WTF? How does this sh!t get legs?

[T-post Tom]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/US/04/15/us.sikhs.military/art.sikh.coalition.split.jpg
This sh!t annoys me. I think ""Accommodation of a Soldier's religious practices must be examined against military necessity" is prudent and reasonable. These fuc*s are just stirring up sh!t where it needn't be stirred up.

Sikhs fight Army over bans on turbans, uncut hair
By Joe Sterling

(CNN) -- For Capt. Kamaljit Singh Kalsi, a doctor, and 2nd Lt. Tejdeep Singh Rattan, a dentist, this is a hill worth fighting for.

Sikhs, like these men in Hassanabdal, Pakistan, wear turbans and uncut hair and beards as articles of faith.
2 of 2 These two U.S. military recruits of the Sikh faith are challenging an Army order that they remove their turbans and cut their unshorn hair and beards when they report for active duty in July.

In Sikhism, which originated in northwestern India, the turban and unshorn hair are articles of faith and can't be removed.

But the U.S. military says there are times when the military cannot accommodate certain religious practices, "such as when those religious observations would interfere with the wear of proper military headgear or protective clothing or equipment."

"It doesn't make sense to me, especially in these hard times," Kalsi told CNN. "The military is hurting for professionals. They need doctors, they need nurses."

Aided by the Sikh Coalition, a national civil rights group, and a law firm, the men have filed requests that their religious needs be accommodated. They have filed appeals with their immediate superiors and complaints with the inspectors general of the Army and the Pentagon.

The Sikh Coalition said Kalsi and Rattan had been assured that when they were recruited to join the Army's Health Professions Scholarship that their unshorn hair and turbans "would not be a problem."

"Both men were both recruited and commissioned -- with their Sikh articles of faith -- during their respective first years of medical and dental school (2001 and 2006) through the Army's Health Professions Scholarship Program.

"Both are concluding their training and are slated to begin active duty in July 2009. However, the U.S. Army is now disputing their ability to serve with their Sikh identity intact," the Sikh Coalition said in an April 14 letter addressed to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Amardeep Singh, the head of the Sikh Coalition, told CNN that the issue at hand involves observant Sikhs, not those Sikh-Americans who entered the military after removing their turbans and shaving their beards and hair.

The issue is all-important for the roughly 500,000-strong American Sikh community, which faced hostility after the September 11, 2001, attacks, when people associated them with al Qaeda terrorists because their turbans and beards resembled the militants' appearance.

"The perception is still there," said Singh. "We're sort of still feeling it."

He said surveys -- including one done recently in Queens, New York, where children reported being on the receiving end of verbal and physical abuse -- chronicle the problems Sikhs face.

"These kids are being harassed in New York. It's Queens, the most diverse county in the United States. If this is happening in Queens, it's happening in other parts of the country."

So, he said, the opportunity to serve in the U.S. Army sends the opposite message -- "that we are part and parcel of the fabric of this country."

Kalsi, Singh and the Sikh community stress the Sikhs' military heritage. Kalsi, for example, is the fourth generation in his family to serve in the military, and his ancestors served in India's military. The Sikh served in allied forces in the two world wars and they serve in the militaries of Great Britain, Canada, Sweden, Pakistan, as well as India.

The coalition notes in its letter to Gates that a Sikh doctor and dentist were serving in the Army, "grandfathered in under the old policy" that ended in the 1980s when observant Sikhs were barred from admission to the armed forces.

Lt. Col. Christopher C. Garver, an Army spokesman, told CNN in an e-mail that "the Army places high value on the rights of Soldiers to freely observe the tenets of their respective religions."

"Accommodation of a Soldier's religious practices must be examined against military necessity and cannot be guaranteed at all times," he wrote. "There are times when the Army cannot accommodate for religious reasons, such as when those religious observations would interfere with the wear of proper military headgear or protective clothing or equipment.

"The Army regulations which establish the standards of wear and appearance of the uniform and accommodating religious practices are in accordance with the Department of Defense Instruction on this subject," he said.

But the Sikhs want the Army to rethink and reconsider their situation.

"If they can come up with another policy that would allow Sikhs to serve, I guarantee you, they will have many, many people join from the Sikh community," Kalsi said.

[T-post Tom]

"Now, I got no fight... with any man who does what he's told. But when he don't, the machine breaks down. And when the machine breaks down, we break down."

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/in_dNxlnFKA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/in_dNxlnFKA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Saggysack]

Both are concluding their training and are slated to begin active duty in July 2009

They are looking to get kicked out with the added bonus of having the military pay for their medical training.

It's time to pay the piper. General discharge with repayment of money spent for their training or make them serve.

Shaving of heads and faces is mainly a hygiene issue. You would think 2 numbskulls with medical training would know as much.

[KC Jones]

They are looking to get kicked out with the added bonus of having the military pay for their medical training.

It's time to pay the piper. General discharge with repayment of money spent for their training or make them serve.

Shaving of heads and faces is mainly a hygiene issue. You would think 2 numbskulls with medical training would know as much.

I don't think so. I've known quite a few Sikhs and they all take it very seriously. You pretty much have to if you are going to wear a beard and turban every day of your life in the U.S. Since other Sikhs have successfully served in our military and kept their hair, beards, and turbans these guys have a case to stand on.

[HonestChieffan]

I don't think so. I've known quite a few Sikhs and they all take it very seriously. You pretty much have to if you are going to wear a beard and turban every day of your life in the U.S. Since other Sikhs have successfully served in our military and kept their hair, beards, and turbans these guys have a case to stand on.

Spot on. And they are kick ass fighters.

[Iowanian]

They should have considered that when they joined the effing military. Its pretty obvious when every recruit gets buzzed on the first day....

boot them out, make them pay it back.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Maybe they need a bailout? hahahaha!!!!!!

[bango]

Why does everybody have to practice so much racism?

[SBK]

Insert Biden 7/11 joke here.

[HonestChieffan]

Blatent Hatism.

[bango]

What is with all the hatism here?

[Saggysack]

I don't think so. I've known quite a few Sikhs and they all take it very seriously. You pretty much have to if you are going to wear a beard and turban every day of your life in the U.S. Since other Sikhs have successfully served in our military and kept their hair, beards, and turbans these guys have a case to stand on.

They do not have a case to stand on. They signed a legally binding contract. Not since 1981 have Sikhs in the military been allowed to wear their turban or not shave their face.

Obviously seriously enough to violate the rules and regulations they signed up for. Recruiters don't make miltary rules and regulations. A recruiter could have told them they would be housed in a golden palace, still doesn't mean it's true.

Recruiters lie to potential recruits everyday. Hell, it's a running joke in the military. Would you support every tom, dick and harry who felt they were having their rights violated because a recruiter didn't include all the facts?

Does their religion allow them to ignore legally binding contracts that they signed on their own free will? I'm 100% positve that the contract they signed didn't state they were exempt from taking off their turban and shave their faces. But I'm 100% positive it did say they must abide by the rules and regulations that come with it.

They signed a legally binding contract, if they aren't willing to live up to the terms and conditions of that contract, they must suffer the penalties of it.

[Saggysack]

Since other Sikhs have successfully served in our military and kept their hair, beards, and turbans these guys have a case to stand on.

On what basis does their case stand on? Pre-1981? Religion? Recruiters promise? Clearly stated in bold on the 1st page of every Armed Forces contract.

ANYTHING ELSE ANYONE HAS PROMISED ME IS NOT VALID AND WILL NOT BE HONORED

Further...
(2) Subject to separation during or at the end of my enlistment. If my behavior fails to meet acceptable military standards, I may be discharged and given a certificate for less than honorable service, which may hurt my future job opportunities and my claim for veteran's benefits.

This is in the contract they willingly signed. Nobody forced them into this agreement. Again, on what basis does the case stand on?

[orange]

On what basis does their case stand on? Pre-1981? Religion? Recruiters promise? Clearly stated in bold on the 1st page of every Armed Forces contract....


Right after:

c. The agreements in this section and attached annex(es) are all the promises made to me by the Government.

It would depend on what's in their attached annexes, now wouldn't it?

[Saggysack]

Right after



It would depend on what's in their attached annexes, now wouldn't it?
yeah

Right after:


b. Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay, allowances, benefits, and responsibilities as a member of the ArmedForces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment/reenlistment document

[Saggysack]

The military is all about you conforming to their standards, not them conforming to yours.

[stevieray]

I totally trust Saggy on this issue.

The US military doesn't get wagged by the tail.

[raybec 4]

Part of being in the military is uniformity. Every male gets his hair cut, if they did not wish to meet the military standards they should not have joined the military. This would open the door for people to violate all kinds of standards, especially dress and appearance.

[orange]

yeah

Right after:


b. Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me. Such changes may affect my status, pay, allowances, benefits, and responsibilities as a member of the ArmedForces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment/reenlistment document




There have been no changes in "laws and regulations" since they enlisted. Whatever's in their annex still applies. They've been in (DEP I presume) since 2001 and 2006. That includes active duty time each year, doesn't it? They've worn their beards all that time. Why is it an issue now?

Besides which, it's clear they are not trying to get out - they're petitioning for the army to modify its regulations so observant Sikhs can serve.

[Chief Henry]

The military can not lower the standards for enlistment even for long hair wearers.

[blaise]

There have been no changes in "laws and regulations" since they enlisted. Whatever's in their annex still applies. They've been in (DEP I presume) since 2001 and 2006. That includes active duty time each year, doesn't it? They've worn their beards all that time. Why is it an issue now?

Besides which, it's clear they are not trying to get out - they're petitioning for the army to modify its regulations so observant Sikhs can serve.

Why is it an issue now? Because the army wants them to cut their beards, and they're in the army. It's not a private company, it's the military. If the recruiter told them it wouldn't be a problem and he was wrong, or he lied, then he should be disciplined.

[jidar]

They should have considered that when they joined the effing military. Its pretty obvious when every recruit gets buzzed on the first day....

boot them out, make them pay it back.

According to the article, they were told by a recruiter they would be allowed to keep their hair and turbans.

Based on what I know about recruiters that sounds pretty ****ing likely.

[jidar]

Recruiters lie to potential recruits everyday. Hell, it's a running joke in the military. Would you support every tom, dick and harry who felt they were having their rights violated because a recruiter didn't include all the facts?



If they blatantly lie, sure. I would think that promises made by a recruiter for a company constitutes a verbal contract, and I was surprised to hear that it does not.

Further I would expect the military to enforce some measure of honor on recruiters.

[blaise]

I agree that if the recruiter told them it was OK then it's pretty piss poor. Obviously it must have been important to these guys.

[jAZ]

Should the Army ban soldiers from wearing a cross?

[Donger]

Should the Army ban soldiers from wearing a cross?

No. Uniformity is big with the military and wearing a cross doesn't quite reach this level of physical uniformity.

[jAZ]

No. Uniformity is big with the military and wearing a cross doesn't quite reach this level of physical uniformity.

Ahhh... mandatory circumcision, then?

[Donger]

Ahhh... mandatory circumcision, then?

I wouldn't think so. Perhaps in the Nude Battalions.

[frazod]

Should the Army ban soldiers from wearing a cross?

A cross can be tucked inside one's uniform. Kind of hard to tuck a beard or a turban. That's a lame argument. These guys should have known what they were getting into - this is the military, not a book club. Conform or get out.

This reminds me of a muslim bitch who killed a little kid up here a couple of weeks ago - her husband was furious that they took away her garb for her mug shot. No word on whether or not he gave a shit that she killed a little kid. :shake:

[jAZ]

I wouldn't think so. Perhaps in the Nude Battalions.

Ah yes, the "Fighting NeverNude 33rd" are strong warriors.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/cress/arrested/nevernude.jpg

[Donger]

Ah yes, the "Fighting NeverNude 33rd" are strong warriors.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/cress/arrested/nevernude.jpg

After analyzing that picture for about 42 seconds, I'm still not sure of what is being presented? A Dad trying on his daughters cut-offs?

[jAZ]

analyzing that picture for about 42 seconds
That was your first mistake...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zJwouhWboLM/SCkdA8z1D7I/AAAAAAAAAMc/qgKMeFW2eg4/s400/t-never.nude.jpg

[raybec 4]

Should the Army ban soldiers from wearing a cross?

Actually you are not allowed to wear any thing visible when you're in uniform, no cross, star of david or rosary.

[jAZ]

A cross can be tucked inside one's uniform. Kind of hard to tuck a beard or a turban. That's a lame argument. These guys should have known what they were getting into - this is the military, not a book club. Conform or get out.
There are justifications made for exceptions.

The military says it has good reasons for the beard ban for most American troops—including hygiene, soldierly discipline, and the ability to get a good seal on gas masks should troops need them.

There is an exception, though, for special operations forces to enable them to better blend with locals. Senior military officials point out that special operations forces have more experience and maturity than other troops, so that lax grooming standards will not lead to a degeneration of other forms of discipline.


In fact, the entire Afgan location/element of our miliary efforts seems to be opening up a general discussion about the ban...

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/11/17/us-troops-question-military-no-beard-rules-in-afghanistan.html

KABUL—As the U.S. military garners increasing counterinsurgency experience in America's long-standing war in Afghanistan, soldiers are questioning one military restriction that has long been the norm within the U.S. armed forces: the prohibition against beards.

...

Still, the restriction often garners some eye-rolling among regular troops who think that growing beards would also benefit them in interactions with Afghans. Troops increasingly argue that beard growth is hardly a disciplinary slippery slope for soldiers and marines on long tours with a great deal of interaction with the locals.

This is not so much an issue in the comparatively less conservative capital city of Kabul, where many Afghan men don't wear beards. But in other areas of the country, the more tradition-oriented regions, beards are a symbol of manhood—just as much a sign of social norms as the clean-shaven faces of U.S. soldiers are regarded as a symbol of American military order.

Some U.S. troops are beginning to buck the beard rule, however, both with and without the permission of senior commanders.

One soldier in the violent border area of Kunar province estimates that his combat outpost gets attacked almost daily. But when the base received a visit recently from a commanding officer, the soldier recalls, "the main thing" he told the soldiers is that they needed to shave more frequently. They did shave, but they felt they gathered better intelligence with locals when they were unshaven, as locals felt more comfortable talking to bearded men.

Where troops come down on beards is often the difference between the junior and senior officer ranks.

While junior officers are quickly becoming used to a counterinsurgency approach to combat that tends to be nonlinear and more focused on influencing perceptions, says a senior military official here, some are less willing to be nontraditional or to do away with disciplinary checklists that include having a short haircut and a close shave. Sometimes with reason, he adds. "You could argue that we're not here to be liked; we're here to be respected."

But occasionally junior and senior officers are on the same page. One junior soldier was given special dispensation by his commander to wear a beard since he works in close proximity with Afghan security forces. That has been invaluable, the junior officer adds, in helping to build trust and garner the respect of his Afghan coworkers.

But he has also taken special precautions. Every time they go outside the wire, at least one of the Afghan security forces he travels with carries along shaving cream and a razor. The soldier has instructed the Afghans he works with to shave him should he be injured or die.

He has also told his parents to stand up for his commander should the junior officer die without being shaven. In the meantime, he says, he feels empowered, both by his commanders and by the Afghan forces with whom he works.

There is an Afghan saying that one brother will fight as hard as 10 neighbors, the soldier explains. And the Afghan security forces here say that they consider this soldier a brother to them.

[Donger]

There are justifications made for exceptions.

The military says it has good reasons for the beard ban for most American troops—including hygiene, soldierly discipline, and the ability to get a good seal on gas masks should troops need them.

There is an exception, though, for special operations forces to enable them to better blend with locals. Senior military officials point out that special operations forces have more experience and maturity than other troops, so that lax grooming standards will not lead to a degeneration of other forms of discipline.


In fact, the entire Afgan location/element of our miliary efforts seems to be opening up a general discussion about the ban...

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/11/17/us-troops-question-military-no-beard-rules-in-afghanistan.html

KABUL—As the U.S. military garners increasing counterinsurgency experience in America's long-standing war in Afghanistan, soldiers are questioning one military restriction that has long been the norm within the U.S. armed forces: the prohibition against beards.

...

Still, the restriction often garners some eye-rolling among regular troops who think that growing beards would also benefit them in interactions with Afghans. Troops increasingly argue that beard growth is hardly a disciplinary slippery slope for soldiers and marines on long tours with a great deal of interaction with the locals.

This is not so much an issue in the comparatively less conservative capital city of Kabul, where many Afghan men don't wear beards. But in other areas of the country, the more tradition-oriented regions, beards are a symbol of manhood—just as much a sign of social norms as the clean-shaven faces of U.S. soldiers are regarded as a symbol of American military order.

Some U.S. troops are beginning to buck the beard rule, however, both with and without the permission of senior commanders.

One soldier in the violent border area of Kunar province estimates that his combat outpost gets attacked almost daily. But when the base received a visit recently from a commanding officer, the soldier recalls, "the main thing" he told the soldiers is that they needed to shave more frequently. They did shave, but they felt they gathered better intelligence with locals when they were unshaven, as locals felt more comfortable talking to bearded men.

Where troops come down on beards is often the difference between the junior and senior officer ranks.

While junior officers are quickly becoming used to a counterinsurgency approach to combat that tends to be nonlinear and more focused on influencing perceptions, says a senior military official here, some are less willing to be nontraditional or to do away with disciplinary checklists that include having a short haircut and a close shave. Sometimes with reason, he adds. "You could argue that we're not here to be liked; we're here to be respected."

But occasionally junior and senior officers are on the same page. One junior soldier was given special dispensation by his commander to wear a beard since he works in close proximity with Afghan security forces. That has been invaluable, the junior officer adds, in helping to build trust and garner the respect of his Afghan coworkers.

But he has also taken special precautions. Every time they go outside the wire, at least one of the Afghan security forces he travels with carries along shaving cream and a razor. The soldier has instructed the Afghans he works with to shave him should he be injured or die.

He has also told his parents to stand up for his commander should the junior officer die without being shaven. In the meantime, he says, he feels empowered, both by his commanders and by the Afghan forces with whom he works.

There is an Afghan saying that one brother will fight as hard as 10 neighbors, the soldier explains. And the Afghan security forces here say that they consider this soldier a brother to them.

You really comparing spec ops troops blending in with the locals and these two knobs, are you?

[Otter]

"Those turbines should help keep you warm studying the effects of polar bear shit on snow in the middle of winter in Antarctica boys. Might want to rig a flashlight to them, it's dark 23 hours a day this time of year."

"Start packing soldiers".

[Donger]

ROFL

[jAZ]

You really comparing spec ops troops blending in with the locals and these two knobs, are you?

I'm aruging over a point, not over a person.

The point is, that I have zero problem having a debate over the value of a ban on beards or religious adornments.

Even with miliary appearance, there are no absolutes and things are changing given the local culture of our current theater of battle.

[jAZ]

Actually you are not allowed to wear any thing visible when you're in uniform, no cross, star of david or rosary.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/21/34807206_96e970157d.jpg

[Donger]

I'm aruging over a point, not over a person.

The point is, that I have zero problem having a debate over the value of a ban on beards or religious adornments.

Even with miliary appearance, there are no absolutes and things are changing given the local culture of our current theater of battle.

Blending in with the locals is necessary for the spec op boys to do their jobs. I'm pretty sure these two chaps could do their job without the turbans and facial hair.

[Pennywise]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/21/34807206_96e970157d.jpg

Umm...

That's a Chaplain.

[Donger]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/21/34807206_96e970157d.jpg

:spock:

[jAZ]

Blending in with the locals is necessary for the spec op boys to do their jobs. I'm pretty sure these two chaps could do their job without the turbans and facial hair.

You seem incapable to appreciating the importance of hair to a Shik. They would say that they can't do much of anything without it.

While I don't value their religious practices the way they do, I can see the difference between a Sikhs beard and this guy's...

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j230/yeahLAK/beard.jpg

[jAZ]

Umm...

That's a Chaplain.

Indeed, with a Christian cross as an official part of his uniform. Execptions are made.

[Donger]

You seem incapable to appreciating the importance of hair to a Shik. They would say that they can't do much of anything without it.

While I don't value their religious practices the way they do, I can see the difference between a Sikhs beard and this guy's...

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j230/yeahLAK/beard.jpg

I would bet that I'm much more familiar with them than you think. Don't forget where I grew up.

And, they chose to join the army. If they were stupid enough to think that they would get to avoid the uniformity of that outfit, perhaps they aren't intelligent enough to be doctors in the first place.

[jAZ]

I would bet that I'm much more familiar with them than you think. Don't forget where I grew up.

And, they chose to join the army. If they were stupid enough to think that they would get to avoid the uniformity of that outfit, perhaps they aren't intelligent enough to be doctors in the first place.

There is a reason you keep trying to argue the people and not the point.

[Donger]

There is a reason you keep trying to argue the people and not the point.

I've argued both. You just don't like the facts.

[jAZ]

I've argued both. You just don't like the facts.

Like I said, there is a reason you keep trying to argue the people and not the point.

[Donger]

Like I said, there is a reason you keep trying to argue the people and not the point.

Again, I've argued both. Just for kicks, what do you think the reason is (for your fantasy that I'm only arguing the people)?

[Chief Henry]

Again, I've argued both. Just for kicks, what do you think the reason is (for your fantasy that I'm only arguing the people)?

He thinks he's more cerebral than you - that's why !

[jAZ]

Again, I've argued both. Just for kicks, what do you think the reason is (for your fantasy that I'm only arguing the people)?

I'd rather know why you felt the need to lie that I've said/believe you are "only arguing the people". I've said that you "keep arguing the people" when I've told you I am not.

[Donger]

I'd rather know why you felt the need to lie that I've said/believe you are "only arguing the people". I've said that you "keep arguing the people" when I've told you I am not.

And I've said repeatedly that I'm arguing both. I put the only in their because you keep writing this: "There is a reason you keep trying to argue the people and not the point."

I have already argued the point.

[jAZ]

And I've said repeatedly that I'm arguing both. I put the only in their because you keep writing this: "There is a reason you keep trying to argue the people and not the point."

I have already argued the point.
Fair enough, I'll retract the last 4 words in favor of being more clear.

There is a reason you keep trying to argue the people.

Each time your effort to argue the point failed to develop any traction, you reverted to arguing the people.

[Donger]

Fair enough, I'll retract the last 4 words in favor of being more clear.

There is a reason you keep trying to argue the people.

Each time your effort to argue the point failed to develop any traction, you reverted to arguing the people.

And what do you think the reason is?

[Saggysack]

Fair enough, I'll retract the last 4 words in favor of being more clear.

There is a reason you keep trying to argue the people.

Each time your effort to argue the point failed to develop any traction, you reverted to arguing the people.

Why won't you argue about the breach of contract?

Their complaint isn't that the U.S. Army is in breach of contract. Therefore we can conclude that them being allowed to wear turbans or not shave is not stated in the contract they signed.

It's as simple as this.

If your recruiter lied to you (or you think he/she lied to you), that's not a breach of contract. Section D and block 13a of the enlistment contract states:

"I certify that I have carefully read this document. ANY questions that I had were explained to my satisfaction. I fully understand that only those agreements in section B of this document or recorded on the attached annex(es) will be honored. ANY OTHER promises or guarantees made to me by anyone are written below."

If it's not written on the enlistment contract, it's not a promise. It's that simple.

[jAZ]

Why won't you argue about the breach of contract?

Their complaint isn't that the U.S. Army is in breach of contract. Therefore we can conclude that them being allowed to wear turbans or not shave is not stated in the contract they signed.

It's as simple as this.

I don't have much to dispute with that point. My point is simply certain religious freedoms trump the somewhat arbitrary (in this case) rules of the miliary. Some times the Military rules have to be adjusted.

Creating a religious exception for a beard or turbin isn't all that unreasonable.

[stevieray]

I don't have much to dispute with that point. My point is simply certain religious freedoms trump the somewhat arbitrary (in this case) rules of the miliary. Some times the Military rules have to be adjusted.

Creating a religious exception for a beard or turbin isn't all that unreasonable.



Newsflash, you don't get to decide what is arbitrary about the USCMJ. Show up out of uniform, or even in an unpresentable uniform, you'll get written up.

I really wish you would quit trying to speak about the military and the troops. You don't have a friggen clue of how it operates.

.

[jAZ]

Newsflash, you don't get to decide what is arbitrary about the USCMJ. Show up out of uniform, or even in an unpresentable uniform, you'll get written up.

I really wish you would quit trying to speak about the military and the troops. You don't have a friggen clue of how it operates.

.

As a voting citizen of this nation, I sure as hell get a say. That's exactly how it is supposed to work. And you have no what I know and don't know.

[stevieray]

As a voting citizen of this nation, I sure as hell get a say. That's exactly how it is supposed to work. And you have no what I know and don't know.

Good luck with that, jaz......if you are insistant on being a psuedo martyr, start small..get koolaid banned form your school district, so your kid won't offend anyone by drinking something that has pork in it.

[jAZ]

Good luck with that, jaz......if you are insistant on being a psuedo martyr, start small..get koolaid banned form your school district, so your kid won't offend anyone by drinking something that has pork in it.

Or, you know gays in the military...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/rep-joe-sestak-retired-rear-admiral-seeks-to-take-lead-on-dadt-repeal.php

... either way.

[Saggysack]

I don't have much to dispute with that point. My point is simply certain religious freedoms trump the somewhat arbitrary (in this case) rules of the miliary. Some times the Military rules have to be adjusted.

Creating a religious exception for a beard or turbin isn't all that unreasonable.

So then you won't dispute that if the case isn't settled by their report date in July they should shave and take off the turban, or face the penalty of not doing so until the case is settled?

Or should we just allow these guys to create animosity towards them within their assigned unit by letting them skate by rules and regulations that each other person in the same unit must live up to.

Unit cohesion is a very important part to successfully accomplish the mission that is assigned to each unit. Doesn't what matter what the task at hand is.

[stevieray]

Or should we just allow these guys to create animosity towards them within their assigned unit by letting them skate by rules and regulations that each other person in the same unit must live up to.

Unit cohesion is a very important part to successfully accomplish the mission that is assigned to each unit. Doesn't what matter what the task at hand is.

Well stated. It is as simple as that.

You are a soldier first. Everything else is secondary.

[jAZ]

So then you won't dispute that if the case isn't settled by their report date in July they should shave and take off the turban, or face the penalty of not doing so until the case is settled?

Or should we just allow these guys to create animosity towards them within their assigned unit by letting them skate by rules and regulations that each other person in the same unit must live up to.

Unit cohesion is a very important part to successfully accomplish the mission that is assigned to each unit. Doesn't what matter what the task at hand is.
The question at issue is a far-reaching issue, much greater than these two people. If I were in their position, I'd seek a court order to prevent the military from cutting my hair, removing my turbin AND prevent them from punishing me at the moment.

Then proceed with the court case, presumably through the levels of appeal until the USSC (or whatever the final stage is).

If I win, then I keep my hair as is.

If I lose, then I make a decision whether I cut my hair and proceed with my career, or exit my service in some fashion (honorable or dishonorable).

If I lose my court case and have to choose between my religion and a dishonorable discharge of some kind, I file another suit trying to get an honorable do over.

Presuming that I lose that, because I signed a contract that I didn't read clearly and I didn't get my recruiters promises in writing, I take it as a lesson learned.

But I think the question at issue is big enough and broad-reaching enough that it's worth extending a temporary special status to these people to get the question resolved legally.

[Saggysack]

The question at issue is a far-reaching issue, much greater than these two people. If I were in their position, I'd seek a court order to prevent the military from cutting my hair, removing my turbin AND prevent them from punishing me at the moment.

Then proceed with the court case, presumably through the levels of appeal until the USSC (or whatever the final stage is).

If I win, then I keep my hair as is.

If I lose, then I make a decision whether I cut my hair and proceed with my career, or exit my service in some fashion (honorable or dishonorable).

If I lose my court case and have to choose between my religion and a dishonorable discharge of some kind, I file another suit trying to get an honorable do over.

Presuming that I lose that, because I signed a contract that I didn't read clearly and I didn't get my recruiters promises in writing, I take it as a lesson learned.

But I think the question at issue is big enough and broad-reaching enough that it's worth extending a temporary special status to these people to get the question resolved legally.
If this is a USSC-type, religious freedom case... which it seems reasonable to assume it is... and they are able to get an injunction of some sort that lets them keep their status without pu, then were I in charge, I'd assign them to an interim status (something akin to paper-pusher, etc)

What is it that you don't understand about breach of contract? To me breach of contract, whether it be a military contract, construction contract, or whatever the contract may be, is very serious business and is held to a very high standard in a court of law. If I didn't read the contract I signed then I am liable for the penalties if I fail to meet the obligations of it.

Instead you would rather waste taxpayer money and tie up the court system for something that was your fault to begin with. Great job, citizen! And before you say anything about a recruiters promise, it doesn't mean anything, which is stated in the contract BTW. A recruiter can promise you the world, doesn't mean there is any guarantee. Hell, even if it is in the contract, you aren't guaranteed anything, and it even states that in the contract.

Civil rights violation my ass. More like dumbasses that can't properly research a legally binding contract they entered into.

[Saggysack]

You are a soldier first. Everything else is secondary.

Exactly.

It's hard to understand that if you haven't served. It must come first, it has to come first. Even before yourself.

[Sully]

Bill Murray didn't have to cut his hair.

[jAZ]

What is it that you don't understand about breach of contract? To me breach of contract, whether it be a military contract, construction contract, or whatever the contract may be, is very serious business and is held to a very high standard in a court of law. If I didn't read the contract I signed then I am liable for the penalties if I fail to meet the obligations of it.

Instead you would rather waste taxpayer money and tie up the court system for something that was your fault to begin with. Great job, citizen! And before you say anything about a recruiters promise, it doesn't mean anything, which is stated in the contract BTW. A recruiter can promise you the world, doesn't mean there is any guarantee. Hell, even if it is in the contract, you aren't guaranteed anything, and it even states that in the contract.

Civil rights violation my ass. More like dumbasses that can't properly research a legally binding contract they entered into.
Like I said, repeatedly, I'm not arguing the issue of these people. I don't care much about the issue of if they were lied to or not. Or if they were misled or not. I agree that the contract they signed is clear.

I'm concerned with whether the policy banning facial hair should have a religious exception or not. I don't see why it shouldn't. The other issue, the part that concerns you most, isn't something I care much about. That's why we aren't really fighting over it.