest problem are those who think freedom of religion should only apply to their religion. I’m assuming crosses or New Testament verses are quite prevalent among some soldiers? Now we’re mad if a Buddhist can do something in that regard?! 6,300 Buddhists according to the article. Do they not get rights?
Again seems to me as if ALL or NONE is the thing that makes by far the most logical sense. [/quote]
I agree sort of with you. I think it should be nothing with no all option.
For me it’s about unit cohesion. You are now going to have a select # of individuals doing one thing and the rest of the unit another.
A good example is shaving. In the Marine Corps you shave every day 7 days a week. Now 1 or 2 guys don’t have to shave, which seems like such a small thing, but that one thing will separate those 2 people from the unit, which reduces unit cohesion.
As far as jewelry goes, I didn’t think it was allowed anyway, but if it’s covered I don’t care.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
I guess I fail to see the big deal here?
[quote]The immediate commander can approve some of the religious accommodation, but some will have to be kicked up to higher headquarters.
In some cases wearing something that impacts the uniform (religious apparel), grooming (beards, longer hair), religious tattoos, and some jewelry with religious inscriptions.
The directive stresses that ?the importance of uniformity and adhering to standards, of putting unit before self, is more significant and needs to be carefully evaluated when considering each request for accommodation.?
It goes on to say that ?it is particularly important to consider the effect on unit cohesion.?[/quote]
So the military now gets to decide if something like this is allowed? As in they get to decide if a person CAN do something in this regards? Why is that bad again? To me it seems like an all or nothing thing. Either NO ONE can have anything to do with religion (cross necklace, stuff like that) or everyone can within reason (if a turban is going to get you killed your CO thinks you can’t have it).
I’m not a military guy I never served, but I don’t see this as the ZOMG worst thing ever. Why would some people get rights and not others? Hell that’s the part that doesn’t sound American to me. So now in some cases the military may decide that someone can have a goatee? And we’re up in arms about that? Doesn’t seem like much of a big deal to me. Are soldiers with a mustache more likely to die? If not and the military decides maybe changing the facial hair rule isn’t a big deal I guess I fail to see the reason for an uproar. Would Hitler have won if my Grandpa had a beard? He served and was clean shaven, but what if he wasn’t? Like I said I fail to see the big deal.
Seems to me as if people who are going to have the biggest problem are those who think freedom of religion should only apply to their religion. I’m assuming crosses or New Testament verses are quite prevalent among some soldiers? Now we’re mad if a Buddhist can do something in that regard?! 6,300 Buddhists according to the article. Do they not get rights?
Again seems to me as if ALL or NONE is the thing that makes by far the most logical sense. [/quote]
I agree sort of with you. I think it should be nothing with no all option.
For me it’s about unit cohesion. You are now going to have a select # of individuals doing one thing and the rest of the unit another.
A good example is shaving. In the Marine Corps you shave every day 7 days a week. Now 1 or 2 guys don’t have to shave, which seems like such a small thing, but that one thing will separate those 2 people from the unit, which reduces unit cohesion.
As far as jewelry goes, I didn’t think it was allowed anyway, but if it’s covered I don’t care.
[/quote]
Was hoping you could chime in. You know far more about the subject on what is allowed and what is not allowed than I do. I coach football and basketball at a local high school. (I don’t teach at that school however, I’m with an education consulting firm).
When I coach I want us to LOOK the same. I don’t want one of us with jewelry and one of us without. I don’t want one of us with an armband and the rest without. I tell our players we are either ALL going to do something or NONE of us will. As much as we preach be an individual in like there are times where I feel everyone should look the same.
It’s unit cohesion in the military as it is with our football team. Now if the military chooses to do something different that is fine, but it seems as if ALL or NONE is the only logical answer here. If you accept Christian related stuff for your soldiers you better accept Buddhism for your 6,300 Buddhist soldiers.
To be honest I have no idea how someone could NOT feel this way…but I also know I view things in a much different prism than some people.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
I guess I fail to see the big deal here?
[quote]The immediate commander can approve some of the religious accommodation, but some will have to be kicked up to higher headquarters.
In some cases wearing something that impacts the uniform (religious apparel), grooming (beards, longer hair), religious tattoos, and some jewelry with religious inscriptions.
The directive stresses that ?the importance of uniformity and adhering to standards, of putting unit before self, is more significant and needs to be carefully evaluated when considering each request for accommodation.?
It goes on to say that ?it is particularly important to consider the effect on unit cohesion.?[/quote]
So the military now gets to decide if something like this is allowed? As in they get to decide if a person CAN do something in this regards? Why is that bad again? To me it seems like an all or nothing thing. Either NO ONE can have anything to do with religion (cross necklace, stuff like that) or everyone can within reason (if a turban is going to get you killed your CO thinks you can’t have it).
I’m not a military guy I never served, but I don’t see this as the ZOMG worst thing ever. Why would some people get rights and not others? Hell that’s the part that doesn’t sound American to me. So now in some cases the military may decide that someone can have a goatee? And we’re up in arms about that? Doesn’t seem like much of a big deal to me. Are soldiers with a mustache more likely to die? If not and the military decides maybe changing the facial hair rule isn’t a big deal I guess I fail to see the reason for an uproar. Would Hitler have won if my Grandpa had a beard? He served and was clean shaven, but what if he wasn’t? Like I said I fail to see the big deal.
Seems to me as if people who are going to have the biggest problem are those who think freedom of religion should only apply to their religion. I’m assuming crosses or New Testament verses are quite prevalent among some soldiers? Now we’re mad if a Buddhist can do something in that regard?! 6,300 Buddhists according to the article. Do they not get rights?
Again seems to me as if ALL or NONE is the thing that makes by far the most logical sense. [/quote]
I agree sort of with you. I think it should be nothing with no all option.
For me it’s about unit cohesion. You are now going to have a select # of individuals doing one thing and the rest of the unit another.
A good example is shaving. In the Marine Corps you shave every day 7 days a week. Now 1 or 2 guys don’t have to shave, which seems like such a small thing, but that one thing will separate those 2 people from the unit, which reduces unit cohesion.
As far as jewelry goes, I didn’t think it was allowed anyway, but if it’s covered I don’t care.
[/quote]
Was hoping you could chime in. You know far more about the subject on what is allowed and what is not allowed than I do. I coach football and basketball at a local high school. (I don’t teach at that school however, I’m with an education consulting firm).
When I coach I want us to LOOK the same. I don’t want one of us with jewelry and one of us without. I don’t want one of us with an armband and the rest without. I tell our players we are either ALL going to do something or NONE of us will. As much as we preach be an individual in like there are times where I feel everyone should look the same.
It’s unit cohesion in the military as it is with our football team. Now if the military chooses to do something different that is fine, but it seems as if ALL or NONE is the only logical answer here. If you accept Christian related stuff for your soldiers you better accept Buddhism for your 6,300 Buddhist soldiers.
To be honest I have no idea how someone could NOT feel this way…but I also know I view things in a much different prism than some people. [/quote]
Ya, I agree with you.
Unit cohesion is one of those things that’s difficult to explain, but absolutely vital. In my opinion, for what it’s worth, I would prefer religious garments, jewelry, etc… be left off when in uniform as long as religious services for any and all religions is available. I remember having 2 or 3 Wickens (sp?) in boot camp and every Sunday they got to go do whatever it is they do like the Christians, Jews, and yes even Muslims.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Ya, I agree with you.
Unit cohesion is one of those things that’s difficult to explain, but absolutely vital. In my opinion, for what it’s worth, I would prefer religious garments, jewelry, etc… be left off when in uniform as long as religious services for any and all religions is available. I remember having 2 or 3 Wickens (sp?) in boot camp and every Sunday they got to go do whatever it is they do like the Christians, Jews, and yes even Muslims. [/quote]
But you’re making the assumption that this is going to disrupt unit cohesion. Honestly it’s the same argument before they allowed women to serve with men. Times change and our culture changes over time. People are less concerned about some guy who’s wearing a turban.
That being said, there’s going to be plenty of time where they won’t be able to wear such headgear. Pilots, armored vehicle crewman, essentially anytime you have to wear a hard cover. But the numbers are so small I don’t think that it’s going to be an issue.
james
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
My God.
Look what this administration has done to our military.
I would have refused to serve under this CIC…[/quote]
Bit of a overdramatization don’t you think?
james
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Ya, I agree with you.
Unit cohesion is one of those things that’s difficult to explain, but absolutely vital. In my opinion, for what it’s worth, I would prefer religious garments, jewelry, etc… be left off when in uniform as long as religious services for any and all religions is available. I remember having 2 or 3 Wickens (sp?) in boot camp and every Sunday they got to go do whatever it is they do like the Christians, Jews, and yes even Muslims. [/quote]
But you’re making the assumption that this is going to disrupt unit cohesion. Honestly it’s the same argument before they allowed women to serve with men. Times change and our culture changes over time. People are less concerned about some guy who’s wearing a turban.
That being said, there’s going to be plenty of time where they won’t be able to wear such headgear. Pilots, armored vehicle crewman, essentially anytime you have to wear a hard cover. But the numbers are so small I don’t think that it’s going to be an issue.
james[/quote]
Yeah I was trying to get at this in my first post. I think the military is going to make the best decisions for the military. Loosening restrictions on certain things shouldn’t make us less effective. I don’t think the military would do something if they thought it was going to hurt our soldiers. They will make rational decisions in that sense I believe.
Like I said OP acted like this was the worst thing to ever happen and 2nd poster said he would never serve. I just fail to see the big deal?
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
My God.
Look what this administration has done to our military.
I would have refused to serve under this CIC…[/quote]
Bit of a overdramatization don’t you think?
james
[/quote]
You beat me to the punch.
Chicken littles all around.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Ya, I agree with you.
Unit cohesion is one of those things that’s difficult to explain, but absolutely vital. In my opinion, for what it’s worth, I would prefer religious garments, jewelry, etc… be left off when in uniform as long as religious services for any and all religions is available. I remember having 2 or 3 Wickens (sp?) in boot camp and every Sunday they got to go do whatever it is they do like the Christians, Jews, and yes even Muslims. [/quote]
But you’re making the assumption that this is going to disrupt unit cohesion. Honestly it’s the same argument before they allowed women to serve with men. Times change and our culture changes over time. People are less concerned about some guy who’s wearing a turban.
That being said, there’s going to be plenty of time where they won’t be able to wear such headgear. Pilots, armored vehicle crewman, essentially anytime you have to wear a hard cover. But the numbers are so small I don’t think that it’s going to be an issue.
james[/quote]
Yes, I am making that assumption. It is just my opinion…
I also do think women disrupt unit cohesion.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
My God.
Look what this administration has done to our military.
I would have refused to serve under this CIC…[/quote]
Bit of a overdramatization don’t you think?
james
[/quote]
A tad.
BUT, I don’t know if you are prior service (I am).
Imagine 8 years from now with more tweaks from the Hillary administration. Imagine going to boot camp with a guy who has an “Allah Akbar” tat. I couldn’t do it. If that particular person wants to serve his country, choose the Peace Corps.
Slippery slope me thinks.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
A tad.
BUT, I don’t know if you are prior service (I am).
Imagine 8 years from now with more tweaks from the Hillary administration. Imagine going to boot camp with a guy who has an “Allah Akbar” tat. I couldn’t do it. If that particular person wants to serve his country, choose the Peace Corps.
Slippery slope me thinks.[/quote]
I am prior service (Army and Marines) and I grew up in a military environment.
Why would someone with an “allah akbar” tattoo be any less likely to support our country than someone who has a cross tattoo? Anyone who is committed enough to step on the footprints deserves the chance to serve. I’ve served with all types from atheists to Moromons to Catholics and everything in between. Religion has never been an issue. This goes for both services I’ve been in and in both my role as an enlisted man and my role as a dumb Lieutenant.
james
There are a lot of religions that grow beards.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
A tad.
BUT, I don’t know if you are prior service (I am).
Imagine 8 years from now with more tweaks from the Hillary administration. Imagine going to boot camp with a guy who has an “Allah Akbar” tat. I couldn’t do it. If that particular person wants to serve his country, choose the Peace Corps.
Slippery slope me thinks.[/quote]
I am prior service (Army and Marines) and I grew up in a military environment.
Why would someone with an “allah akbar” tattoo be any less likely to support our country than someone who has a cross tattoo? Anyone who is committed enough to step on the footprints deserves the chance to serve. I’ve served with all types from atheists to Moromons to Catholics and everything in between. Religion has never been an issue. This goes for both services I’ve been in and in both my role as an enlisted man and my role as a dumb Lieutenant.
james
[/quote]
Wow. You are aware of Major Hassan, right?
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
A tad.
BUT, I don’t know if you are prior service (I am).
Imagine 8 years from now with more tweaks from the Hillary administration. Imagine going to boot camp with a guy who has an “Allah Akbar” tat. I couldn’t do it. If that particular person wants to serve his country, choose the Peace Corps.
Slippery slope me thinks.[/quote]
I am prior service (Army and Marines) and I grew up in a military environment.
Why would someone with an “allah akbar” tattoo be any less likely to support our country than someone who has a cross tattoo? Anyone who is committed enough to step on the footprints deserves the chance to serve. I’ve served with all types from atheists to Moromons to Catholics and everything in between. Religion has never been an issue. This goes for both services I’ve been in and in both my role as an enlisted man and my role as a dumb Lieutenant.
james
[/quote]
Wow. You are aware of Major Hassan, right?[/quote]
Hassan is a coward and a traitor. Hardly the norm.
And was 100% preventable. All the warning signs were there. Political correctness got those people killed.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
And was 100% preventable. All the warning signs were there. Political correctness got those people killed.[/quote]
Unfortunately crazy people do fucked up things.
I just don’t understand why they military needs to bend and change the rules for a few people. It’s an all volunteer force, no one is holding a gun to your head to make you sign up. So if you join of your own free will you shouldn’t complain about the rules already set in place.