Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

To the law, my religion is what I say my religion is. Going down any other route is madness.

 skyth wrote:
To the law, my religion is what I say my religion is.

That isn't accurate either, as the law has denied people's religious claims before. Just saying something isn't enough.

Seaward wrote:
And if their desire to serve is overwhelmed by their desire to wear a hijab, oh well. The military will manage without them.

Of course it will get on without them. This isn't an existential issue to the army. The point, once again, is that every organisation does better when it can select who it wants from as wider a pool of candidates as possible. 'Getting by' is not the same thing as 'doing better'.

So it becomes a simple matter to realise that if defence has a reg that causes some people to not want to join, and waiving or finding a compromise position on that reg causes no performance issue, then it makes no sense to insist that reg must continue to be applied in an absolute manner.

But of course, this whole debate has pretty much nothing to do with how a large organisation would operate best. It's about the same old ideological nonsense. The same people who fight every single request from any special interest will fight this one, because that's just what they do. The same people who want to fight for the little guy will do so again, same as always. And the people who want to complain about religion getting any kind of recognition in any way will complain, same as they always do.

The military (US) does not approve religions. It recognizes religions but it does not approve what is and what is not a religion. I think I got that right...

 Jihadin wrote:
The military (US) does not approve religions. It recognizes religions but it does not approve what is and what is not a religion. I think I got that right...

IIRC, the military "approves" the recognition of religion for the purposes of official dog tags. I know of plenty of guys in my old MOS who had "Jedi Knight" on the religion line of their tags, but those weren't supposed to be used for official verification (honestly, never understood why verification included tags... or rather, the explanations given to me never put 2 and 2 together).

I also recall that the VA has a similar process for gravestone markers, and just a couple years ago approved the "Thor's Hammer" icon for those who follow Asatru or other forms of Northern Heathenism.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

IIRC, the military "approves" the recognition of religion for the purposes of official dog tags. I know of plenty of guys in my old MOS who had "Jedi Knight" on the religion line of their tags, but those weren't supposed to be used for official verification (honestly, never understood why verification included tags... or rather, the explanations given to me never put 2 and 2 together).

Certain religions have different requirements for how a body is handled (and some have things like Last Rights). The dog tags help identify the requirements for a particular body.

 Peregrine wrote:

Do you honestly not understand the difference between criticism and insulting? I said it before, but I'll say it again: the comment I made about "all religions are false" is still there, and that's just one of the many things I've said that are extremely critical of religion. It is clearly possible (and permitted by forum rules) to criticize religion without crossing that line.

I honestly did understand what you said, but where was I insulting? How can you say religion is false without being insulting, while I can't say religion is satire without being insulting?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

But of course, this whole debate has pretty much nothing to do with how a large organisation would operate best. It's about the same old ideological nonsense. The same people who fight every single request from any special interest will fight this one, because that's just what they do. The same people who want to fight for the little guy will do so again, same as always. And the people who want to complain about religion getting any kind of recognition in any way will complain, same as they always do.

Certainly I can fight for all little guys, not just the little guys from one specific religion. Go ahead give religious recognition, but not only to one single religion. Don't allow special requests from one group while denying all others and justify that with "diversity".

In my Will. I have it stated and the money set aside to help. I am to be cremated. My wife and father will have a boat maker build a Viking Long boat about the length of a row boat. Once built their to load it with oak and pine wood. Gallon of gas should provide a good soaking on the wood. Pour my ashes over the gas soaked wood pile. Push out into water. Shoot a flaming arrow it.

"FOOOSSSHHHH"

Instant access to Valhalla as a Viking King

I kid you not

Baxx wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Do you honestly not understand the difference between criticism and insulting? I said it before, but I'll say it again: the comment I made about "all religions are false" is still there, and that's just one of the many things I've said that are extremely critical of religion. It is clearly possible (and permitted by forum rules) to criticize religion without crossing that line.

I honestly did understand what you said, but where was I insulting? How can you say religion is false without being insulting, while I can't say religion is satire without being insulting?

How about you take it up via PM with the mods? No answer given here is going to make you happy.