I am just curious what everyone thinks about this. Should your religious beliefs really affect your job that much or is this a case where the woman applied for a job where she knew she couldn't fulfill the duties due to her religious beliefs.
on another note, where in the Koran does it say muslims are not allowed to sell/serve booze? because having visited a few muslim/islamic countries in my time I have bought large quantities of booze with no problem
Certain types of booze are forbidden for Muslims to consume, but I wasn't aware they were forbidden to sell or distribute it.
If the job isn't a government job, then yes they would have to exempt her from that duty. However, as that is a special consideration, I think she'd be required to disclose it. (Not her specific religion, only that she has moral proscriptions forbidding her from performing certain aspects of her job.)
A job must attempt to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs when possible. I'm not sure what happened because it seems like such a reasonable accommodation had been made, and then the airline changed their mind.
It'll be interesting to see how this gets handled since a that clerk got jailed for refusing to issue marriage liscenses because it violated her religious beliefs and companies who said their religious beliefs were being violated were forced into providing birth control measures.
I imagine the court will go against this person, but if they don't, it could open another huge can of worms.
Relapse wrote: It'll be interesting to see how this gets handled since a that clerk got jailed for refusing to issue marriage liscenses because it violated her religious beliefs and companies who said their religious beliefs were being violated were forced into providing birth control measures.
I imagine the court will go against this person, but if they don't, it could open another huge can of worms.
Well, the woman in question works for the government and the government made the ruling so she either has to follow that rule or be ...well fired, not sure why they put her in jail that seems both cruel and unusual when a simple pink slip would have worked.
The Courts ruled in favor of the Hobby Shop, saying they did not have to provide birth control to employees.
This one is a bit trickier, and I believe the issue came up because the other employees got tired of doing part of her job for her because she didn't feel like serving booze to people
It'll be interesting to see how this gets handled since a that clerk got jailed for refusing to issue marriage liscenses because it violated her religious beliefs and prevented anyone else from doing so either.
I have expanded on the above post above to indicate what I feel was omitted; because that is the crux of the issue. The issue wasn't that Kim Davis wouldn't issue licenses, it was that shes also would not let any of her staff do so either, and so de facto was depriving the population of her jurisdiction from their rights under the law. She's in jail because she has been found in contempt. She can leave any time she wants to reach a reasonable accommodation that allows the people in her jurisdiction to exercise their rights.
TLDR, she's not in trouble for exercising her religion, she's in trouble for using her state-backed office to force other people to exercise her religion. That should be repellent to liberal and conservative equally.
Ghazkuul wrote: not sure why they put her in jail that seems both cruel and unusual when a simple pink slip would have worked.
She is an elected official, so cannot simply be fired. She can only be removed by the legislature, and only when they are in session (not until January).
Ouze wrote: A job must attempt to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs when possible. I'm not sure what happened because it seems like such a reasonable accommodation had been made, and then the airline changed their mind.
Another employee complained about not only doing her job for her, but a few other things as well.
If your job is to give people booze and pork, and you can't, then maybe you need to find a new job.
On the other hand, the company removed her "accommodation" and suspended her in one stroke, not even giving her a chance to either do her job or make her stand.
Ouse, You just wrecked any further discourse I care to have with you by your rudeness. You could have just as easily made your point without altering my words.
Ouze wrote: A job must attempt to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs when possible. I'm not sure what happened because it seems like such a reasonable accommodation had been made, and then the airline changed their mind.
Another employee complained about not only doing her job for her, but a few other things as well.
If your job is to give people booze and pork, and you can't, then maybe you need to find a new job.
On the other hand, the company removed her "accommodation" and suspended her in one stroke, not even giving her a chance to either do her job or make her stand.
Crappy all around.
I've had to deal with people like this woman who claimed something or the other in order to get out of doing their job, forcing others to have to do their work. Nine times out of ten when it was looked into it was a scam in order to sluff work, get attention, or some other item. In the meantime, morale among the other employees went down and production suffered until things could be dealt with.
I've had to deal with people like this woman who claimed something or the other in order to get out of doing their job, forcing others to have to do their work. Nine times out of ten when it was looked into it was a scam in order to sluff work, get attention, or some other item. In the meantime, morale among the other employees went down and production suffered until things could be dealt with.
As have I. (worked at a Wawa in Va. with a Muslim, but he was fine with selling beer after having his job threatened)
They legally have to attempt an accommodation. Attempt they did. But they messed up the dismount, and it opened the door for legal trouble. If they had simply revoked her accommodation and her her dig her hole (or do her job), we wouldn't be reading this on the news, much less talking about it here
on a related note how do you all feel about the army trying to accommodate muslims/sihks by letting them wear religious headgear while in uniform. similar to the current topic but in this case i thin it has a bit more importance then not getting your whiskey rye on an airplane
I have no problem with religious headwear in that context. It doesn't hurt the compelling interests of the business.
Wait, I misread that - I didn't realize it was asking about the army. I don't think I'm qualified to answer that. I'm not sure how wearing a turban would affect someone in combat... how do Sikhs do it?
In any event, the government might be able to make a case that their need for unit cohesion outweighs their rights to their visible religious observation.
Ghazkuul wrote: on a related note how do you all feel about the army trying to accommodate muslims/sihks by letting them wear religious headgear while in uniform. similar to the current topic but in this case i thin it has a bit more importance then not getting your whiskey rye on an airplane
Feth that. You wear that uniform, and only that uniform. No special headwear for religion. The more "special" that they allow soldiers to be, the weaker they make the military. It's not about being a special snowflake, its about being one unit.
CNN Article wrote:It seemed to be working out until another flight attendant filed a complaint against Stanley on August 2 claiming she was not fulfilling her duties by refusing to serve alcohol, Masri said. The employee complaint also said Stanley had a book with "foreign writings" and wore a headdress.
Damn you, CNN article, now I want to read the employee complaint. I sense gold in them sentences.
Ghazkuul wrote: on a related note how do you all feel about the army trying to accommodate muslims/sihks by letting them wear religious headgear while in uniform. similar to the current topic but in this case i thin it has a bit more importance then not getting your whiskey rye on an airplane
Feth that. You wear that uniform, and only that uniform. No special headwear for religion. The more "special" that they allow soldiers to be, the weaker they make the military. It's not about being a special snowflake, its about being one unit.
Religious headgear can be made part of the uniform however. If you can have priests in the army, you can have someone with a minor uniform alteration.
It is not like the armed forces of places like India have to turn away a large number of recruits because they wear a turban...
Ghazkuul wrote: on a related note how do you all feel about the army trying to accommodate muslims/sihks by letting them wear religious headgear while in uniform. similar to the current topic but in this case i thin it has a bit more importance then not getting your whiskey rye on an airplane
Feth that. You wear that uniform, and only that uniform. No special headwear for religion. The more "special" that they allow soldiers to be, the weaker they make the military. It's not about being a special snowflake, its about being one unit.
Religious headgear can be made part of the uniform however. If you can have priests in the army, you can have someone with a minor uniform alteration.
It is not like the armed forces of places like India have to turn away a large number of recruits because they wear a turban...
the military made a special exemption for priests/rabbi's/mullahs whatever. They are allowed to wear religious items and only when actually performing their job. Otherwise they are to wear the proper uniform of the day.
I thought Sikhs have been able to wear their headgear sense 1919? Either way as long as it is the correct color/pattern it made no difference to me. I don't see it as 'special snowflakism' I see it as allowing more people to participate in being a part of the US and being able to defend it without sacrificing their religious beliefs.
Well, it was the clerks job give out licenses, she had nothing else to do. She refused to do her job.
Here, she can do other things, there are more attendents then just one. so she could have easily been given the food run duty rather than serve booze.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Well, it was the clerks job give out licenses, she had nothing else to do. She refused to do her job.
Here, she can do other things, there are more attendents then just one. so she could have easily been given the food run duty rather than serve booze.
...
Exactly right. That is what the airline did for two months until another flight attendant made what appears to be a religiously discriminatory complaint.
The airline would have been within its rights to insist that flight attendants serve alcohol as a normal part of their duties, but once they made an accommodation (which was a perfectly reasonable thing to do IMO) they should not have withdrawn it without serious consideration.
hotsauceman, consider how your post could appear insulting to anyone who is a member of a military/has someone in the military dear to them. Also consider how it could be considered flamebaiting given the thread wasn't ever heading that direction. Then consider editing it. And by consider I mean do it, or I will edit it and more.
I think the problem in cases such as this is whether you want to recognise a real difference between religious beliefs and personal attitudes. What makes personal beliefs become religious beliefs that get discrimination protection? Is it just lots more people believing the same thing? There are loads of peculiar sects and cults around, do all their weird rules get exemption too?? Then there's all the people who claim its part of their religion when it's something up for debate, or cultural not in core religious texts. At some point it isn't religious instruction but personal pickiness.
Every time a case like this goes to court you end up having to decide if what they say really counts as their religion and then if it's something reasonable or not which is a can of worms.
The problem is giving religious beliefs a higher status than personal beliefs. Why do my moral principles get less protection because I'm an atheist than a religious persons principles? They're not less important to me because I don't believe in God. The line between what an employee can ask or refuse to do should be the same for everyone. If they agree this woman can refuse to serve alchohol because of their religion then everyone should be able to refuse if they don't want to. I don't believe that religion should get special access to privileges on the basis that religion has some intrinsic value that makes it more important. And myself, I can actually see good reason not to serve alchohol on plains or trains, I've seen enough people drink too much and become obnoxious on public transport that I think it's best to avoid it.
Ghazkuul wrote: on a related note how do you all feel about the army trying to accommodate muslims/sihks by letting them wear religious headgear while in uniform. similar to the current topic but in this case i thin it has a bit more importance then not getting your whiskey rye on an airplane
The rules for employment in the military are no different from employment in civilian life. An employer must be accommodating to an employee's (or future employee's) religious beliefs, provided those beliefs don't place an undue burden on the employer. In the case of headdress in the military it is very easy to accommodate turbans and the like, but a burka could be argued to be a burden and so not allowed.
In the case in the OP, the airline would have to show that they made efforts to move the stewardess to a position where her beliefs would not be a burden. So they could have moved her to flights that don't serve alcohol or to large flights with enough cabin staff to cover her. If they offered her these accommodations and she refused then it's her tough cheese. If the airline didn't make these efforts then they are screwed.
Alternately if the airline can prove it would be unable to accommodate her without being an undue burden on themselves then they should have paid her off and made her redundant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: You claim that your religion stops you from selling alcohol but then go for a job that includes selling alcohol?
The article says she converted to Islam after she was employed.
Ghazkuul wrote: on a related note how do you all feel about the army trying to accommodate muslims/sihks by letting them wear religious headgear while in uniform. similar to the current topic but in this case i thin it has a bit more importance then not getting your whiskey rye on an airplane
Depends. Does it inhibit safety from combat headgear? Do they take it off as a sign of respect when entering a building/put it on whenever they go outside? Or do they wear proper issue military headgear overtop?
I work weekends at national guard facilities. Their caps are mandatorily removed upon entering a building and must be worn whenever outside. Everyone doing it is a sign of equality and of course following the rules. If the Muslim soldiers are wearing religious gear under their military issued gear, absolutely. And I would feel they don't have to take it off when entering a building. If they are wearing it in replacement of a military cap, then they should treat it as a military hat: matching camo and take it off when entering a building, put it back on when going outside. And it's a moot point if it gets in the way of protective helmets-if a protective helmet can't be worn in combat situations due to size of the religious gear, make room for the safety gear.
I certainly understand that religious beliefs need to be reasonably accounted for up to a certain extent.
At the same time, I dislike it when this accommodation ends causing other people more work.
For smaller Domestic flights, I could see this not being an issue. Larger Domestic flights and International flights it would really put an undue amount of work on whoever is picking up the slack, and I don’t think that would be fair or reasonable.
First of all, I'm confused about what topic we're talking about here, as I'm not really sure what points to address. Is it about the flight attendant's complaint? Religious accommodations in the military? Or that Kentucky clerk?
To address the original post and its linked news story: from reading the article, it looks like the her supervisor simply told her to work it out with her co-workers, essentially washing his hands of the matter and putting it back on her. And, eventually, one of her co-workers complained, and then the airline revoked an accommodation that it really didn't make in the first place.
So what should the airline's reasonable accommodation be? When this part of her duties were taken up by others, did she take on some of their duties to balance it out, or was she just "dumping" her work on them?
And, here's the kicker, she was already doing this job before she converted to Islam. So it wasn't against her religious beliefs before, and then now it is. How does an employer react to that? Should there be a burden on the individual to take such things into account before converting to a new faith?
Tannhauser42 wrote: Should there be a burden on the individual to take such things into account before converting to a new faith?
Changing your faith is your personal decision alone and noone may ask you to not believe in anything you want to believe - it's one of the fundamental rights everyone has. Now - this doesn't free you from any and each consequence such a decision bears. It's the part of freedom people usually don't like - you are free to do whatever you want as long as you are ready to live with the consequences. In this very case, her job is influenced by her faith. She is given a task, or rather a set of tasks, she needs to fulfill. MUST fulfill. If she doesn't think that she's able to do so, she should first contact her employer and he should offer a solution. After all, you must not be discriminated for your belief / faith. In this very case, that would be to ask her co-workers if they would be willing to cover her shortcomings. Emphasis on ASK. Noone should feel being forced to cover up for her. If her co-workers cannot or do not want to take over and she is not willing to carry out the job, then she cannot fulfill the minimum required criteria to do the job and thus her employer should dismiss her following all legal obligations.
I certainly understand that religious beliefs need to be reasonably accounted for up to a certain extent.
At the same time, I dislike it when this accommodation ends causing other people more work.
For smaller Domestic flights, I could see this not being an issue. Larger Domestic flights and International flights it would really put an undue amount of work on whoever is picking up the slack, and I don’t think that would be fair or reasonable.
It really kills morale and causes bad feelings over time if it's like any other place I've worked. In the short term, most people don't mind picking up the slack for a co worker because it's one of those, it can happen to any of us" kind of things. It's when it looks like it's going to be a permanent feature that starts pissing people off and damaging the work enviornment.
Ghazkuul wrote: on a related note how do you all feel about the army trying to accommodate muslims/sihks by letting them wear religious headgear while in uniform. similar to the current topic but in this case i thin it has a bit more importance then not getting your whiskey rye on an airplane
I don't have a problem with it at all. Sikhs have worn turbans in combat for centuries, including in both the US, British, and Indian armies. They were allowed to wear turbans and beards in the US army in the past for many years, from WWI on. Sometime in the 80s it was disallowed, so allowing them to wear turbans and beards again isn't treating them like special snowflakes, it's just going back to the way things always were (and should have remained). Sikhs have served honorably in the US military for decades, and disallowing beards and turbans has made it so Sikhs who would have otherwise served have effectively been barred from service. It's pretty petty to not allow them to wear a turban and beard for their sincerely held religious beliefs, especially considering that it had previously been allowed for decades, many Sikhs bring something valuable to the fight, including medical, dental, and linguistic skills, and wearing a turban and beard has no effect on combat capability (you can easily wear a kevlar helmet over top of a turban, and you can get a good seal on a gas mask even with a beard). "No shave" chits are already a thing, so it would not be difficult to grant Sikhs one (as has already been done in several cases).
Anyone who thinks Sikhs shouldn't have the right to serve in the US military and keep their beard and turban ought to do a little reading on the history of Sikhs in the US military. There is already precedent that they have been allowed to wear religious clothing in the past while serving, and many of them have served with distinction. If you (the general you, not you specifically Ghazkuul) think that Sikh's wearing beards and turbans in the military is some form of new PC nonsense, you seriously need to check yourself and do some homework on the subject. As far as I'm concerned, they've earned their right to serve, and keep their beards and turbans.
Today's US Military is SAFETY first before whatever.
Go to the range wear ACH
Riding in a tactical vehicle wear ACH
Airborne OPS wear ACH
On flight line no headgear allowed...also a No Salute Area
In a high risk lead catching area wear ACH......body armor to
In Garrison wear the appropriate head gear that falls under current AR 670-1 (with updates/memorandum)
Edit
Stanley, 40, started working for ExpressJet nearly three years ago. About two years ago she converted to Islam. This year she learned her faith prohibits her from not only consuming alcohol but serving it, too, Masri said.
If your religion forbids you from serving alcohol, don't take a position where you are required to serve alcohol.
As for the idea that muslims can't sell booze, well ummm.... I know a lot of small businesses owned and operated by muslim families who make most of their money selling alcohol and tobacco products. It was certainly a common thing in the Bay Area.
Strict muslims consider selling alcohol, or any intoxicant for that matter, haramm, i.e. forbidden. The question is how close you stick to that, same as with every Christian who does not follow anything the bible says either.
Peter Wiggin wrote: If your religion forbids you from serving alcohol, don't take a position where you are required to serve alcohol.
Except it's actually the other way around in this story. She already had the job, and then took a religion that forbids her from doing part of the job.
Peter Wiggin wrote: If your religion forbids you from serving alcohol, don't take a position where you are required to serve alcohol.
Except it's actually the other way around in this story. She already had the job, and then took a religion that forbids her from doing part of the job.
It's not the other way around. If you make any choice out of free will, you have to live with all the consequences. If you willingly put yourself in a position where you cannot do your job anymore, then you no longer belong in that position.
Sigvatr wrote: If you willingly put yourself in a position where you cannot do your job anymore, then you no longer belong in that position.
I'd agree with that, but it depends on how easily the beliefs are to accomodate.
If you have 10 stewardesses on a flight, and the other 9 are OK with serving alcohol, then that's a reasonable accommodation. Yes, it does create a bit more work for the other people but... that's how employment functions. A guy in a wheelchair might be doing less of one specific thing than someone who is not.
If you're the only stewardess on a puddle jumper and your refusal to serve alcohol means that none of the passengers can have drinks, then you have functionally resigned your job. That cannot be accommodated.
To go a step further, I know there have been cases where a Somali woman (I believe) working at a grocery store refused to ring up anyone buying alcohol. At that point, the belief cannot reasonably be accommodated anymore, since ringing up people is essentially the entirety of the job function of a cashier, where distributing drinks is only a tiny portion of a stewardesses. So, it's not ANY accommodation, but when it's reasonable, it should happen.
Also, point of fact, the airline in question is Expressjet, not Jetblue.
Religious freedom is a basic freedom in all modern states and it is a worthy one to protect. On the other hand, as stated, freedom of choice means freedom of consequences as well. As an employer, you should offer a solution, such as the one I mentioned above. If that's not possible for everyone involved, then the most basic work law applies: no qualification, no job. Try to find another job in the same company or write a nice resumee at the end. After all, she must have done a good job so far.
It seems like the airline screwed the pooch from the beginning by punting the reasonable accommodation back to the employees instead of actually providing the accommodation themselves. Telling the employees "work it out amongst yourself" is different than "this is now the policy and this is how you will work it out".
Jihadin wrote: Today's US Military is SAFETY first before whatever.
Go to the range wear ACH
Riding in a tactical vehicle wear ACH
Airborne OPS wear ACH
On flight line no headgear allowed...also a No Salute Area
In a high risk lead catching area wear ACH......body armor to
In Garrison wear the appropriate head gear that falls under current AR 670-1 (with updates/memorandum)
With the exception of being on a flight line, none of that is prevented by wearing a turban and beard.
Peter Wiggin wrote: If your religion forbids you from serving alcohol, don't take a position where you are required to serve alcohol.
Except it's actually the other way around in this story. She already had the job, and then took a religion that forbids her from doing part of the job.
It's not the other way around. If you make any choice out of free will, you have to live with all the consequences. If you willingly put yourself in a position where you cannot do your job anymore, then you no longer belong in that position.
No, it literally is the other way around, exactly like I said. Peter Wiggin said don't take a job your religion prevents you from doing, when in this instance she already had the job before converting to a new religion. This is purely a matter of semantics and the specific facts regarding the order of events in this case, so I don't see what it is you are trying to argue/disagree with in my post, as what I said is factually true.
Note: I am not disagreeing with your other statements, solely the underlined portion above.
Jihadin wrote: Today's US Military is SAFETY first before whatever.
Go to the range wear ACH
Riding in a tactical vehicle wear ACH
Airborne OPS wear ACH
On flight line no headgear allowed...also a No Salute Area
In a high risk lead catching area wear ACH......body armor to
In Garrison wear the appropriate head gear that falls under current AR 670-1 (with updates/memorandum)
With the exception of being on a flight line, none of that is prevented by wearing a turban and beard.
I actually have to disagree with you on that one. When you get in country you start looking for things out of place, its one of the things that helps you stay alive. Team that up with the stress and confusion that happens during a fire fight, the chances of a Sikh or Muslim in the US Military being killed by friendly fire is almost unacceptable. You never EVER want to see Blue on Blue and this could ruin unit cohesion.
In country I don't see a need for them to shave or take off the Turban....but at the same time the Military preaches unity and this makes people stand out.
One of my favorite memories was convoying, and some gak just casually tossed an at-4 in the back somewhere. So the first time the driver stops kind of hard, something bumps me in the back of the head, I turn around and it's an anti-armor rocket.
I hit my buddy who had loaded it in there and he said something to the effect of "What are you worried for, you had your kevlar on."
Jihadin wrote: I think he does not know what a ACH is....
Advance Combat Helmet
Also known Kevlar, Brain Bucket, Fritz helmet, dome protector....
I am well aware of what an ACH is. That's why I specifically mentioned the ability to wear a kevlar helmet over top of a turban in my first post in this thread.
Jihadin wrote: Today's US Military is SAFETY first before whatever.
Go to the range wear ACH
Riding in a tactical vehicle wear ACH
Airborne OPS wear ACH
On flight line no headgear allowed...also a No Salute Area
In a high risk lead catching area wear ACH......body armor to
In Garrison wear the appropriate head gear that falls under current AR 670-1 (with updates/memorandum)
With the exception of being on a flight line, none of that is prevented by wearing a turban and beard.
I actually have to disagree with you on that one. When you get in country you start looking for things out of place, its one of the things that helps you stay alive. Team that up with the stress and confusion that happens during a fire fight, the chances of a Sikh or Muslim in the US Military being killed by friendly fire is almost unacceptable. You never EVER want to see Blue on Blue and this could ruin unit cohesion.
In country I don't see a need for them to shave or take off the Turban....but at the same time the Military preaches unity and this makes people stand out.
Why would someone be more likely to go blue on blue with a Sikh or Muslim in the US military wearing US military uniform with a kevlar? Have we had a spate of blue on blue due to US service members shooting bearded SOCOM operators? Or allied Afghan soldiers with beards for that matter?
Ghazkuul wrote: actually yes, because several Talibs tried to storm onto Leatherneck wearing US uniforms but were given away because they still had beards
One instance doesn't really qualify as a spate in my book. There are a variety of examples of how US service members aren't completely uniform both in country and in garrison. A lot of SOCOM operators (and even conventional units in remote FOBs) grow beards in country. You have LS Marines who wear red patches on their uniforms. You have each branch that wears different camouflage uniforms, and individual service members that wear different gear based on either different unit SOPs and/or individual preference. Local terps attached to US units often have beards and you don't see them getting waxed by blue on blue at a higher rate. I don't think having the odd Sikh service member with a beard is going to meaningfully increase blue on blue incidents, especially considering if there is one in a unit, most of the members of that unit are probably going to know about it one way or the other via either direct contact or the LCpl underground and whatever the Army equivalent is.
I'm pretty sure the Talibs were also given away because they were shooting at US troops.
Claiming that Sikhs in them military is too dangerous because their beards are going to cause them to get killed due to friendly fire is nothing more than a cop-out, considering that we operate with a variety of bearded service members and allies already and it doesn't cause any insurmountable issues.
Also, it doesn't count as blue on blue if the ones wearing US uniforms are actual enemy.
I was going to say "go create a sikhs in the military topic if you want to discuss it", but as it was the OP that brought it up I'm just going to turn this into a "generic religion/work clash thread" to stop there being 3 topics that cover this same issue
Ouze wrote: To go a step further, I know there have been cases where a Somali woman (I believe) working at a grocery store refused to ring up anyone buying alcohol. At that point, the belief cannot reasonably be accommodated anymore, since ringing up people is essentially the entirety of the job function of a cashier, where distributing drinks is only a tiny portion of a stewardesses. So, it's not ANY accommodation, but when it's reasonable, it should happen.
Ringing up alcohol is an interesting one. I've had it a few times here where a cashier has been unable to a ring up alcohol purchases because they are not legally old enough to sell alcohol, someone else has to come over and authorise it, it's usually not a big deal. It does make me wonder what level of involvement is actually forbidden. Is she allowed to handle the bottle, for example? Can she hand them the drink but someone else has to take the money? Can she relay an order to another stewardess, or is she forbidden from assisting in any way?
Perhaps, in the airline's view, triggering a complaint from another employee was what moved her requirement into the realms of "unreasonable".
I am on the side of not exempting Sikhs or anyone else from grooming standards without a medical exemption. I had a beard and long hair before I joined the army, I shaved that gak when I joined up. Frankly, we don't need the tiny number of Sikhs who would have joined if the exemption continued. And if we are saying that Sikhs get to ignore grooming standards based on their religion, why can't I ignore them based on my deeply held personal philosophical beliefs that a beard makes me a better person?
dogma wrote: But the airline didn't explicitly accommodate the attendant, it basically said "Figure it out with your coworkers, we don't care."
That comes to the same thing. If they didn't care then about her serving drinks they have to a significant degree abandoned the responsbility of caring later on.
You think bosses saying 'So-and-so can't do X because of religion, figure it out' is bad probably has never been a single person in a team full of people with kids.
You want to know what excuse basically destroys every emergency, after-hours, overtime, scheduling issue?
"I Have Kids."
I would much rather take on an extra duty for a co-worker because of a religious issue than people who constantly ditch out on work responsibilities for kids.
I have had muslim co-workers who fast during Ramadan and we totally worked with them to avoid subjecting them to exhaustive labor while daytime fasting. Know what's not reasonable? "School ended and I have a week until summer camp kicks in, so my kids are coming in and going to color in the corner so I can't do X Y and Z because I need to watch my kids."
Ouze wrote: To go a step further, I know there have been cases where a Somali woman (I believe) working at a grocery store refused to ring up anyone buying alcohol. At that point, the belief cannot reasonably be accommodated anymore, since ringing up people is essentially the entirety of the job function of a cashier, where distributing drinks is only a tiny portion of a stewardesses. So, it's not ANY accommodation, but when it's reasonable, it should happen.
Ringing up alcohol is an interesting one. I've had it a few times here where a cashier has been unable to a ring up alcohol purchases because they are not legally old enough to sell alcohol, someone else has to come over and authorise it, it's usually not a big deal. It does make me wonder what level of involvement is actually forbidden. Is she allowed to handle the bottle, for example? Can she hand them the drink but someone else has to take the money? Can she relay an order to another stewardess, or is she forbidden from assisting in any way?
Perhaps, in the airline's view, triggering a complaint from another employee was what moved her requirement into the realms of "unreasonable".
18 and under cannot handle alchohol.
18 to 21, can sell and serve alchohol. but cannot poor it
21 and older. Can do all the above and pour it.
18 and under cannot handle alchohol.
18 to 21, can sell and serve alchohol. but cannot poor it
21 and older. Can do all the above and pour it.
Those laws vary quite a bit by state, county, and municipality. For example, In Illinois no one under the age of 21 can legally sell or serve alcohol, with the possible exception of off-site events.
As far as I know (and I'm not an expert), Muslims are only not allowed to drink alcohol. Serving others same is not prohibited AFAIK...
As opposed to pork, which apparently they're not even allowed to touch. I presume it's because alcohol comes in bottles or glasses and doesn't require direct contact when handing/selling to others.
nkelsch wrote: You think bosses saying 'So-and-so can't do X because of religion, figure it out' is bad probably has never been a single person in a team full of people with kids.
You want to know what excuse basically destroys every emergency, after-hours, overtime, scheduling issue?
"I Have Kids."
I would much rather take on an extra duty for a co-worker because of a religious issue than people who constantly ditch out on work responsibilities for kids.
I have had muslim co-workers who fast during Ramadan and we totally worked with them to avoid subjecting them to exhaustive labor while daytime fasting. Know what's not reasonable? "School ended and I have a week until summer camp kicks in, so my kids are coming in and going to color in the corner so I can't do X Y and Z because I need to watch my kids."
Wow. I hate kids and even I think this ppst is excessive.
Bran Dawri wrote: As far as I know Muslims are only not allowed to drink alcohol. Serving others same is not prohibited AFAIK... As opposed to pork, which apparently they're not even allowed to touch.
IIRC the pork too is just not to be eaten. Jews are forbidden from handling the meat as well, the Quran doesn't mention that.
A muslim that refuses to have anything to do with alcohol or pork (as in selling it to people) are just doing the same as certain christians do when refusing to sell contraceptives - they avoid an item their religion doesn't approve of, even if the buyer doesn't subscribe to that religion. They extend the ban on using it to handling the item. In essence, since they're not allowed to have it they don't want anyone else to have it either.
hotsauceman1 wrote: 18 and under cannot handle alchohol. 18 to 21, can sell and serve alchohol. but cannot poor it 21 and older. Can do all the above and pour it.
The laws are different in the UK, under 18s most certainly can handle alcohol, take your money, bag it for you etc.. the only caveat is that the sale must be approved by an adult. This is enough to satisfy the law, and minimises inconvenience to the customer.
What I was actually questioning was what part of the process the stewardess in the OP objects to. Is it the handling of alcohol that she objects to? Is it receiving money for the alcohol she objects to? Is it assisting/permitting other people to drink alcohol that she objects to? Or a mixture of these things. Obviously, I don't expect people to know the answers to those questions, I'm just pointing out that they are important questions (obviously, it would be great if someone were privy to the details).
This article is about a similar thing happening in UK supermarkets. Some Muslim staff refuse to handle alcohol and pork.
Here's a quote:
One customer, who declined to be named, said: “I had one bottle of champagne, and the lady, who was wearing a headscarf, was very apologetic but said she could not serve me. She told me to wait until another member of staff was available.
“I was taken aback. I was a bit surprised. I’ve never come across that before.”
Personally, I think I'd be pretty pissed if I had to queue up for ages, and was then told I couldn't be served. I've done cleaning jobs, and believe me, there was plenty of gross stuff that I didn't want to touch (like deep in my soul, didn't want to touch), but that's part of the job. If someone can't do the job then maybe make some allowances, but don't put them on the front-line where they're gonna hold everyone up.
Smacks wrote: The laws are different in the UK, under 18s most certainly can handle alcohol, take your money, bag it for you etc.. the only caveat is that the sale must be approved by an adult. This is enough to satisfy the law, and minimises inconvenience to the customer.
Aye, we have the same. There must be an adult (if you consider 18 adult) who is responsible for the sale, even if the minor is the one standing behind the counter.
nkelsch wrote: You think bosses saying 'So-and-so can't do X because of religion, figure it out' is bad probably has never been a single person in a team full of people with kids.
You want to know what excuse basically destroys every emergency, after-hours, overtime, scheduling issue?
"I Have Kids."
I would much rather take on an extra duty for a co-worker because of a religious issue than people who constantly ditch out on work responsibilities for kids.
I have had muslim co-workers who fast during Ramadan and we totally worked with them to avoid subjecting them to exhaustive labor while daytime fasting. Know what's not reasonable? "School ended and I have a week until summer camp kicks in, so my kids are coming in and going to color in the corner so I can't do X Y and Z because I need to watch my kids."
Wow. I hate kids and even I think this ppst is excessive.
I don't hate kids. I hate people who use their kids as an unquestionable excuse on how to get out of job responsibilities, especially when qualifying and dismissing other people's requests and dumping the load on their co-workers. And when it is for religious reasons, people get mad about it and want them fired, but no one says anything when it is people slacking at work because of 'kids'.
In today's age, some parents treat parenting children like a religion.
One of the major issues is you *CANNOT* do honest work while providing child care. People often telecommute 1-2 days a week, but then are watching a child during that entire 8-hour session. (especially young children). That is fraud and stealing from the company as no one can be even remotley close to as productive while watching children as they would be normally. Want to get 2 hours of work in during nap time? No problem. Don't be checking email every hour and have a screaming child while on a conference call. Take leave.
So since people with children frequently de-value needing to give 100%, 8-hours a day to their employer... I can't see why in most situations religious observance accommodations can't be made?
Blamed for not having enough children. Blamed for having too many children.
Blamed for having children and not going to work. Blamed for having children and working and not looking after the children. Blamed for having children, working and looking after the children.
Bromsy wrote: I am on the side of not exempting Sikhs or anyone else from grooming standards without a medical exemption. I had a beard and long hair before I joined the army, I shaved that gak when I joined up. Frankly, we don't need the tiny number of Sikhs who would have joined if the exemption continued. And if we are saying that Sikhs get to ignore grooming standards based on their religion, why can't I ignore them based on my deeply held personal philosophical beliefs that a beard makes me a better person?
How do you know it would have only been a tiny number? And it's not just the number we need to consider, but what that number brings to the fight. Medical professionals, linguists, etc., all things (particularly linguists) we could use more of.
And not to minimize your beliefs, but your deeply held personal philosophical beliefs are not the same as a well-established religion that previously had an exemption that was taken away for dubious reasons.
Blamed for not having enough children. Blamed for having too many children.
Blamed for having children and not going to work. Blamed for having children and working and not looking after the children. Blamed for having children, working and looking after the children.
I suppose they must be victims.
However this is rather getting off the topic.
Only women have children or are responsible for their care? Are you assuming that nkelsch was only referring to female employees? That would be interesting.
nkelsch wrote: In today's age, some parents treat parenting children like a religion.
As they should.
The moment my daughter was born, raising her immediately became the single most important part of my life. So you can bet your danglies that her needs take priority over work, and I am totally and utterly unapologetic about that.
Of course, it helps considerably that I have an employer with the same attitude towards the importance of family.
One of the major issues is you *CANNOT* do honest work while providing child care. People often telecommute 1-2 days a week, but then are watching a child during that entire 8-hour session. (especially young children). That is fraud and stealing from the company ...
Only if the company is unaware of it.
We quite often have staff having to stay home to look after kids, or bring kids into the office. The boss is ok with it, as are all of the staff... because it's a smallish company where someone being away is a bit of an issue for everyone else, so someone logging on from home and working at 50% of their normal capacity and catching up the rest tomorrow or after hours is still preferable to them just not being there at all and the rest of us having to cover their work.
Blamed for not supporting their wives. Blamed for supporting their wives.
There we go.
More like an employee complaining about having to take on more responsibilities due to a team mate who observes Ramadan, but during spring break and Christmas break expect to be able to 'telecommute' while watching kids at home making them unavailable for certain tasks and compromises their ability to work, which makes the burden fall to those other team mates.
It is about the rank hypocrisy of some employees who complain about 'making accommodations' sometimes. Basically if your request isn't part of the majority, mainstream existence, your request becomes unreasonable and you should be fired, which I disagree with.
won't fit and if so it would impede the design of the ACH to protect one's cranium
BS. Do some research. They've already proven that it can fit and that was one of the requirements for getting an exemption for the Sikh's currently in service. They had to be able to safely wear a kevlar on top of their turban and they had to be able to get a good seal on a gas mask, both of which they were able to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's a picture of one of the three currently serving observant Sikhs training with a kevlar over top of his turban. Doesn't seem to be impeding the design of the helmet to protect his cranium, does it?
The idea that Sikhs can't serve because of their beards and turbans is actually a really, really recent idea so it's kind of weird that it's totally accepted wisdom. It seemed to have not been a problem in World War I, World War 2, Korea, and Vietnam.
Ouze wrote: The idea that Sikhs can't serve because of their beards and turbans is actually a really, really recent idea so it's kind of weird that it's totally accepted wisdom. It seemed to have not been a problem in World War I, World War 2, Korea, and Vietnam.
Occupational Health And Safety wasn't such a big deal in World War I, World War 2, Korea, and Vietnam.
But yeah, it does seem to be a bit of a storm in a teacup. There are ways around it, and Hindu and Muslim countries seem to have military forces...
dogma wrote: But the airline didn't explicitly accommodate the attendant, it basically said "Figure it out with your coworkers, we don't care."
That comes to the same thing. If they didn't care then about her serving drinks they have to a significant degree abandoned the responsbility of caring later on.
I have seen similar situations where management is alright with someone not performing the full scope of their job as long as their co workers are alright with the situation. Once objections from the co workers begin cropping up, it becomes a morale situation that, if not dealt with, begins affecting the workplace negatively. If the worker in question refuses to pick up their responsibilities, it's adios and out the door they go.
won't fit and if so it would impede the design of the ACH to protect one's cranium
BS. Do some research. They've already proven that it can fit and that was one of the requirements for getting an exemption for the Sikh's currently in service. They had to be able to safely wear a kevlar on top of their turban and they had to be able to get a good seal on a gas mask, both of which they were able to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's a picture of one of the three currently serving observant Sikhs training with a kevlar over top of his turban. Doesn't seem to be impeding the design of the helmet to protect his cranium, does it?
Spoiler:
What about effectiveness of gas masks with the beard?
Relapse wrote: What about effectiveness of gas masks with the beard?
Reread my posts in this thread. I've specifically mentioned that multiple times. It is possible to get a good seal on a gas mask with a beard, and the currently serving Sikh soldiers were required to prove that they could achieve a good seal with their masks.
Amish communities demonstrated that they were able to get a good seal using SCBA masks to be exempt from OSHA rules that firefighters be clean shaven for mask use.
. . . at first glance I thought that was a baby capsule, possibly for army babies.
Take your kid to work day on a whole new level.
As for the pic of the turban, after seeing it I'm a little less against it then I was. Guess I was imagining the stereotypical big turban. Still not sold on the beard though. If they allow it then they need to go back to looking at ethnic hair for women, because removing thse styles from the list of approved ones was shenanigans.
. . . at first glance I thought that was a baby capsule, possibly for army babies.
Take your kid to work day on a whole new level.
As for the pic of the turban, after seeing it I'm a little less against it then I was. Guess I was imagining the stereotypical big turban. Still not sold on the beard though. If they allow it then they need to go back to looking at ethnic hair for women, because removing thse styles from the list of approved ones was shenanigans.
I don't really think they should have removed the ethnic hairstyles that had previously been approved either.
won't fit and if so it would impede the design of the ACH to protect one's cranium
BS. Do some research. They've already proven that it can fit and that was one of the requirements for getting an exemption for the Sikh's currently in service. They had to be able to safely wear a kevlar on top of their turban and they had to be able to get a good seal on a gas mask, both of which they were able to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's a picture of one of the three currently serving observant Sikhs training with a kevlar over top of his turban. Doesn't seem to be impeding the design of the helmet to protect his cranium, does it?
Spoiler:
That same individual
HOW HE DOES IT
Sikhism has five articles of faith all baptized Sikhs must wear at all times — the kesh (unshorn hair), the kangha (small wooden comb), the kara (a metal bracelet or bangle), the kaccha (cotton undergarments) and the kirpan (a small dagger). Lamba wears these too, and said he doesn’t violate AR 670-1 while doing it.
KESH: Lamba said that with helmets, he wears his hair in a tight underturban that produces no gaps or unsteadiness. With gasmasks, he uses petroleum jelly to make a solid seal with his beard, which is kept tucked into his uniform. He has ACU-patterned turbans instead of field caps.
KANGHA: The comb is small enough that he can place it in his turban without it being seen. It’s a constant reminder that hair must be well-kempt, Lamba said. “Hair is a gift from God.”
KARA: The small metal bracelet easily is hidden under his sleeve, he said.
KACCHA: The undergarments also are easy to wear with the ACU and other uniforms.
KIRPAN: Lamba said he wears a very small kirpan around his neck, and that it isn’t any longer than his dogtags.
So he is not wearing a full size turban under the ACH like your saying.
won't fit and if so it would impede the design of the ACH to protect one's cranium
BS. Do some research. They've already proven that it can fit and that was one of the requirements for getting an exemption for the Sikh's currently in service. They had to be able to safely wear a kevlar on top of their turban and they had to be able to get a good seal on a gas mask, both of which they were able to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's a picture of one of the three currently serving observant Sikhs training with a kevlar over top of his turban. Doesn't seem to be impeding the design of the helmet to protect his cranium, does it?
Spoiler:
That same individual
HOW HE DOES IT
Sikhism has five articles of faith all baptized Sikhs must wear at all times — the kesh (unshorn hair), the kangha (small wooden comb), the kara (a metal bracelet or bangle), the kaccha (cotton undergarments) and the kirpan (a small dagger). Lamba wears these too, and said he doesn’t violate AR 670-1 while doing it.
KESH: Lamba said that with helmets, he wears his hair in a tight underturban that produces no gaps or unsteadiness. With gasmasks, he uses petroleum jelly to make a solid seal with his beard, which is kept tucked into his uniform. He has ACU-patterned turbans instead of field caps.
KANGHA: The comb is small enough that he can place it in his turban without it being seen. It’s a constant reminder that hair must be well-kempt, Lamba said. “Hair is a gift from God.”
KARA: The small metal bracelet easily is hidden under his sleeve, he said.
KACCHA: The undergarments also are easy to wear with the ACU and other uniforms.
KIRPAN: Lamba said he wears a very small kirpan around his neck, and that it isn’t any longer than his dogtags.
So he is not wearing a full size turban under the ACH like your saying.
Edit
Oh, so he's still wearing a turban under his helmet that meets the requirements of his religion like I said before? Imagine that.
I never said he was wearing a "full-sized" turban under his Kevlar. I said the they all had to prove that they could wear a Kevlar safety over their turban (that is, a turban that would meet the requirements of their faith, which the underturban obviously does), something they were all able to do.
Negative High Speed. That was not the route you took. I showed a full scale turban and a ACH and you went with that saying "Yes". I show a Under turbin that's like a neck gator that fits under the ACH. You screwed up not I. So carry on
Also your welcome for the clarification. Also show me in AR670-1 that covers this.
The gas mask one is BS though. The jelly is wonderful when your going into a gas chamber and you don't have to worry about getting the mask on quickly, but seeing as the accepted military practice is donning, clearing and checking your gas mask in 9 seconds, I don't think he has enough time to grease up that beard of his and put his mask on in that time frame. So in a real combat environment where chemical/biological threats are real.....he is a liability.
Ghazkuul wrote: The gas mask one is BS though. The jelly is wonderful when your going into a gas chamber and you don't have to worry about getting the mask on quickly, but seeing as the accepted military practice is donning, clearing and checking your gas mask in 9 seconds, I don't think he has enough time to grease up that beard of his and put his mask on in that time frame. So in a real combat environment where chemical/biological threats are real.....he is a liability.
That's what I was wondering about, also. I'd like to see how this action works in a practice with tear gas.
Jihadin wrote: Negative High Speed. That was not the route you took. I showed a full scale turban and a ACH and you went with that saying "Yes". I show a Under turbin that's like a neck gator that fits under the ACH. You screwed up not I. So carry on
Also your welcome for the clarification. Also show me in AR670-1 that covers this.
Okay. He's still able to wear an underturban with a Kevlar and is able to meet the requirements of his religion, which was my original point. It's obvious you were unfamiliar with the entire issue, otherwise you wouldn't have been posting misleading, irrelevant content. Because quite frankly it doesn't matter if they can fit their full turban underneath the Kevlar when an underturban will suffice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote: The gas mask one is BS though. The jelly is wonderful when your going into a gas chamber and you don't have to worry about getting the mask on quickly, but seeing as the accepted military practice is donning, clearing and checking your gas mask in 9 seconds, I don't think he has enough time to grease up that beard of his and put his mask on in that time frame. So in a real combat environment where chemical/biological threats are real.....he is a liability.
It wouldn't be difficult to keep the beard jellied up if you're operating in an area with a high threat of chemical attack.
Jihadin wrote: Negative High Speed. That was not the route you took. I showed a full scale turban and a ACH and you went with that saying "Yes". I show a Under turbin that's like a neck gator that fits under the ACH. You screwed up not I. So carry on
Also your welcome for the clarification. Also show me in AR670-1 that covers this.
Okay. He's still able to wear an underturban with a Kevlar and is able to meet the requirements of his religion, which was my original point. It's obvious you were unfamiliar with the entire issue, otherwise you wouldn't have been posting misleading, irrelevant content. Because quite frankly it doesn't matter if they can fit their full turban underneath the Kevlar when an underturban will suffice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote: The gas mask one is BS though. The jelly is wonderful when your going into a gas chamber and you don't have to worry about getting the mask on quickly, but seeing as the accepted military practice is donning, clearing and checking your gas mask in 9 seconds, I don't think he has enough time to grease up that beard of his and put his mask on in that time frame. So in a real combat environment where chemical/biological threats are real.....he is a liability.
It wouldn't be difficult to keep the beard jellied up if you're operating in an area with a high threat of chemical attack.
If you honestly believe that then you have never been to Iraq or Afghanistan. Let me explain it to you in one simple word....Dust. ANYTHING wet in that country is immediately turned to mud. So instead of having a nicely jelled beard you would have a mud caked disgusting/disease filled beard that would never hold a good seal on a gas mask.
Jihadin wrote: Negative High Speed. That was not the route you took. I showed a full scale turban and a ACH and you went with that saying "Yes". I show a Under turbin that's like a neck gator that fits under the ACH. You screwed up not I. So carry on
Also your welcome for the clarification. Also show me in AR670-1 that covers this.
Okay. He's still able to wear an underturban with a Kevlar and is able to meet the requirements of his religion, which was my original point. It's obvious you were unfamiliar with the entire issue, otherwise you wouldn't have been posting misleading, irrelevant content. Because quite frankly it doesn't matter if they can fit their full turban underneath the Kevlar when an underturban will suffice.
Again. Negative High Speed. Your original point was a full turban under the ACH. I even showed pics to clarify. The inside of a ACH and the actual turban the solder was wearing in Garrison which would go against the design of properly wearing the ACH to protect one's dome. You screwed the pooch. Deal with it. Your welcome though for me broaden your mind (us) on Turban that's worn over a underturban. You can now carry on
Jihadin wrote: Negative High Speed. That was not the route you took. I showed a full scale turban and a ACH and you went with that saying "Yes". I show a Under turbin that's like a neck gator that fits under the ACH. You screwed up not I. So carry on
Also your welcome for the clarification. Also show me in AR670-1 that covers this.
Okay. He's still able to wear an underturban with a Kevlar and is able to meet the requirements of his religion, which was my original point. It's obvious you were unfamiliar with the entire issue, otherwise you wouldn't have been posting misleading, irrelevant content. Because quite frankly it doesn't matter if they can fit their full turban underneath the Kevlar when an underturban will suffice.
Again. Negative High Speed. Your original point was a full turban under the ACH. I even showed pics to clarify. The inside of a ACH and the actual turban the solder was wearing in Garrison which would go against the design of properly wearing the ACH to protect one's dome. You screwed the pooch. Deal with it. Your welcome though for me broaden your mind (us) on Turban that's worn over a underturban. You can now carry on
That was not my original point. Show me where I posted that. Sorry if you got butthurt due to being clueless on this issue and getting called on it. What other reason would you have for posting a photo of a full turban? Were you just trying to play a game of gotcha from the beginning? Or did you think that that was a requirement for observant Sikhs in the service?
won't fit and if so it would impede the design of the ACH to protect one's cranium
BS. Do some research. They've already proven that it can fit and that was one of the requirements for getting an exemption for the Sikh's currently in service. They had to be able to safely wear a kevlar on top of their turban and they had to be able to get a good seal on a gas mask, both of which they were able to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's a picture of one of the three currently serving observant Sikhs training with a kevlar over top of his turban. Doesn't seem to be impeding the design of the helmet to protect his cranium, does it?
Jihadin wrote: Negative High Speed. That was not the route you took. I showed a full scale turban and a ACH and you went with that saying "Yes". I show a Under turbin that's like a neck gator that fits under the ACH. You screwed up not I. So carry on
Also your welcome for the clarification. Also show me in AR670-1 that covers this.
Okay. He's still able to wear an underturban with a Kevlar and is able to meet the requirements of his religion, which was my original point. It's obvious you were unfamiliar with the entire issue, otherwise you wouldn't have been posting misleading, irrelevant content. Because quite frankly it doesn't matter if they can fit their full turban underneath the Kevlar when an underturban will suffice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote: The gas mask one is BS though. The jelly is wonderful when your going into a gas chamber and you don't have to worry about getting the mask on quickly, but seeing as the accepted military practice is donning, clearing and checking your gas mask in 9 seconds, I don't think he has enough time to grease up that beard of his and put his mask on in that time frame. So in a real combat environment where chemical/biological threats are real.....he is a liability.
It wouldn't be difficult to keep the beard jellied up if you're operating in an area with a high threat of chemical attack.
If you honestly believe that then you have never been to Iraq or Afghanistan. Let me explain it to you in one simple word....Dust. ANYTHING wet in that country is immediately turned to mud. So instead of having a nicely jelled beard you would have a mud caked disgusting/disease filled beard that would never hold a good seal on a gas mask.
He would only have to keep it jellied if he was in an area at risk of chemical attack. If he was in an area at risk of chemical attack, there's a good chance he'd be wearing a MOPP suit or something similar as well (such as during the invasion of Iraq in 2003), and if he has a mask with a hood, the beard ceases to be an issue at all.. And sweat, grime, and sand can build up on a sweaty face as well. I think you're massively overstating the issue that a beard would cause, especially considering there are military forces across the world with beards who don't seem to have any issues and still use gas masks. SOCOM operators of various sorts wear beards in country on a regular basis.
won't fit and if so it would impede the design of the ACH to protect one's cranium
BS. Do some research. They've already proven that it can fit and that was one of the requirements for getting an exemption for the Sikh's currently in service. They had to be able to safely wear a kevlar on top of their turban and they had to be able to get a good seal on a gas mask, both of which they were able to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's a picture of one of the three currently serving observant Sikhs training with a kevlar over top of his turban. Doesn't seem to be impeding the design of the helmet to protect his cranium, does it?
Spoiler:
I bow to your superior knowledge on this
As for the beard your on your own against Ghaz
Okay. So it was an underturban, a type of turban, rather than his full turban. My mistake. What was your point again originally though? That the full turban wouldn't fit, even though that wasn't a requirement of their religion? Or did you know full well that they only needed to wear an underturban, which fit just fine, and you were just trying to play a pedantic game of gotcha by pointing out that a full turban and an underturban isn't the same thing, since I was just using the word "turban" rather than being more specific? Which is it again?
Jihadin wrote: Negative High Speed. That was not the route you took. I showed a full scale turban and a ACH and you went with that saying "Yes". I show a Under turbin that's like a neck gator that fits under the ACH. You screwed up not I. So carry on
Also your welcome for the clarification. Also show me in AR670-1 that covers this.
Okay. He's still able to wear an underturban with a Kevlar and is able to meet the requirements of his religion, which was my original point. It's obvious you were unfamiliar with the entire issue, otherwise you wouldn't have been posting misleading, irrelevant content. Because quite frankly it doesn't matter if they can fit their full turban underneath the Kevlar when an underturban will suffice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote: The gas mask one is BS though. The jelly is wonderful when your going into a gas chamber and you don't have to worry about getting the mask on quickly, but seeing as the accepted military practice is donning, clearing and checking your gas mask in 9 seconds, I don't think he has enough time to grease up that beard of his and put his mask on in that time frame. So in a real combat environment where chemical/biological threats are real.....he is a liability.
It wouldn't be difficult to keep the beard jellied up if you're operating in an area with a high threat of chemical attack.
If you honestly believe that then you have never been to Iraq or Afghanistan. Let me explain it to you in one simple word....Dust. ANYTHING wet in that country is immediately turned to mud. So instead of having a nicely jelled beard you would have a mud caked disgusting/disease filled beard that would never hold a good seal on a gas mask.
He would only have to keep it jellied if he was in an area at risk of chemical attack. If he was in an area at risk of chemical attack, there's a good chance he'd be wearing a MOPP suit or something similar as well (such as during the invasion of Iraq in 2003), and if he has a mask with a hood, the beard ceases to be an issue at all.. And sweat, grime, and sand can build up on a sweaty face as well. I think you're massively overstating the issue that a beard would cause, especially considering there are military forces across the world with beards who don't seem to have any issues and still use gas masks. SOCOM operators of various sorts wear beards in country on a regular basis.
difference being that sweaty/muddy skin will still form air tight seals, but not hairy beards. And incorrect, MOPP suits with the hood will not protect you if your mask isn't air tight. Its just a hoodie it isn't air tight. Also if you think it doesn't cause casualties, there are a few hundred/thousand? Iranians who would like a word with you.
SOCOM operate on their own rules, so using them to justify how the rest of the military operates is kinda...dumb sorry not trying to be insulting but seriously they make up a fraction of a percent of the military.
difference being that sweaty/muddy skin will still form air tight seals, but not hairy beards. And incorrect, MOPP suits with the hood will not protect you if your mask isn't air tight. Its just a hoodie it isn't air tight. Also if you think it doesn't cause casualties, there are a few hundred/thousand? Iranians who would like a word with you.
SOCOM operate on their own rules, so using them to justify how the rest of the military operates is kinda...dumb sorry not trying to be insulting but seriously they make up a fraction of a percent of the military.
Do you have any evidence that sweaty muddy skin will form an airtight seal but a sweaty, muddy, hairy beard will not? Not trying to be pedantic, but everything I've seen so far is that the "you can't get a good gas mask seal with a beard" is basically an old wives tale. I haven't seen any evidence to back it up.
Have you seen specific evidence that the Iranian casualties were caused due to lack of good gas mask seals due to wearing full beards? Again, not trying to be a dick about it, I'm legitimately curious.
And I'm not using the SOCOM thing as my primary justification, I know they are small and have their own rules, it was just another example that came to mind. Are troops currently in Afghanistan carrying gas masks on their person on a regular basis? I know they were during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but is it currently still the case? I'm guessing the answer is no, since the threat of a chemical attack is likely slim. I also mentioned previously that conventional troops in more remote areas often grow facial hair, and that doesn't seem to have caused any substantial issues that I know of either, except for maybe driving some 1stSgt or SgtMaj somewhere crazy if they find out about it.
Well there is the "Medical Aspects of Chemical Weapons" or "Irans Military forces in Transition" which both attribute significant casualties to facial hair not allowing gas masks to create air tight seals.
Ghazkuul wrote: Well there is the "Medical Aspects of Chemical Weapons" or "Irans Military forces in Transition" which both attribute significant casualties to facial hair not allowing gas masks to create air tight seals.
Were they able to determine that it was primarily a beard issue, rather than a training issue? That is, if the users had had better training, might they have been able to achieve a good seal with the beard, or did the beard actually make achieving a good seal physically impossible?
I'm just wanting to make sure. I'm also not sure if the dust and vaseline issue would be as big of an issue as you think. I find it unlikely that it would be any worse than cammie paint mixed with sweat and dust. It seems like the Army did a lot of tests with the Sikh soldiers to ensure they could achieve a good seal, and I doubt it would have been approved if they still had concerns about achieving a good seal in country. Major Kalsi talks about getting a good seal in this interview and doesn't mention if he uses vaseline or not, but he did mention getting tested several times, and achieving a good seal each time.
Okay, so years and years ago I worked in a book store. The book store stocked magazines of various types, up to and including nudie mags. We had a guy on staff who worked the morning shift and stocked all the magazines. We had a lot of magazines... a lot a lot. Stocking them all could take two hours. This guy was a youth pastor and a pretty devout Christian. He asked if someone other than he could stock the nudie mags, not because he was opposed to them on religious grounds, but because many members of his congregation were opposed to them and he didn't want to be seen stocking them by anyone he knew from church. I was in charge of newspapers (among other things), so I figured I could help this guy out. I'd be up near the magazines anyway, and it was only like four titles I had to stock for him. So this guy asked for help and I told my supervisor I would cover for him, and *bam*! We had a reasonable accommodation.
Hordini wrote: And not to minimize your beliefs, but your deeply held personal philosophical beliefs are not the same as a well-established religion.
I think that does minimize his beliefs, and I find your attitude actually quite offensive (if not to my person, then to my sensibilities). Why should one "deeply held" belief be superior to any other? Especially when it is largely unprovable superstition, and who are you or anyone to say that someone's belief isn't deeply held enough? My beard is a part of my body, it's literally in my DNA, handed down to me from my ancestors, sculpted by nature itself for some purpose. Why should my beard be considered any less important to me than a religious person's beard is to him?
Hordini wrote: And not to minimize your beliefs, but your deeply held personal philosophical beliefs are not the same as a well-established religion.
I think that does minimize his beliefs, and I find your attitude actually quite offensive (if not to my person, then to my sensibilities). Why should one "deeply held" belief be superior to any other? Especially when it is largely unprovable superstition, and who are you or anyone to say that someone's belief isn't deeply held enough? My beard is a part of my body, it's literally in my DNA, handed down to me from my ancestors, sculpted by nature itself for some purpose. Why should my beard be considered any less important to me than a religious person's beard is to him?
Nowhere did I make the claim that one deeply held belief was superior than any other, or that someone's belief is or is not "deeply held enough." What does that even mean? What would a belief be deeply held enough for? All I said was that a person's deeply held philosophical beliefs are not the same as a well-established religion, and I still stand by that statement. Being different does not make any argument for or against one being superior to the other. Are you arguing that they are the same? Are philosophical beliefs the same as religious beliefs? They can certainly be similar, I will grant that. That does not make them the same.
I think you may be reading into my post claims that I did not make.
Hordini wrote: Nowhere did I make the claim that one deeply held belief was superior than any other, or that someone's belief is or is not "deeply held enough." What does that even mean? What would a belief be deeply held enough for? All I said was that a person's deeply held philosophical beliefs are not the same as a well-established religion, and I still stand by that statement. Being different does not make any argument for or against one being superior to the other. Are you arguing that they are the same? Are philosophical beliefs the same as religious beliefs? They can certainly be similar, I will grant that. That does not make them the same.
I think you may be reading into my post claims that I did not make.
Bromsy asked "Sikhs get to ignore grooming standards based on their religion, why can't I ignore them based on my deeply held personal philosophical beliefs(?)"
To which you replied his beliefs were not the same. The context is you saying that his deeply held personal beliefs are not sufficiant to allow him to ignore grooming standards, while a religious person's beliefs are. I can only conclude that you must find his beliefs inferior in some way. What else could you possibly have been saying with that response?
And yes, for the purposes of law etc.. I would argue that they are the same. Why should a religious person's deeply held beliefs be any more important than mine?
Jihadin wrote: Negative High Speed. That was not the route you took. I showed a full scale turban and a ACH and you went with that saying "Yes". I show a Under turbin that's like a neck gator that fits under the ACH. You screwed up not I. So carry on
Also your welcome for the clarification. Also show me in AR670-1 that covers this.
Okay. He's still able to wear an underturban with a Kevlar and is able to meet the requirements of his religion, which was my original point. It's obvious you were unfamiliar with the entire issue, otherwise you wouldn't have been posting misleading, irrelevant content. Because quite frankly it doesn't matter if they can fit their full turban underneath the Kevlar when an underturban will suffice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote: The gas mask one is BS though. The jelly is wonderful when your going into a gas chamber and you don't have to worry about getting the mask on quickly, but seeing as the accepted military practice is donning, clearing and checking your gas mask in 9 seconds, I don't think he has enough time to grease up that beard of his and put his mask on in that time frame. So in a real combat environment where chemical/biological threats are real.....he is a liability.
It wouldn't be difficult to keep the beard jellied up if you're operating in an area with a high threat of chemical attack.
Do you realize how crapped up with dirt and small rocks a vasolined beard would get in a field operation, totally negating any benifits of sealing it might give?
I'm not sure why there is any controversy about having Sihks in your armed forces, the Sihk peoples have had a long and fine tradition of of Military service wherever they have served.
Like the Gurka regiments Britain raised our own Sihk regiments after facing the skill and ferocity of Sihk armies.
Indeed it would seem that the British Army have looked at reforming old Sihk regiments in the British army after an influx of Sihk recruits and belief there is a bigger resource to tap.
Note the complete lack of mention of head gear and the inclusion of Sihks in Air Corp, Scots and Guards regiments all looking as spick and span as any of their fellow soldiers, as one would expect from a Britsh Serviceman.
The US would do well to tap into this resource as I'm sure you have a significant Indian population like the UK.
d-usa wrote: Amish communities demonstrated that they were able to get a good seal using SCBA masks to be exempt from OSHA rules that firefighters be clean shaven for mask use.
Shame the DMV are still unlikely to hire Amish workers though
FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. — Based on her deeply held beliefs of the “sanctity of military service,” admin clerk Spc. Kim David has been refusing to issue DD214s to service members whose records do not share her military service values, Duffel Blog has learned.
“It wasn’t a spur of the moment decision,” said David. “It was thought out, and I consulted the army values, all seven of them, before taking these actions.”
Spc. David’s actions — or lack thereof — have stirred controversy across the installation, drawing sharp criticism from those who feel the 19-year-old clerk is obligated to perform her duties as assigned regardless of her beliefs, while others complain she should not be evaluating others’ service after she was caught using her Government Travel Card to buy Joel Osteen DVDs.
Some soldiers have come to her defense, seeing her stance as bravery in the face of the deteriorating power of the E-4 mafia.
“David doesn’t have to process anyone’s DD214 that doesn’t embody the army values like we do,” said Spc. Trevor Koch, a medic and vocal supporter of David’s growing contingent. “Just the other day, I did a multi-source feedback on one of the lieutenants in the unit. Looked like everyone said he was a gak-bird. That’s why I’m not going to update his vaccinations properly in MEDPROs.”
Spc. John David Riley, the first soldier David refused to process a DD214 for, did nothing above standard for the army and deserved to continue serving until he distinguished himself, said David, when called before a judge at her Court Martial.
Riley is still waiting on a folding chair assuming that any minute now his DD214 will be complete and could not be reached for comment.
David, a Rowan County, Ky. native, testified that she joined the army to be a cook and was forced into the administration position. She asserted she never would have volunteered for a position where she would be forced to provide services to soldiers who have not served up to her standards.
David herself has previously collected a string of Article 15’s for public indecency, dereliction of duty, and misappropriation of government equipment in addition to the investigation into her Government Travel Card Charges.
“I’ve made mistakes,” said David. “I know I have. But I’m only accountable to the army. I can’t be fired. No one else on this post knows how to generate a DD214.”
FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. — Based on her deeply held beliefs of the “sanctity of military service,” admin clerk Spc. Kim David has been refusing to issue DD214s to service members whose records do not share her military service values, Duffel Blog has learned.
“It wasn’t a spur of the moment decision,” said David. “It was thought out, and I consulted the army values, all seven of them, before taking these actions.”
Spc. David’s actions — or lack thereof — have stirred controversy across the installation, drawing sharp criticism from those who feel the 19-year-old clerk is obligated to perform her duties as assigned regardless of her beliefs, while others complain she should not be evaluating others’ service after she was caught using her Government Travel Card to buy Joel Osteen DVDs.
Some soldiers have come to her defense, seeing her stance as bravery in the face of the deteriorating power of the E-4 mafia.
“David doesn’t have to process anyone’s DD214 that doesn’t embody the army values like we do,” said Spc. Trevor Koch, a medic and vocal supporter of David’s growing contingent. “Just the other day, I did a multi-source feedback on one of the lieutenants in the unit. Looked like everyone said he was a gak-bird. That’s why I’m not going to update his vaccinations properly in MEDPROs.”
Spc. John David Riley, the first soldier David refused to process a DD214 for, did nothing above standard for the army and deserved to continue serving until he distinguished himself, said David, when called before a judge at her Court Martial.
Riley is still waiting on a folding chair assuming that any minute now his DD214 will be complete and could not be reached for comment.
David, a Rowan County, Ky. native, testified that she joined the army to be a cook and was forced into the administration position. She asserted she never would have volunteered for a position where she would be forced to provide services to soldiers who have not served up to her standards.
David herself has previously collected a string of Article 15’s for public indecency, dereliction of duty, and misappropriation of government equipment in addition to the investigation into her Government Travel Card Charges.
“I’ve made mistakes,” said David. “I know I have. But I’m only accountable to the army. I can’t be fired. No one else on this post knows how to generate a DD214.”
I love Duffelblog, but if that ever happened in real life it would sort itself out in a single day. 1 armory on base would be missing a grenade and the Clerk would have a new impressively large butthole...unfortunately they would be dead but...ohh well
d-usa wrote: Amish communities demonstrated that they were able to get a good seal using SCBA masks to be exempt from OSHA rules that firefighters be clean shaven for mask use.
Shame the DMV are still unlikely to hire Amish workers though
I haven't lol'd that hard in a while. I've seen a car salesman who employs the Amish near Ephrata, PA.
Most bishops around here are liberal with "word processors" if it's work related. A few are ok with cars if its blacked out (bumpers, grill, whole nine yards). But theres maybe 2 DMVs in all of PA Amish country.
Jihadin wrote: Negative High Speed. That was not the route you took. I showed a full scale turban and a ACH and you went with that saying "Yes". I show a Under turbin that's like a neck gator that fits under the ACH. You screwed up not I. So carry on
Also your welcome for the clarification. Also show me in AR670-1 that covers this.
Okay. He's still able to wear an underturban with a Kevlar and is able to meet the requirements of his religion, which was my original point. It's obvious you were unfamiliar with the entire issue, otherwise you wouldn't have been posting misleading, irrelevant content. Because quite frankly it doesn't matter if they can fit their full turban underneath the Kevlar when an underturban will suffice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote: The gas mask one is BS though. The jelly is wonderful when your going into a gas chamber and you don't have to worry about getting the mask on quickly, but seeing as the accepted military practice is donning, clearing and checking your gas mask in 9 seconds, I don't think he has enough time to grease up that beard of his and put his mask on in that time frame. So in a real combat environment where chemical/biological threats are real.....he is a liability.
It wouldn't be difficult to keep the beard jellied up if you're operating in an area with a high threat of chemical attack.
Do you realize how crapped up with dirt and small rocks a vasolined beard would get in a field operation, totally negating any benifits of sealing it might give?
Do you have any actual evidence that that is the case? I mean, sure, it sounds like it could be the case but I find it unlikely that the Army would have approved these three Sikh soldiers if it was going to be as big of an issue as you think. And I've only seen one of the Sikh's soldiers mention using vaseline, so I'm wondering if the others have been able to get a good seal without using any. Everything I've read has said that all of the Sikh soldiers were required to achieve a good seal with their gas masks, and all of them were able to do so, with at least one being tested multiple times. I've only seen one reference to one of them using vaseline. The only mention of vaseline I've seen is a quote by Captain Rattan who said
"My uncle, who was in the Indian Army, said he had no problem with that while was engaged in jungle warfare. He said he put some Vaseline in his beard, which kept the ticks away, and it sealed every single time."
So his uncle doesn't seem to have had a problem during field operations. In a desert environment it might be different, but I doubt the Army would have allowed it if they suspected that would be the case.
Other than that quote, I haven't seen another mention of any of the three observant Sikhs in the US military using vaseline to achieve a seal.
Jihadin wrote: Negative High Speed. That was not the route you took. I showed a full scale turban and a ACH and you went with that saying "Yes". I show a Under turbin that's like a neck gator that fits under the ACH. You screwed up not I. So carry on
Also your welcome for the clarification. Also show me in AR670-1 that covers this.
Okay. He's still able to wear an underturban with a Kevlar and is able to meet the requirements of his religion, which was my original point. It's obvious you were unfamiliar with the entire issue, otherwise you wouldn't have been posting misleading, irrelevant content. Because quite frankly it doesn't matter if they can fit their full turban underneath the Kevlar when an underturban will suffice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote: The gas mask one is BS though. The jelly is wonderful when your going into a gas chamber and you don't have to worry about getting the mask on quickly, but seeing as the accepted military practice is donning, clearing and checking your gas mask in 9 seconds, I don't think he has enough time to grease up that beard of his and put his mask on in that time frame. So in a real combat environment where chemical/biological threats are real.....he is a liability.
It wouldn't be difficult to keep the beard jellied up if you're operating in an area with a high threat of chemical attack.
Do you realize how crapped up with dirt and small rocks a vasolined beard would get in a field operation, totally negating any benifits of sealing it might give?
Do you have any actual evidence that that is the case? I mean, sure, it sounds like it could be the case but I find it unlikely that the Army would have approved these three Sikh soldiers if it was going to be as big of an issue as you think. And I've only seen one of the Sikh's soldiers mention using vaseline, so I'm wondering if the others have been able to get a good seal without using any.
Not to be a dick, but you have 2-3 actual service members who have gone through several renditions of gas mask training, and between us have probably been in the gas chamber over a hundred times. we are all saying it is impossible to get a gas mask to work 100% with a beard. hell its hard to get a good seal without any obstructions, females have it the worst because of the long hair, they have to specifically have ALL of their hair in a bun and out of their faces or the mask won't seal and they get doused with CS gas which is fairly unpleasant.
The US army isn't going to put out a publication for why the Sikh's are allowed to have beards and then say flat out that they can't use a gas mask correctly if the need ever arises. If you would like I can put you into contact with 2 NBC Marines I still talk to. (NBC - Nuclear Biological Chemical). And you can take the word of 2 experts in the field.
Jihadin wrote: Negative High Speed. That was not the route you took. I showed a full scale turban and a ACH and you went with that saying "Yes". I show a Under turbin that's like a neck gator that fits under the ACH. You screwed up not I. So carry on
Also your welcome for the clarification. Also show me in AR670-1 that covers this.
Okay. He's still able to wear an underturban with a Kevlar and is able to meet the requirements of his religion, which was my original point. It's obvious you were unfamiliar with the entire issue, otherwise you wouldn't have been posting misleading, irrelevant content. Because quite frankly it doesn't matter if they can fit their full turban underneath the Kevlar when an underturban will suffice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote: The gas mask one is BS though. The jelly is wonderful when your going into a gas chamber and you don't have to worry about getting the mask on quickly, but seeing as the accepted military practice is donning, clearing and checking your gas mask in 9 seconds, I don't think he has enough time to grease up that beard of his and put his mask on in that time frame. So in a real combat environment where chemical/biological threats are real.....he is a liability.
It wouldn't be difficult to keep the beard jellied up if you're operating in an area with a high threat of chemical attack.
Do you realize how crapped up with dirt and small rocks a vasolined beard would get in a field operation, totally negating any benifits of sealing it might give?
Do you have any actual evidence that that is the case? I mean, sure, it sounds like it could be the case but I find it unlikely that the Army would have approved these three Sikh soldiers if it was going to be as big of an issue as you think. And I've only seen one of the Sikh's soldiers mention using vaseline, so I'm wondering if the others have been able to get a good seal without using any.
Not to be a dick, but you have 2-3 actual service members who have gone through several renditions of gas mask training, and between us have probably been in the gas chamber over a hundred times. we are all saying it is impossible to get a gas mask to work 100% with a beard. hell its hard to get a good seal without any obstructions, females have it the worst because of the long hair, they have to specifically have ALL of their hair in a bun and out of their faces or the mask won't seal and they get doused with CS gas which is fairly unpleasant.
The US army isn't going to put out a publication for why the Sikh's are allowed to have beards and then say flat out that they can't use a gas mask correctly if the need ever arises. If you would like I can put you into contact with 2 NBC Marines I still talk to. (NBC - Nuclear Biological Chemical). And you can take the word of 2 experts in the field.
Not to be a dick, but why are you so sure I haven't been through gas mask training? Have any of you been through gas mask training with anyone with a beard? Yes, I've heard people say that it is difficult or impossible to get a good seal with a gas mask with a beard, but all of those people have only done training while clean shaven and to my knowledge have never actually tried to achieve a seal with a beard themselves, or seen someone do it. To me it sounds like "common knowledge" that has gone untested for so long that everyone believes that it's true but nobody has actually tested it. And now we have Sikh soldiers in the Army who have been able to consistently get a good seal while wearing beards, and that makes me think that the previous "common knowledge" might be wrong.
Have any of those NBC Marines you know tried to get a good seal with a beard? Have they done gas mask training with beards? Have they trained with someone who has? Or did their platoon commander, SNCOIC or NCOIC or whatever the case may be tell them "You can't get a good seal with a beard" because that's what their seniors told them, and that's what their seniors told them, and so on and so forth, while the whole time none of them have ever tried to get a seal with anything but a clean shaven face?
That's my point. I've heard plenty of people say you can't get a good seal with a beard, none of which have actually tried to do it. Now we have several guys who have done it (and a long history of guys who have done it in Sikh units in the Indian Army and the British Army) and now we still have guys who have only ever done gas mask training with a clean shaven face saying how it can't be done.
I have cited experts in the field, and have given you 2 publications where casualties were directly attributed to beards getting in the way of gas masks achieving a proper seal. What more would you like? would you like me to go to the gas chamber next week with a beard and get some CS in my face?
Ghazkuul wrote: I have cited experts in the field, and have given you 2 publications where casualties were directly attributed to beards getting in the way of gas masks achieving a proper seal. What more would you like? would you like me to go to the gas chamber next week with a beard and get some CS in my face?
That might help.
It seems at this point there is conflicting evidence in both directions, since on the one hand we have bearded soldiers currently serving and bearded soldiers throughout history in the British and Indian armies who have been able to achieve good seals, and on the other hand reports that bearded Iranian soldiers weren't able to get good seals during chemical attacks. I'll look into the publications you mentioned earlier. I'm curious how much training and type of mask might be a factor (or not, as the case may be).
Ghazkuul wrote: I have cited experts in the field, and have given you 2 publications where casualties were directly attributed to beards getting in the way of gas masks achieving a proper seal. What more would you like? would you like me to go to the gas chamber next week with a beard and get some CS in my face?
That might help.
It seems at this point there is conflicting evidence in both directions, since on the one hand we have bearded soldiers currently serving and bearded soldiers throughout history in the British and Indian armies who have been able to achieve good seals, and on the other hand reports that bearded Iranian soldiers weren't able to get good seals during chemical attacks. I'll look into the publications you mentioned earlier. I'm curious how much training and type of mask might be a factor (or not, as the case may be).
there is no conflicting evidence. If given plenty of warning, and time anyone can make a beard air tight by application of grease or Vaseline. The problem is you can't walk around in a war with your face covered in vaseline the entire time, nor can you give someone ample time to don the gas mask. It is when someone has to don the mask quickly and in a war time situation that this becomes an issue. And as far as the conflicting reports, you have 1 bearded soldier saying he was able to get a good seal IN TRAINING and the same guy saying his uncle or whatever did the same thing. What you have on the other hand is actual war time evidence.
d-usa wrote: Amish communities demonstrated that they were able to get a good seal using SCBA masks to be exempt from OSHA rules that firefighters be clean shaven for mask use.
Shame the DMV are still unlikely to hire Amish workers though
I haven't lol'd that hard in a while. I've seen a car salesman who employs the Amish near Ephrata, PA.
Most bishops around here are liberal with "word processors" if it's work related. A few are ok with cars if its blacked out (bumpers, grill, whole nine yards). But theres maybe 2 DMVs in all of PA Amish country.
When I lived in Berks county, in southeast PA, we had "black bumper" Mennonites like what you describe. The younger kids had some of the best muscle cars cruising Lebanon on a Saturday night.
Ghazkuul wrote: I have cited experts in the field, and have given you 2 publications where casualties were directly attributed to beards getting in the way of gas masks achieving a proper seal. What more would you like? would you like me to go to the gas chamber next week with a beard and get some CS in my face?
That might help.
It seems at this point there is conflicting evidence in both directions, since on the one hand we have bearded soldiers currently serving and bearded soldiers throughout history in the British and Indian armies who have been able to achieve good seals, and on the other hand reports that bearded Iranian soldiers weren't able to get good seals during chemical attacks. I'll look into the publications you mentioned earlier. I'm curious how much training and type of mask might be a factor (or not, as the case may be).
Just out of curiosity, you have alluded to yourself going through gas mask training. Is this true, and if so, what was it? Without a doubt Sikhs are some serious badasses who anyone would do well to have on their side, but I am going to agree with Ghaz and Jihadin that beards are going to mess up a seal eventually. I won't say it'll be 100%, but I wouldn't bet my life on it not making a difference.
I would say its certainly possible to get a good seal with a beard, but at the same time its probably quite difficult. There is also the exact growth of the beard itself which factors in.
Ultimately, having a beard probably severely increases the danger of not getting a good seal. Especially if extra steps need to be taken to apply it, when you might only have seconds in the event of an actual gas attack.
Hordini wrote: Nowhere did I make the claim that one deeply held belief was superior than any other, or that someone's belief is or is not "deeply held enough." What does that even mean? What would a belief be deeply held enough for? All I said was that a person's deeply held philosophical beliefs are not the same as a well-established religion, and I still stand by that statement. Being different does not make any argument for or against one being superior to the other. Are you arguing that they are the same? Are philosophical beliefs the same as religious beliefs? They can certainly be similar, I will grant that. That does not make them the same.
I think you may be reading into my post claims that I did not make.
Bromsy asked "Sikhs get to ignore grooming standards based on their religion, why can't I ignore them based on my deeply held personal philosophical beliefs(?)"
To which you replied his beliefs were not the same. The context is you saying that his deeply held personal beliefs are not sufficiant to allow him to ignore grooming standards, while a religious person's beliefs are. I can only conclude that you must find his beliefs inferior in some way. What else could you possibly have been saying with that response?
And yes, for the purposes of law etc.. I would argue that they are the same. Why should a religious person's deeply held beliefs be any more important than mine?
On a personal level I agree with you, but we are talking about the Army here, and they are going to have a higher bar for any sort of exemption. If Sikh's, with the backing of a well-established religion have had trouble in the past getting an exemption, an individual with individual philosophical beliefs is going to have an even harder time. That said, a soldier could theoretically request an exemption (which most likely would not be granted). I'm sorry if I offended you.
You guys better start emailing the British, Indian and all other armies with Sikh members, they dont know they danger they've put those soldiers, and the soldiers around them, in by allowing these bearded menaces into the field!
Relapse wrote: Just out of curiosity, you have alluded to yourself going through gas mask training. Is this true, and if so, what was it? Without a doubt Sikhs are some serious badasses who anyone would do well to have on their side, but I am going to agree with Ghaz and Jihadin that beards are going to mess up a seal eventually. I won't say it'll be 100%, but I wouldn't bet my life on it not making a difference.
Like others in this thread, I have trained with gas masks while clean shaven, which is part of my point. Everyone I have ever heard claim that you can't achieve a good seal with a gas mask has only ever trained while clean shaven. Then we have three Sikh's currently serving in the military who have actually trained with beards and say they can achieve a good seal, combined with literally thousands of Sikh soldiers in the Indian and British armies from WWI until the present day who have trained with gas masks. It's not like the British and Indian armies are just a bunch of scrubs who are unaware or don't care about chemical threats. I find it hard to believe that they would employ thousands of Sikh soldiers with beards with the attitude of "Well, you can't get a good seal on your gas mask with a beard but, whatever! Best of luck to you!"
motyak wrote: You guys better start emailing the British, Indian and all other armies with Sikh members, they dont know they danger they've put those soldiers, and the soldiers around them, in by allowing these bearded menaces into the field!
motyak wrote: You guys better start emailing the British, Indian and all other armies with Sikh members, they dont know they danger they've put those soldiers, and the soldiers around them, in by allowing these bearded menaces into the field!
Not to mention the danger the OpFor is put in...
Haha no one gives a gak about opfor, they get to cruise on ex something fierce
Reality is for at least the US military, if having a beard was such a huge threat to the personnel's life SpecOps wouldn't be allowed to grow them.
Also I know of at least 1 Sikh (not personally) in the Army and he gets by fine as a non deployable. If I remember right he is a surgeon, which is something that doesn't need to be front line.
Or you know issue them ProMasks that can be used with beards. Make it available only with religious exemption to keep logistics down. Or require the individual to pay for the equipment out of their pay, like what you do with uniforms.
BrotherGecko wrote: Reality is for at least the US military, if having a beard was such a huge threat to the personnel's life SpecOps wouldn't be allowed to grow them.
Also I know of at least 1 Sikh (not personally) in the Army and he gets by fine as a non deployable. If I remember right he is a surgeon, which is something that doesn't need to be front line.
Or you know issue them ProMasks that can be used with beards. Make it available only with religious exemption to keep logistics down. Or require the individual to pay for the equipment out of their pay, like what you do with uniforms.
1: Spec Ops don't all grow beards in country. Just some do and only for specific reasons such as blending in with local populace. Their is always the "cool guy" who thinks he can get away with it but usually he gets his head bashed in a few times and stops mucking about.
2: Sikh's are fine to keep beards and Turbans as "Non-Deployables" thats fine, except in the USMC if you are not deployable you will be separated.
3: Your idea of Promasks and making them pay for it is actually a really great Idea, I have never had to work with that gas mask so i can't tell you anything about it, but if it works with beards all for it. Maybe make them only pay for a small portion of it. Military members are paid WELL below the poverty line.
CALGARY, Alberta, September 2, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- A Calgary bus driver who is a faithful Christian says he will refuse to drive a city bus decked out by his employer to promote the September 6 Gay Pride Parade, even if it means losing his job.
“I can’t be a part of promoting something that I believe strongly does not represent my beliefs. So, I would ultimately get fired,” said Jesse Rau, a Calgary Transit Authority employee, to NewsTalk 770.
Last week Calgary Transit unveiled a “Pride Bus” it had specially decorated with a rainbow paint job to promote the city’s annual Calgary Pride Festival. A large banner on the side of the bus states: “Ride with Pride” and provides the dates for the celebration of homosexuality, something that Christians believe is a deviation from God’s plan for human sexuality.
"As a Christian I believe in the Bible as being the Word of God, and it teaches that sexual immorality is sin. I don't want to have any part in promoting behaviors and lifestyles that put people in more trouble with God than they already are, and that create more brokenness and despair in their lives," Rau said.
Rau, who is married with a family, said that as a Christian he cannot support a lifestyle that God does not condone. He said that Calgary Transit is promoting a “very radical sexual movement” with the ‘Pride bus’ and is now pushing these values on its employees by asking them to drive the bus.
“Calgary transit tells us to focus on our jobs and not to put [forward] our own agenda, and now this belief system is being pushed on me,” he said.
Rau, who has been on the job for less than a year and is still in a period of probation, fears that staying true to his Christian beliefs will ultimately cost him his job.
“Unfortunately, we live in a culture where if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, the accusation is that you hate the person. I have a family to support and I am very concerned about losing the job. [Being a city bus driver is] something I’m very proud to be a part of, but when it goes against the most important things I stand for, or if I’m asked to compromise in such a big way for what I believe to be right, then I have to lose my job,” he said.
The ‘Pride bus’ will be sent on every route in the city during the 10-day Gay Pride event that began Friday, and also in the parade through downtown Calgary.
“We're hoping to celebrate the diversity that is Calgary,” Doug Morgan, director of Calgary Transit, told reporters. “We want to celebrate our customers . . . and that our doors are open to everyone . . . recognizing Calgary is changing and we want to be part of that.”
So far, Calgary Transit has decided to remain silent on what will become of Rau, with City Manager Feff Fielding going as far as calling the story a "non-issue."
But earlier this week Rau accused the transit service of attempting to silence him by bringing up what he said were false accusations about his driving record.
"I totally feel absolutely threatened, but I'm sick of dodging and ducking this issue," he said standing in front of Calgary City Hall on Monday along with his wife.
Rau said that his employer notified him that over the weekend a complaint about him texting while driving had been filed against him. If true, he would be immediately fired.
"It's an absolutely false accusation," he told reporters, adding that video surveillance would prove his innocence. "My suspicion would be that someone who is a part of Calgary Transit, [someone there] in power, that is upset about [me] raining on this parade, would like to sabotage me.”
Despite being mocked by the city’s radio show hosts for standing by his Christian principles, Rau is finding support from Christian groups around the country.
Concerned Christians of Canada say Calgary transit is using what it calls “questionable tactics” against a Christian employee.
“After a year of working for Calgary Transit, Jesse Rau, a City Transit employee with a previously spotless employment record, has suddenly faced pressure and false accusations after speaking out against the new sacred cow, the ‘pride bus.’ Within the last month Rau has suddenly had a warning from the powers that be at the City Transit indicating that he'd better be silent about his beliefs and make no more trouble in the media if he wanted to keep his job,” the group stated on its website.
As for Rau, he is putting his trust in God. “We don't kill for our faith, we die for it. Proverbs 29:25 - The fear of man brings a snare, But whoever trusts in the Lord shall be safe,” he posted on Facebook yesterday.
This is incredibly stupid. Why not just get a willing driver to do it?
BrotherGecko wrote: Reality is for at least the US military, if having a beard was such a huge threat to the personnel's life SpecOps wouldn't be allowed to grow them.
Also I know of at least 1 Sikh (not personally) in the Army and he gets by fine as a non deployable. If I remember right he is a surgeon, which is something that doesn't need to be front line.
Or you know issue them ProMasks that can be used with beards. Make it available only with religious exemption to keep logistics down. Or require the individual to pay for the equipment out of their pay, like what you do with uniforms.
1: Spec Ops don't all grow beards in country. Just some do and only for specific reasons such as blending in with local populace. Their is always the "cool guy" who thinks he can get away with it but usually he gets his head bashed in a few times and stops mucking about.
2: Sikh's are fine to keep beards and Turbans as "Non-Deployables" thats fine, except in the USMC if you are not deployable you will be separated.
3: Your idea of Promasks and making them pay for it is actually a really great Idea, I have never had to work with that gas mask so i can't tell you anything about it, but if it works with beards all for it. Maybe make them only pay for a small portion of it. Military members are paid WELL below the poverty line.
Military members aren't paid below the poverty line. A brand new E-1 grosses 18,550 just in base pay with no BAH, no special pay, or anything. They also get free housing (barracks), free food (DFAC), and free healthcare (Tricare). That doesn't include the tons of other benefits like the GI bill, VA benefits, PX access, etc. The current poverty line is 23,282 for a family of four. The poverty threshold for a single individual is 11,720 dollars.
You can make an argument that military members should be paid more, but they aren't paid below the poverty line.
BrotherGecko wrote: Reality is for at least the US military, if having a beard was such a huge threat to the personnel's life SpecOps wouldn't be allowed to grow them.
Also I know of at least 1 Sikh (not personally) in the Army and he gets by fine as a non deployable. If I remember right he is a surgeon, which is something that doesn't need to be front line.
Or you know issue them ProMasks that can be used with beards. Make it available only with religious exemption to keep logistics down. Or require the individual to pay for the equipment out of their pay, like what you do with uniforms.
1: Spec Ops don't all grow beards in country. Just some do and only for specific reasons such as blending in with local populace. Their is always the "cool guy" who thinks he can get away with it but usually he gets his head bashed in a few times and stops mucking about.
2: Sikh's are fine to keep beards and Turbans as "Non-Deployables" thats fine, except in the USMC if you are not deployable you will be separated.
3: Your idea of Promasks and making them pay for it is actually a really great Idea, I have never had to work with that gas mask so i can't tell you anything about it, but if it works with beards all for it. Maybe make them only pay for a small portion of it. Military members are paid WELL below the poverty line.
Military members aren't paid below the poverty line. A brand new E-1 grosses 18,550 just in base pay with no BAH, no special pay, or anything. They also get free housing (barracks), free food (DFAC), and free healthcare (Tricare). That doesn't include the tons of other benefits like the GI bill, VA benefits, PX access, etc. The current poverty line is 23,282 for a family of four. The poverty threshold for a single individual is 11,720 dollars.
You can make an argument that military members should be paid more, but they aren't paid below the poverty line.
Nah, that article kind of glossed over it. I read about this somewhere else a few days ago where it was much more clear that he was playing pretend, because of course making up a fun story in your head about how brave and principled you are in the face of hypothetical oppression makes you feel good.
BrotherGecko wrote: Reality is for at least the US military, if having a beard was such a huge threat to the personnel's life SpecOps wouldn't be allowed to grow them.
Also I know of at least 1 Sikh (not personally) in the Army and he gets by fine as a non deployable. If I remember right he is a surgeon, which is something that doesn't need to be front line.
Or you know issue them ProMasks that can be used with beards. Make it available only with religious exemption to keep logistics down. Or require the individual to pay for the equipment out of their pay, like what you do with uniforms.
1: Spec Ops don't all grow beards in country. Just some do and only for specific reasons such as blending in with local populace. Their is always the "cool guy" who thinks he can get away with it but usually he gets his head bashed in a few times and stops mucking about.
2: Sikh's are fine to keep beards and Turbans as "Non-Deployables" thats fine, except in the USMC if you are not deployable you will be separated.
3: Your idea of Promasks and making them pay for it is actually a really great Idea, I have never had to work with that gas mask so i can't tell you anything about it, but if it works with beards all for it. Maybe make them only pay for a small portion of it. Military members are paid WELL below the poverty line.
Military members aren't paid below the poverty line. A brand new E-1 grosses 18,550 just in base pay with no BAH, no special pay, or anything. They also get free housing (barracks), free food (DFAC), and free healthcare (Tricare). That doesn't include the tons of other benefits like the GI bill, VA benefits, PX access, etc. The current poverty line is 23,282 for a family of four. The poverty threshold for a single individual is 11,720 dollars.
You can make an argument that military members should be paid more, but they aren't paid below the poverty line.
Your right I apologize, What I should have said was that they qualify for food stamps, As an E-4 and my Wife as an E-4 we qualified for food stamps. The DFAC is not free, it is deducted from your paycheck, so its free in the sense that you never have to give money to them directly, but your still paying for it.
And Tricare apparently is no longer free either. I have about 4-5 medical bills for my wife (She is still active Duty) that would disagree with that statement. Also when it was free it was so sub par that it bordered on the insulting. I had a broken ankle that got misdiagnosed as a sprained ankle and didn't get it correctly diagnosed for 3 years. After that I had to have surgery where the naval surgeon Fethed up and now I have a limp for the rest of my life. AND Ironically, I just got back from the Miami VA today where the podiatrist informed me that the naval surgeons didn't even do the job they were supposed to do so I have to go get more MRI's and probably another round of Surgery. So yeah feth that nonsense.
BrotherGecko wrote: Reality is for at least the US military, if having a beard was such a huge threat to the personnel's life SpecOps wouldn't be allowed to grow them.
Also I know of at least 1 Sikh (not personally) in the Army and he gets by fine as a non deployable. If I remember right he is a surgeon, which is something that doesn't need to be front line.
Or you know issue them ProMasks that can be used with beards. Make it available only with religious exemption to keep logistics down. Or require the individual to pay for the equipment out of their pay, like what you do with uniforms.
1: Spec Ops don't all grow beards in country. Just some do and only for specific reasons such as blending in with local populace. Their is always the "cool guy" who thinks he can get away with it but usually he gets his head bashed in a few times and stops mucking about.
2: Sikh's are fine to keep beards and Turbans as "Non-Deployables" thats fine, except in the USMC if you are not deployable you will be separated.
3: Your idea of Promasks and making them pay for it is actually a really great Idea, I have never had to work with that gas mask so i can't tell you anything about it, but if it works with beards all for it. Maybe make them only pay for a small portion of it. Military members are paid WELL below the poverty line.
Military members aren't paid below the poverty line. A brand new E-1 grosses 18,550 just in base pay with no BAH, no special pay, or anything. They also get free housing (barracks), free food (DFAC), and free healthcare (Tricare). That doesn't include the tons of other benefits like the GI bill, VA benefits, PX access, etc. The current poverty line is 23,282 for a family of four. The poverty threshold for a single individual is 11,720 dollars.
You can make an argument that military members should be paid more, but they aren't paid below the poverty line.
Your right I apologize, What I should have said was that they qualify for food stamps, As an E-4 and my Wife as an E-4 we qualified for food stamps. The DFAC is not free, it is deducted from your paycheck, so its free in the sense that you never have to give money to them directly, but your still paying for it.
And Tricare apparently is no longer free either. I have about 4-5 medical bills for my wife (She is still active Duty) that would disagree with that statement. Also when it was free it was so sub par that it bordered on the insulting. I had a broken ankle that got misdiagnosed as a sprained ankle and didn't get it correctly diagnosed for 3 years. After that I had to have surgery where the naval surgeon Fethed up and now I have a limp for the rest of my life. AND Ironically, I just got back from the Miami VA today where the podiatrist informed me that the naval surgeons didn't even do the job they were supposed to do so I have to go get more MRI's and probably another round of Surgery. So yeah feth that nonsense.
GI Bill is wonderful though so there is that.
If you are required to eat at the DFAC, your BAS is deducted from your paycheck, yes. If you are/were being deducted more than your BAS, you should go to your finance or S1 section and talk to them. I didn't include BAS in my initial post because it's free food. They pay your more if you don't have to or can't eat at the chow hall. You get this handy-dandy meal card and can eat there all the time instead. Tricare Prime covers all "medically necessary and considered proven" care. I don't know the nature of your medical bills so I won't comment on whether or not they should be covered.
I just get tired of people (espeically vets) crying about how little they are compensated when the average military member makes as much or more than the average American when you consider total compensation. The fact that you qualify for food stamps because of how much you "make" is a cop-out because I know how much an E1-E5 makes because I was one before I went warrant officer. Nowhere else in America will you be provided with housing, work clothes, healthcare, mental health services, religious counseling, tax free shopping, free fitness facilities, dental care, and 30 days of paid vacation a year as an 18 year old kid with nothing but a high school diploma and 6 months experience at Arby's. The fact that you AND your wife were both E-4s (I'm assuming with at least 2 years in service each) would mean you'd be pushing close to 50,000k a year base pay between the two of you without considering BAH or anything else.
Ghaazkuul, maybe you got screwed. It happens. Far more often, I find vets complaining about their pay because they bought a BMW at 23% interest straight out of boot and they have no idea how to manage their money. Seriously, if there is one thing I would incorporate into boot camp, it's a 12 hour block on how to not waste your paycheck. Trust me, I've been there and I did that.
If you are required to eat at the DFAC, your BAS is deducted from your paycheck, yes. If you are/were being deducted more than your BAS, you should go to your finance or S1 section and talk to them. I didn't include BAS in my initial post because it's free food. They pay your more if you don't have to or can't eat at the chow hall. You get this handy-dandy meal card and can eat there all the time instead. Tricare Prime covers all "medically necessary and considered proven" care. I don't know the nature of your medical bills so I won't comment on whether or not they should be covered.
I just get tired of people (espeically vets) crying about how little they are compensated when the average military member makes as much or more than the average American when you consider total compensation. The fact that you qualify for food stamps because of how much you "make" is a cop-out because I know how much an E1-E5 makes because I was one before I went warrant officer. Nowhere else in America will you be provided with housing, work clothes, healthcare, mental health services, religious counseling, tax free shopping, free fitness facilities, dental care, and 30 days of paid vacation a year as an 18 year old kid with nothing but a high school diploma and 6 months experience at Arby's. The fact that you AND your wife were both E-4s (I'm assuming with at least 2 years in service each) would mean you'd be pushing close to 50,000k a year base pay between the two of you without considering BAH or anything else.
Ghaazkuul, maybe you got screwed. It happens. Far more often, I find vets complaining about their pay because they bought a BMW at 23% interest straight out of boot and they have no idea how to manage their money. Seriously, if there is one thing I would incorporate into boot camp, it's a 12 hour block on how to not waste your paycheck. Trust me, I've been there and I did that.
I had a LCpl who had to work a 12 hour shift where he was not allowed to leave his post even for meals. It took 4 months for us to get his BAS to him and he did not get reimbursed for the hundreds of meals he had to pay for that he never ate because of his work.
The things my wife is being charged for is the birth of our son and regular medicine/blood testing that allows my wife to live. While the baby might not be necessary I thin the life sustaining medicine/blood tests would qualify but according to TRICARE nope.
Also, the Military does not provide you with work clothes, what they do give you is $400 a year to replace your damaged uniforms. And unless your a NHL level Skater you generally go through 2-4 pairs of cammies a year, 1 pair of boots, usually 1-4 Covers depending on use/luck. And thats not even getting into the more expensive things like Dress uniforms. Very few people are the same size as they were in boot camp which usually means you will be forced to buy at least one new dress blue uniform which costs around $350 for the average quality stuff and A LOT MORE for good quality such as the Vinyl Covers which are $70-110 depending on Brand and Quality of the Vinyl. So those "Free Work Clothes" usually cost me about 200-400 a year. And jesus I forgot, I had to have my medals mounted for my last ball...that was another $100+ because they decided to spring a surprise inspection on us and we had to have them done ASAP. Ohh and lets not forget that all Dress uniforms HAVE to be Dry cleaned or they are ruined so you spend a fair amount of money each year getting uniforms ready for inspection, and of course the random alterations because you put on some muscle mass. And lastly on the subject of clothing allowance, if you so much as looked at anything dirty you had to replace your blouse because nothing ever comes out of that fabric......ever.
Last thing I will harp on is the Free Health Care. You get what you pay for. Simple as that, and since you don't pay for it, you don't get it. Just in the battalion I was in we had a marine with steel rods in his collar bone from breaking it, these were supposed to be removed after the bone had time to knit....and they never were because medical lost his records and refused to believe him he had a rod in his collar bone. We had a Marine with a broken foot and TRICARE literally gave him Motrin and told him to suck it up (didn't do XRays because that would have been smart) eventually that marine was MEDSEPPEd because his foot became a ruinous mess of bone/scar tissue. Lets see, we had another guy get injected with the Yellow fever vaccine 4 times in the space of 3 weeks because they kept losing his shot paper work. We had the incident I mentioned about my ankle. We had several dozen marines deploy to afghanistan without Glasses of all things because the TRICARE/Navy medicine couldn't be bothered to get them glasses. We had some pretty horrific things happen beyond that which I wont get into but the point is that Free healthcare isn't a selling point for the military, its one horror story after another.
Ohh and I enlisted at 24, I was smart enough not to buy a new car/house with ridiculously high interest rates. (I eventually had to buy a used Van for my growing family, but i got it at 3.8% through Navy federal)
Dude, sounds like your on base health care is horrible then. 14 years in the Army and I've never had to pay for vital medicine to keep me or my loved ones alive. I've also never had a soldier that I know of break a foot and told to "suck it up."
I've had broken bones, an ex-wife that needed extensive psychiatric counseling, dudes with shrapnel in them from Iraq etc etc. Never had a problem with Tricare prime. You're experience is certainly different than mine. Maybe you should come over to the Army where the health care specialists can actual spell the word doctor. I'm not joking, that sounds like a) dereliction of duty, b) fraud waste and abuse, and c) malpractice. Seriously, call your IG with that gak because malpractice is still malpractice, even in the Marine Corps.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: Dude, sounds like your on base health care is horrible then. 14 years in the Army and I've never had to pay for vital medicine to keep me or my loved ones alive. I've also never had a soldier that I know of break a foot and told to "suck it up."
I've had broken bones, an ex-wife that needed extensive psychiatric counseling, dudes with shrapnel in them from Iraq etc etc. Never had a problem with Tricare prime. You're experience is certainly different than mine. Maybe you should come over to the Army where the health care specialists can actual spell the word doctor. I'm not joking, that sounds like a) dereliction of duty, b) fraud waste and abuse, and c) malpractice. Seriously, call your IG with that gak because malpractice is still malpractice, even in the Marine Corps.
Well #1 im out of the Marines now so its a moot point. However, I did find out that the only thing I can do is file a complaint with the IG about the doctors in question, which I did. You are not allowed to sue for Malpractice in the military, probably because they have a hard enough time trying to recruit doctors as is.
Also, my personal favorite with military medicine is the "Doctor" referring to himself as "Doctor" even though he is usually at most a physicians assistant or sometimes just a nurse.
