Pentagon to Allow Beards, Turbans in Military

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
62

[quote]Chushin wrote:

I could never underestimate your intelligence.

But I like how you run and hide from the simple question.

You are entertaining; I’ll give you that much.[/quote]

How much money do you make per year? what is your wife’s name? Got any kids? What is their social security numbers? Why are you running and hiding?

There are certain things that are not at all relevant to anonymous posters who want nothing more to do with that information than use it against you. Don’t be such a fucking idiot.

I have plenty of experience to comment on this topic. If you need to know my rank name and serial number, well that is your own prerogative lol.

64

[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]

So if I’m fucking someone in town that no one else is, that also separates me from the rest of the group. In order to maintain unit cohesion, maybe everybody should get to fuck my wife when she visits, too. Is having to spend 5 minutes every day shaving such an ordeal that unit cohesion is significantly harmed by allowing two people to not shave? It sounds to me like unit cohesion was already on the verge of disappearing in that unit anyways if that is the case.

I would think that the fact that ALL of the people in the unit could be killed fighting for the same thing would create a sense of cohesion that shaving responsibilities would not overcome. If shaving can erode this, then there isn’t any real cohesion to talk about in the first place, and thus the problem is not with shaving at all, but something much deeper.

65

My first unit was disbanded after it was revealed that not all of us were circumcised.

66

[quote]DBCooper 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]

So if I’m fucking someone in town that no one else is, that also separates me from the rest of the group. In order to maintain unit cohesion, maybe everybody should get to fuck my wife when she visits, too. Is having to spend 5 minutes every day shaving such an ordeal that unit cohesion is significantly harmed by allowing two people to not shave? It sounds to me like unit cohesion was already on the verge of disappearing in that unit anyways if that is the case.

I would think that the fact that ALL of the people in the unit could be killed fighting for the same thing would create a sense of cohesion that shaving responsibilities would not overcome. If shaving can erode this, then there isn’t any real cohesion to talk about in the first place, and thus the problem is not with shaving at all, but something much deeper.[/quote]

Are you fucking that person on duty, while everyone else is doing their job?

You missed the entire point of the shaving example .

67

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

I could never underestimate your intelligence.

But I like how you run and hide from the simple question.

You are entertaining; I’ll give you that much.[/quote]

How much money do you make per year? what is your wife’s name? Got any kids? What is their social security numbers? Why are you running and hiding?

There are certain things that are not at all relevant to anonymous posters who want nothing more to do with that information than use it against you. Don’t be such a fucking idiot.

I have plenty of experience to comment on this topic. If you need to know my rank name and serial number, well that is your own prerogative lol. [/quote]

Yeah, right,

Because branch and years served are SUCH personal information!

LMAO.

No chance you have NO experience, and are too much of a coward to say so, I guess.

Mr. Mensa FTW![/quote]

Watch out bro. He will come at you hard with insults from his dead end government engineering job. But, he is a member of Mensa and knows all.

68

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

I could never underestimate your intelligence.

But I like how you run and hide from the simple question.

You are entertaining; I’ll give you that much.[/quote]

How much money do you make per year? what is your wife’s name? Got any kids? What is their social security numbers? Why are you running and hiding?

There are certain things that are not at all relevant to anonymous posters who want nothing more to do with that information than use it against you. Don’t be such a fucking idiot.

I have plenty of experience to comment on this topic. If you need to know my rank name and serial number, well that is your own prerogative lol. [/quote]

Yeah, right,

Because branch and years served are SUCH personal information!

LMAO.

No chance you have NO experience, and are too much of a coward to say so, I guess.

Mr. Mensa FTW![/quote]

It’s highly unusual that a veteran would dodge this question. Even a John Kerry-type would give branch and years of service.

69

[quote]bdocksaints75 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
And BTW they are not uniform along gender lines because sometimes some members of a unit are pregnant while others aren’t. They will this have different uniform requirements. Remember it was their choice to get pregnant…[/quote]

Pregnancy is one of the reasons I think women shouldn’t be in the military.

I don’t know how else to answer. Yes, they will have different standards. That isn’t up to me, if it was, it wouldn’t be an issue. [/quote]

I don’t know about not having woman in the military for just that reason. There are plenty of jobs that suit woman. But you could always tell which units were getting ready to deploy by the increasing number of pregnant females.[/quote]

Ya, I think it’s just one of several.

The sad part is I served under several outstanding female Marines, unfortunately they were the minority.

70

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

I could never underestimate your intelligence.

But I like how you run and hide from the simple question.

You are entertaining; I’ll give you that much.[/quote]

How much money do you make per year? what is your wife’s name? Got any kids? What is their social security numbers? Why are you running and hiding?

There are certain things that are not at all relevant to anonymous posters who want nothing more to do with that information than use it against you. Don’t be such a fucking idiot.

I have plenty of experience to comment on this topic. If you need to know my rank name and serial number, well that is your own prerogative lol. [/quote]

Yeah, right,

Because branch and years served are SUCH personal information!

LMAO.

No chance you have NO experience, and are too much of a coward to say so, I guess.

Mr. Mensa FTW![/quote]

Watch out bro. He will come at you hard with insults from his dead end government engineering job. But, he is a member of Mensa and knows all. [/quote]

Quite presumptuous of you there Bauber. I thought we had arrived at a truce of sorts. I would prefer this not to get ugly…

71

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

I could never underestimate your intelligence.

But I like how you run and hide from the simple question.

You are entertaining; I’ll give you that much.[/quote]

How much money do you make per year? what is your wife’s name? Got any kids? What is their social security numbers? Why are you running and hiding?

There are certain things that are not at all relevant to anonymous posters who want nothing more to do with that information than use it against you. Don’t be such a fucking idiot.

I have plenty of experience to comment on this topic. If you need to know my rank name and serial number, well that is your own prerogative lol. [/quote]

Yeah, right,

Because branch and years served are SUCH personal information!

LMAO.

No chance you have NO experience, and are too much of a coward to say so, I guess.

Mr. Mensa FTW![/quote]

It’s highly unusual that a veteran would dodge this question. Even a John Kerry-type would give branch and years of service.[/quote]

That is highly unusual. Everybody I know that has served is quite proud of their service to our country. Those that served honorably anyways. The ones with OTH discharges usually kind of shrug it off.

72

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

I could never underestimate your intelligence.

But I like how you run and hide from the simple question.

You are entertaining; I’ll give you that much.[/quote]

How much money do you make per year? what is your wife’s name? Got any kids? What is their social security numbers? Why are you running and hiding?

There are certain things that are not at all relevant to anonymous posters who want nothing more to do with that information than use it against you. Don’t be such a fucking idiot.

I have plenty of experience to comment on this topic. If you need to know my rank name and serial number, well that is your own prerogative lol. [/quote]

Yeah, right,

Because branch and years served are SUCH personal information!

LMAO.

No chance you have NO experience, and are too much of a coward to say so, I guess.

Mr. Mensa FTW![/quote]

Watch out bro. He will come at you hard with insults from his dead end government engineering job. But, he is a member of Mensa and knows all. [/quote]

Quite presumptuous of you there Bauber. I thought we had arrived at a truce of sorts. I would prefer this not to get ugly…
[/quote]

Quite presumptuous of you as well. Ugly? All you have are internet insults to make you feel better about your pathetic life. Can’t get it done in real life, but you can sure as fuck be an internet warrior! HooRah INTERWEBS. Maybe if you put as much effort in your life or lifting as you do here making fun of people and acting superior… You just MIGHT have gotten somewhere in anything you attempted besides fat, weak, and broken down working a government job.

Glad you are part of Mensa though and deem yourself so intelligent. A lot of good it has done you. You seem to be so successful. A shining bastion of success.

73

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper 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]

So if I’m fucking someone in town that no one else is, that also separates me from the rest of the group. In order to maintain unit cohesion, maybe everybody should get to fuck my wife when she visits, too. Is having to spend 5 minutes every day shaving such an ordeal that unit cohesion is significantly harmed by allowing two people to not shave? It sounds to me like unit cohesion was already on the verge of disappearing in that unit anyways if that is the case.

I would think that the fact that ALL of the people in the unit could be killed fighting for the same thing would create a sense of cohesion that shaving responsibilities would not overcome. If shaving can erode this, then there isn’t any real cohesion to talk about in the first place, and thus the problem is not with shaving at all, but something much deeper.[/quote]

Are you fucking that person on duty, while everyone else is doing their job?

You missed the entire point of the shaving example . [/quote]

holy shit who opened that many dialogue windows?

besides debates are more fun when you don’t have to explain yourself to your opponent.

74

[quote]H factor wrote:
I “trust” the military is going to make decisions that are in the best interest of the military. [/quote]

H, just remember our military leaders, while having an incredible amount of authority within their respective branch, still report to their/our civilian leaders. The President (as an example) is the CIC having never served, yet the Commandant of the Marine Corps still takes orders from him. Military leaders are not always free to run their branches the way they see fit.

That said, I agree the military will act in her best interest when civilian leadership allows it.

I’m not saying that’s a bad thing either. That’s just how it is.

75

[quote]conservativedog wrote:
holy shit who opened that many dialogue windows?

besides debates are more fun when you don’t have to explain yourself to your opponent.
[/quote]

You talking to me or DB?

76

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
I “trust” the military is going to make decisions that are in the best interest of the military. [/quote]

H, just remember our military leaders, while having an incredible amount of authority within their respective branch, still report to their/our civilian leaders. The President (as an example) is the CIC having never served, yet the Commandant of the Marine Corps still takes orders from him. Military leaders are not always free to run their branches the way they see fit.

That said, I agree the military will act in her best interest [b]when civilian leadership allows it.[b/]

I’m not saying that’s a bad thing either. That’s just how it is.
[/quote]

I understand and appreciate the insight from someone who can give us a bit more detail. At the same time I didn’t see ANYTHING in the article to suggest the military is making drastic changes. The reaction from some people in this thread is mind blowing. I expected to read (based on the initial reactions) an article that said President Obama has declared that all Muslims in the military get to do whatever they want and everyone else can’t.

Actually the article says nothing of the sort. It says the military in some instances may allow religious artifacts if they deem it is ok. The military has changed often throughout our nation’s history. I’m confident they will make decisions that are in the best interest of our soldiers. I was confident before this article and I’m confident now.

Like I said it seems as if some people are really against other religions having rights and really ok with only Christians having rights. I don’t think that is a very “American” stance to take. Freedom of religion is an American stance to take.

I fully agree with you about unit cohesion and get that, but it wouldn’t be the first time the military changed some things about itself and it won’t be the last. They are STILL in charge of those decisions.

If this makes someone say they wouldn’t “serve” under this CIC then I say good riddance. Why would we want an American military with rights for some and not for others anyways? That doesn’t sound like defending freedom, that sounds like infringing it.

The arguments you’ve made are perfectly fine in a sense of making everyone same. The argument that some faiths can have rights in the military that other faiths do not have doesn’t make ANY logical sense. In fact it sounds oppressive to me.

*Edit: I guess quoting you made mine all bold for some reason!

77

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

My God.

Look what this administration has done to our military.

I would have refused to serve under this CIC…[/quote]

Well, I had a beard the entire time I was in Crapistan.

And I’ve seen many an soldier wearing a yamika or however it is spelled. I think all you had to do was ask permission and it was granted as a matter of course.

And the Sikhs (beard and turbin) in the Brit Army I fought with had the full-blown beard and a turbin smashed down under their helmets.

The beard thing is only a problem if you can’t get a seal on your gas mask. Not an issue in any conflict going on except Syria, and we are fortunately not there (yet).

78

You weren’t exactly a regular enlistee though, were you TTR?

I mean I’ve heard of the standards being relaxed a good bit under certain circumstance and for people serving some specific functions.

79

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
You weren’t exactly a regular enlistee though, were you TTR?

I mean I’ve heard of the standards being relaxed a good bit under certain circumstance and for people serving some specific functions. [/quote]

Well, that’s true. SF and boomers in the Navy have always had beards.

The entire no-beard thing, however, is a product of WWI, mustard gas, and ill-fitting masks.

The masks of today (which are a hood) will fit over all but a ZZ Top beard and gas just isn’t in the theater much ---- it was probably used in the early part of Desert Storm (and everyone lied and said it wasn’t used) and would be used in Syria, Korea (especially), and Iran, but we just aren’t there now. And it’s not like they can’t be shaved prior to getting to those places.

80

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
I “trust” the military is going to make decisions that are in the best interest of the military. [/quote]

H, just remember our military leaders, while having an incredible amount of authority within their respective branch, still report to their/our civilian leaders. The President (as an example) is the CIC having never served, yet the Commandant of the Marine Corps still takes orders from him. Military leaders are not always free to run their branches the way they see fit.

That said, I agree the military will act in her best interest when civilian leadership allows it.

I’m not saying that’s a bad thing either. That’s just how it is.
[/quote]

I understand and appreciate the insight from someone who can give us a bit more detail. At the same time I didn’t see ANYTHING in the article to suggest the military is making drastic changes. The reaction from some people in this thread is mind blowing. I expected to read (based on the initial reactions) an article that said President Obama has declared that all Muslims in the military get to do whatever they want and everyone else can’t.

Actually the article says nothing of the sort. It says the military in some instances may allow religious artifacts if they deem it is ok. The military has changed often throughout our nation’s history. I’m confident they will make decisions that are in the best interest of our soldiers. I was confident before this article and I’m confident now.

Like I said it seems as if some people are really against other religions having rights and really ok with only Christians having rights. I don’t think that is a very “American” stance to take. Freedom of religion is an American stance to take.

I fully agree with you about unit cohesion and get that, but it wouldn’t be the first time the military changed some things about itself and it won’t be the last. They are STILL in charge of those decisions.

If this makes someone say they wouldn’t “serve” under this CIC then I say good riddance. Why would we want an American military with rights for some and not for others anyways? That doesn’t sound like defending freedom, that sounds like infringing it.

The arguments you’ve made are perfectly fine in a sense of making everyone same. The argument that some faiths can have rights in the military that other faiths do not have doesn’t make ANY logical sense. In fact it sounds oppressive to me.

*Edit: I guess quoting you made mine all bold for some reason! [/quote]

Lol, the bolding issue was my fault…Never was very good at “programming”

I agree with you. Some of the responses are pretty ridiculous.