[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I don’t think Muslims are required to wear turbans (that’s more of a Sikh thing) or any head covering except when praying. They usually wear some sort of head covering because of tradition but I don’t think that it has to be a specific type so the idea that they will wear “religious” headgear in uniform is a non-argument. [/quote]
Not required for men even while praying
Head gear is pretty rare amongst praying Moslems, from what I’ve seen in my areas. I’m sure that’s different in other places, but as a cultural/fitting in type of thing (heh - see what I did there? ) not required
Poor Sikhs - they get stereotyped more than actual Muslims
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
And was 100% preventable. All the warning signs were there. Political correctness got those people killed.[/quote]
I think you sound just like those ban gun folks right here in this comment.
To which I would imagine you’ll take offense to.[/quote]
No, far from it. Hassan killed 14 people and the Obama administration KNEW he was in contact with a former AQ terrorism recruiter. They received complaints on him 18 months earlier, but didn’t investigate him.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
^ It’s about standards and regulations.
I guess you missed the recent article that the military is struggling with women passing the PT tests since they now have allowed them access to all combat opportunities.
Another example of putting people in positions that they can’t do the job, but it sounds like a great idea at a Georgetown cocktail party. Sure you don’t have the physical strength to drag me out of a foxhole if needed if I’m wounded, but hey- at least it’s PC.
Remember, the Isrealis have tried this and how did it work out?
I’m sure you missed it… I better try to find the link.
I didn’t miss it, it just doesn’t have to do with anything I asked you specifically. It sounds as if you are super bothered by this largely because you despise
the President so much you’ve decided that anything anyone in his administration does is automatically the most awful thing ever regardless of what it is. In fact, (though you may not admit it) you sound like a person who would not have made this thread nor would it have even caught your eye if Mitt Romney was in charge and his administration did this.
I still haven’t seen you address anything I’ve asked you and your posts largely come from emotional arguments and unnecessary hyperbole because you really don’t like someone and would like to confirm you feel correct.
I’m not defending this move nearly as much as I’m talking about what I view is lazy emotional thinking based on partisan thoughts. Perhaps I have it wrong, vut that’s how I’m reading stuff.
^ I am against changes that affect the unit’s readiness, morale and unit cohesion. The regulations that each branch has seemed to be working just fine. Religious accommodations were never an issue when I was in.
Nowadays, the outliers are forcing change. The 90% now has to change to accommodate the 10%. And why? Because this theory sounded swell in a post-graduate sociology thesis.
My position is this: talk to the commanders. And if you want a real opinion, talk to a retired O-6 or above. Not the opinions of a bunch of college students.
As far as specifics, I didn’t go through all of your posts. I don’t have a problem serving under a person that has a cross tattoo, or any other religious symbol. And I would have a problem if a drill Sgt. invoked scripture during training.
It’s all about the effect these small changes contine to have.
Just like the PT standards. They backed that one down.
What is your opinion on that? Since its about standards…
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
^ I am against changes that affect the unit’s readiness, morale and unit cohesion. The regulations that each branch has seemed to be working just fine. Religious accommodations were never an issue when I was in.
Nowadays, the outliers are forcing change. The 90% now has to change to accommodate the 10%. And why? Because this theory sounded swell in a post-graduate sociology thesis.
My position is this: talk to the commanders. And if you want a real opinion, talk to a retired O-6 or above. Not the opinions of a bunch of college students.
As far as specifics, I didn’t go through all of your posts. I don’t have a problem serving under a person that has a cross tattoo, or any other religious symbol. And I would have a problem if a drill Sgt. invoked scripture during training.
It’s all about the effect these small changes contine to have.
Just like the PT standards. They backed that one down.
What is your opinion on that? Since its about standards…[/quote]
So I accuse you of being intellectually lazy because not only did you probably not read in depth the article that YOU linked in a thread you made…but now you admit you haven’t gone through the thread to see the arguments I have made and so you can’t respond to them. Nor can you respond to specific questions I have asked you without completely changing the subject because either you aren’t confident in your original positions or you don’t really have any idea what you’re talking about. Either way does not bode well for your “this is the end of times for U.S. military logic.”
So basically you aren’t worth anyone’s time in here because you aren’t really interested in a discussion you just wanted to assert that you would never serve under this CIC after reading an article that essentially didn’t say anything you seemed to think it said. Did your brain allow you to read the article or was it just so enraged with motherfucking Obama that it wouldn’t let you comprehend its meaning?
I have this uber conservative co-worker who has told me numerous times that many many people he knows are convinced President Obama will declare martial law in 2016 because he refuses to relinquish power and will name himself emperor of the United States (not making that up at all). It seems as if you may be on board with that type of paranoia.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
My position is this: talk to the commanders. And if you want a real opinion, talk to a retired O-6 or above. Not the opinions of a bunch of college students.
[/quote]
Article: “The immediate commander can approve some of the religious accommodation, but some will have to be kicked up to higher headquarters.”
Oh, I thought they were going to poll college student newspapers to see if it was going to be approved. I guess when one reads an article they can find out what’s in it?
I don’t know if that is the issue, or the issue is: “Hey this is the military, you forfeit certain things to fight for your country and you volunteer (for the most part) to do so.”
I mean, those that served know better than I, and maybe I am off base here, but I don’t think being told what you can wear, and when you can wear it, religious or otherwise, falls outside of the “this is the military, you gave up your rights when you signed that contract” clause.
[/quote]
This, to me, is the issue. It might even change my opinion (probably not completely but at least significantly) if we had a draft driven military where you didn’t have a choice to serve. Then it is coercion.
Right now it is a voluntary contract entered into, and as with any contract there are stipulations. You entered it voluntarily, of your own free will, and now are complaining that these stipulations are the equivalent of coercion. Sorry, nope.
Besides which, if I read the regs that USMC posted earlier correctly, it doesn’t ban religous headgear or clothing at divine service for any religion, or time off duty, and it doesn’t ban religious tokens as long as safety is not an issue.
So really I’m not sure why they needed to change anything. It was already a “talk to your CO” issue in the first place.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Notice the word ‘some’? From a legal point, than can mean 1% or less. And then “higher headquarters” (assume civilians) would then make the decision.
Hfactor, you seem quick to resort to personal attacks.
I’m sorry if I’m “lazy”. I respond from my phone, so I don’t have the advantage of sorting through every point you made.
Are you done here, or not?[/quote]
I wasn’t trying to make personal attacks it’s just multiple times in your thread you have completely disregarded people’s questions towards you or attempted to shift the discussion. And you started out by coming to largely ludicrous conclusions based on the article you linked to.
I wasn’t trying to attack you as much as what I thought your argument line was doing. If we are going to get big time upset over something then I’d expect a much more controversial article than the one you linked. Which again doesn’t seem like you read that closely to begin with or maybe you had made up your mind it was something to be really mad about because you don’t like Democrats.
I have this SNEAKING suspicion that if this article came out in 2007 you wouldn’t have said you would never serve under Bush. In fact it seems (again based on your posts) highly likely that you wouldn’t have made it at all.
And it’s amazing the way you know so much about what every single Muslim woman wants!
But thanks for that lesson on how they dress. I must have missed that secret info for those several years that I lived with a Muslim woman.
Sheesh.
[/quote]
Isn’t that the whole point of the thread? Isn’t that the point of your post?
Hey, but if you can show us all that there are thousands, or even hundreds, or even 10 BURQA wearing Muslims that want to, and would be allowed to by their families and cultural upbringing, join the military then you might actually have a valid point.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
My understanding of early American life sort of outlines the total opposite of what you’ve written here.
I’m pretty sure the founders were well aware of religion, its deep roots in some people and surely witnessed, so no need to, anticipate the outward displays. [/quote]
They were aware of religion but they couldn’t anticipate the various religious, as well as cultural, ethnic racial, etc., groups that would occupy this country. When I lived in Newark I saw American women who converted to Islam wearing burqas. Could the founders have imagined that happening? Could they have imagined something like the Westboro church? I believe they expected people to be Americans first. I don’t think they wanted political debate to devolve into theological debate. I believe they thought we would be smarter than we actually are.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I don’t think Muslims are required to wear turbans (that’s more of a Sikh thing) or any head covering except when praying. They usually wear some sort of head covering because of tradition but I don’t think that it has to be a specific type so the idea that they will wear “religious” headgear in uniform is a non-argument. [/quote]
And what do we do with the Muslim WOMEN that want to join the armed services? Certainly they along with their ACLU lawyers will be lined up to support their “rights”.
What of them???[/quote]
Why are their rights in quotes? Are you making fun of the rights of Muslim WOMEN? Why would they be treated any differently? They shouldn’t. Either we all have rights or we all don’t. It’s not supposed to be a pick and choose thing. It keeps seeming like you really want different things for different people.
What does someone’s religion have to do with them having or not having rights? It seems as if the military would be fighting for rights for all, not just for the ones who you think are ok. [/quote]
Exactly. So either we suck it up and accept that religious freedom applies to everyone or we accept that it can be restricted or limited again, for everyone.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
My understanding of early American life sort of outlines the total opposite of what you’ve written here.
I’m pretty sure the founders were well aware of religion, its deep roots in some people and surely witnessed, so no need to, anticipate the outward displays. [/quote]
They were aware of religion but they couldn’t anticipate the various religious, as well as cultural, ethnic racial, etc., groups that would occupy this country. When I lived in Newark I saw American women who converted to Islam wearing burqas. Could the founders have imagined that happening? Could they have imagined something like the Westboro church? I believe they expected people to be Americans first. I don’t think they wanted political debate to devolve into theological debate. I believe they thought we would be smarter than we actually are. [/quote]
ahhh. Fair enough. NOw I see what you were saying.
And it’s amazing the way you know so much about what every single Muslim woman wants!
But thanks for that lesson on how they dress. I must have missed that secret info for those several years that I lived with a Muslim woman.
Sheesh.
[/quote]
Isn’t that the whole point of the thread? Isn’t that the point of your post?
Hey, but if you can show us all that there are thousands, or even hundreds, or even 10 BURQA wearing Muslims that want to, and would be allowed to by their families and cultural upbringing, join the military then you might actually have a valid point. [/quote]
Lol!
I’m going to back out so you can continue that argument you’re having with the voices in your head.[/quote]
They always agree with me.