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.

I'm usually against this sort of thing (women that dress up as ninjas and the like) but I have a soft spot for Sikh turbans so I think the taxpayer should fund this.

+1 for bulletproof turbans.

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Nearly all English law depends on the concept of reasonable.

That's correct, but how is it reasonable to ask, nay, demand, that the taxpayer foot the bill to develop headgear just because you choose to follow XYZ religion. No matter how you look at it, that is Pandering, plain and simple.

It's perfectly reasonable. Suppose you were a Christian policeman in a Sikh nation and wanted to not wear the regulation ballistic turban because it was a religious symbol you did not adhere to. Or a Jew in a nation whose police for some reason are not allowed to wear headgear.

Also, people don't just choose to follow a particular religion. Most people are brought up in a particular religion, it is an important part of their cultural and personal identity, and they do not abandon or change it on a whim.

If the headgear is extraordinarily expensive, it may be unreasonable to develop it for operational use, however that does not affect the basic principle that it should be considered. Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, a good quality ballistic turban would probably sell huge numbers to other turban wearing countries and the project would end up making a profit.

If the said bullet proof turban was sufficiently insulated, would they protect against attacks from 'heat seekhing missiles'?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Nearly all English law depends on the concept of reasonable.

That's correct, but how is it reasonable to ask, nay, demand, that the taxpayer foot the bill to develop headgear just because you choose to follow XYZ religion. No matter how you look at it, that is Pandering, plain and simple.

It's perfectly reasonable. Suppose you were a Christian policeman in a Sikh nation and wanted to not wear the regulation ballistic turban because it was a religious symbol you did not adhere to. Or a Jew in a nation whose police for some reason are not allowed to wear headgear.

Also, people don't just choose to follow a particular religion. Most people are brought up in a particular religion, it is an important part of their cultural and personal identity, and they do not abandon or change it on a whim.

If the headgear is extraordinarily expensive, it may be unreasonable to develop it for operational use, however that does not affect the basic principle that it should be considered. Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, a good quality ballistic turban would probably sell huge numbers to other turban wearing countries and the project would end up making a profit.

I think Kilkrazy brings up a good point. I think many of you, even non religious types, would feel a lot different if you were the one serving as a religious minority putting your ass on the line for the nation. Also, not choosing your religion is a very interesting point. I think it is no coincidence that atheism is traditionaly associated with people who are anti authoritarian or strongly individualistic. I don't know much about this culture but I imagine that religion and other aspects of culture become strongly ingrained in them from infancy. At risk of veering off topic, this is why I've come to believe that sexual orientation is not something that is "chosen" later in life ( Oh, it probably *can* be done, but it probably isn't the norm). I'm not saying its necessarily biological in nature, but I think if it isn't it gets imprinted at a early age. Back to the point of religion, I've never been a strong believer, but I sometimes get a little uncomfortable with things that I feel are sacrilegious, and I wasn't even raised with religion, but was merely associated with it.

A good example of this was I knew a guy who had a roomate in college that was Muslim. It wasn't hard to accomodate his thing at parties or whatever, you just got a pizza that was half pork products half not. Interestingly, he would not eat the pieces that were adjacent to the pork, just to be sure. This wasn't the kind of guy who was constantly praying or complaining about the evils of society, he'd even make religious jokes all the time. However, as college kids tend to be idiots sometimes, his classmates decided to do a very mean trick. They told him that something he ate once was pork. Apparently all the color just drained from his face, and he became quite literaly physically ill. Like vomiting physically ill. He had to go do whatever they do whenever they consume a forbidden food. They felt really bad about it afterwards.


Back to the topic at hand, I think a lot of you are using an argument that, oddly enough, I hear most frequently from atheists and fundamentalists. Basically the claim is that if we do this, we'll have to accommodate every single request. Like if I say I have to have a bulletproof pink tutu, you have to accommodate that because I say that is my religion. This is not the case. This is not a couple people creating a religious belief just to be different. This is a case of an established ( probably with tax exempt churches, if it works that way in the UK, it does in the US) religion with a very long history. I also don't think this is an unreasonable request. They're not trying to force this down anyone's throat, and I think it is not unreasonable from a financial standpoint. Equiping a few thousand men like this is hardly going to bring the nation to a halt.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's perfectly reasonable. Suppose you were a Christian policeman in a Sikh nation and wanted to not wear the regulation ballistic turban because it was a religious symbol you did not adhere to. Or a Jew in a nation whose police for some reason are not allowed to wear headgear.

Well there is a huge discrepancy there, because you are comparing a religious police force in a de facto religious Country to a secular one in a de facto secular country (even if the UK is de jure CoE.

Kilkrazy wrote:Also, people don't just choose to follow a particular religion. Most people are brought up in a particular religion, it is an important part of their cultural and personal identity, and they do not abandon or change it on a whim.

And therein lies the problem of ALL religion. People are brainwashed from birth to believe whatever their parents believe.

Kilkrazy wrote:If the headgear is extraordinarily expensive, it may be unreasonable to develop it for operational use, however that does not affect the basic principle that it should be considered. Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, a good quality ballistic turban would probably sell huge numbers to other turban wearing countries and the project would end up making a profit.

I can Guarantee you that if this were a Christian Sect asking for something, the government would not risk spending a penny, lest the "extremists" make a fuss.

Also, are you actually suggesting that no other country in the world has developed a "bulletproof Turban" already? I'm sure they have, so why cannot the UK government buy them from them?

Grignard wrote:Equiping a few thousand men like this is hardly going to bring the nation to a halt.

Until everyone and their dog starts doing it. it IS a slippery slope, and it will just get worse and worse, given the history of such things in the UK.

Kilkrazy wrote:Basically you either want to integrate different cultural groups into your national identity, or you want to exclude and marginalise minority groups.

If you want integration then all reasonable steps should be taken to accommodate minorities. For example, Quakers and other conscientious objectors were allowed to serve in the armed forces in non-combatant positions such as medical services.

A bullet-proof turban sounds perfectly practical and could become a major export item to the Indian police and army, thus easily solving any cost problem.

A nation should never be turning away people who want to serve.

Perfectly said.

And thats why you are a mod

"And therein lies the problem of ALL religion. People are brainwashed from birth to believe whatever their parents believe."

What about converts. Do you have any Idea how religion works?

You think Christans get the short end of the stick. Lets see them try to change God to Shiva or RA in National prayer day and see how that turns out.

Killkrazy wrote:Also, people don't just choose to follow a particular religion. Most people are brought up in a particular religion, it is an important part of their cultural and personal identity, and they do not abandon or change it on a whim.

Uh, I CHOSE to become Christian. I *did* just choose to follow a particular religion.

Gwar! wrote:I can Guarantee you that if this were a Christian Sect asking for something, the government would not risk spending a penny, lest the "extremists" make a fuss.

Given that there are no compulsory items of clothing for Christians to wear you have nothing to base this statment on other than idle speculation.

That all police officers have the maxium amount of protection from harm goes far beyond a being a mere reasonable request. It's downright essential and money should be no object.

In the past Sikh battalions went to war for us wearing turbans, meaning they where less well protected than the average tommy in his steel helmet. I think the least we can do is even up the balance in the 21st century!

I have no idea whether anyone else has developed a bulletproof turban. I checked the Indian Army website, which wasn't working, and I did a bit of Googling and Wiki-ing, with no results.

If another country has already developed one, what is the objection to buying them for our cops?

If we are the first, then if we develop a good one, we can sell it to other countries.

It appears to me that GWAR's problem has more to do with the fact that the request is related to a religuious issue than anything else. That's the most telling thing to me about his gripe.

GG

LuciusAR wrote:That all police officers have the maxium amount of protection from harm goes far beyond a being a mere reasonable request. It's downright essential and money should be no object.

Money's always an object.

Otherwise they would all have Power Armor, that costs $1,000,000 each.

I'm all for it. If this could save a man's life if he was shot it is worth every penny, you can't put a price on a human life. And if it gets more sikh's to join our police force all the better.

Sikh warriors wore helmets during their days of empire, what changed?

So, the tax i pay should either go towars improving the NHS, or helping to make a fething turban?

sorry, but im against this, if this one goes through then every religion will require special gear to do any jobs.
in the long run tax payers lose out.
its job description, if you cannot or will not follow it for any reason then its time to find a new job.



also, im not sure if anyone can dig out the article, but in kent there was a group of builders, turbans have over ruled health and safetly and can be worn instead of hard hats.
one of them ended up catching a brick to the face, and wanted to sue the building company for it since his turban didnt protect him.
it was his choice to wear it instead of the required hard hat.
he was pretty much told to either follow health and safety, or fins a new job.

Zip Napalm wrote:Sikh warriors wore helmets during their days of empire, what changed?

I did a bit of research on that. It seems that some Sikhs wore small turbans with a helmet on top. Perhaps this could be taken for the design of a modern Sikh ballistic helmet.

Just for the record, this seems borderline-isming to me.

I think the Brits will work it out, as they always do.

Gwar! wrote:Well there is a huge discrepancy there, because you are comparing a religious police force in a de facto religious Country to a secular one in a de facto secular country (even if the UK is de jure CoE.

AH! Treating nationalism as a faith, how utterly Maoist of you. Would you like a little red book?

Gwar! wrote:
And therein lies the problem of ALL religion. People are brainwashed from birth to believe whatever their parents believe.

Yes, they are. This, of course, includes you. Unless you grew up in a house that was defined by parental conflict it is highly unlikely that your ideas will be at all unique with respect to those of your parents. Sorry, people are imprinted. Welcome to the world of determinism, where ideas are not original unless you feel like buying into that particular delusion.

Gwar! wrote:
I can Guarantee you that if this were a Christian Sect asking for something, the government would not risk spending a penny, lest the "extremists" make a fuss.

Speculation.

Gwar! wrote:
Until everyone and their dog starts doing it. it IS a slippery slope, and it will just get worse and worse, given the history of such things in the UK.

It really isn't a slippery slope, because slippery slopes are pure fallacy. Especially in matters of finance.

Its also worth noting that headgear is of extreme significance to Muslims; comparable to the Catholic rosary.

I know!
our country is running out of money fast since it wastes it all on gak we dont need and giving it away.
we might aswell waste more on something we also dont need.

its simple, if something prevents you doing a job, dont do it.

Not liking to be shot prevents infantry from fighting.

Let's lose all our infantry.

Great idea.

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Well there is a huge discrepancy there, because you are comparing a religious police force in a de facto religious Country to a secular one in a de facto secular country (even if the UK is de jure CoE.

AH! Treating nationalism as a faith, how utterly Maoist of you. Would you like a little red book?

Yeah, let me just get my Copy of Mein Kamph to trade you!

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:And therein lies the problem of ALL religion. People are brainwashed from birth to believe whatever their parents believe.

Yes, they are. This, of course, includes you. Unless you grew up in a house that was defined by parental conflict it is highly unlikely that your ideas will be at all unique with respect to those of your parents. Sorry, people are imprinted. Welcome to the world of determinism, where ideas are not original unless you feel like buying into that particular delusion.

Ok, you wanna try and challange my character instead of my argument, here is a little bit about me. I have lived in the UK almost all my life, bar the few years I have been in Ireland. On my Fathers bloodline I am Descended from Catholic Italians, Russian Cossack Jews on my Mothers. Both my Parents are relitvly religious. However, unlike most Parents, they decided NOT to brainwash me and let me make my own choice when I became an Adult, at which time I decided that Religion is all a Giant Crock of gak. So yeah, I am Athiest, but I respect peoples right to worship whatever Imaginary things they want, my Political Views are "Left" or "Socialist", and I feel that no religion should be allowed to claim special treatment.

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Until everyone and their dog starts doing it. it IS a slippery slope, and it will just get worse and worse, given the history of such things in the UK.

It really isn't a slippery slope, because slippery slopes are pure fallacy. Especially in matters of finance.

Its also worth noting that headgear is of extreme significance to Muslims; comparable to the Catholic rosary.

Ok then, what about when People start asking to ignore Health And Safety Laws because they want to wear their rosary's in a Mill with lots of moving machinery where it can be caught? Oh wait, that HAS happened (Wearing Turbans instead of Hard Hats), and then they went and sued because they were not following H and S laws. Double Standards much?

JD21290 wrote:I know!
our country is running out of money fast since it wastes it all on gak we dont need and giving it away.
we might aswell waste more on something we also dont need.

its simple, if something prevents you doing a job, dont do it.

QFT

Kilkrazy wrote:Not liking to be shot prevents infantry from fighting.

Let's lose all our infantry.

Great idea.

No, this is wrong and you are deliberately leaving out the relevant bits. You should say "Not liking to be Shot because you want to make your religion more important than your job prevents them from fighting."

Not liking to be shot prevents infantry from fighting.

How about you actually read my posts next time eh?

i didnt say "if you dont like something then dont do it"
i said that if you CANT do something for a certain reason (religion in this case) then dont do it.

Gwar! wrote:Ok, you wanna try and challange my character instead of my argument,

I'm not challenging your character at all. I'm making a statement about the nature of people's beliefs in a fashion which is commensurate with my annoyance relative to your poor imitation of Dicky Dawkins' abysmally derivative argument against religion.

Gwar! wrote:
here is a little bit about me. I have lived in the UK almost all my life, bar the few years I have been in Ireland. On my Fathers bloodline I am Descended from Catholic Italians, Russian Cossack Jews on my Mothers.

Good for you. I don't care in the least.

Gwar! wrote:
Both my Parents are relitvly religious. However, unlike most Parents, they decided NOT to brainwash me and let me make my own choice when I became an Adult, at which time I decided that Religion is all a Giant Crock of gak.

Awesome. Most parents don't actually brainwash their kids by the way. Rather, the larger community simply removes easy access to alternative worldviews. Ever wonder why the vast majority of vehemently religious people live in small communities?

Either way, the people that really understand religion are more than well aware that its nonsense. Its meant to be nonsense. Its a pure invocation of human convention with respect to the world as a whole.

Gwar! wrote:
So yeah, I am Athiest, but I respect peoples right to worship whatever Imaginary things they want,

So, you're an Atheist who respects religion. Interesting. Seems to me like your parents had a significant affect on your outlook after all.

Gwar! wrote:
my Political Views are "Left" or "Socialist", and I feel that no religion should be allowed to claim special treatment.

Christians already get special treatment because, you know, England is a Christian nation. Sorry.

Gwar! wrote:
Ok then, what about when People start asking to ignore Health And Safety Laws because they want to wear their rosary's in a Mill with lots of moving machinery where it can be caught? Oh wait, that HAS happened (Wearing Turbans instead of Hard Hats), and then they went and sued because they were not following H and S laws. Double Standards much?

Too bad. Life is unfair. You think its easy to pick up, or drop, a faith? Convert to Islam! Gain access to the preferential treatment.

In any case, the matter you describe could easily be solved with a simple waiver.

JD21290 wrote:

Not liking to be shot prevents infantry from fighting.

How about you actually read my posts next time eh?

i didnt say "if you dont like something then dont do it"
i said that if you CANT do something for a certain reason (religion in this case) then dont do it.

The distinction between "can't" and "won't" is exceedingly situational. To the point where the state should make as many accommodations as possible in order to ensure openness to service.

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:
my Political Views are "Left" or "Socialist", and I feel that no religion should be allowed to claim special treatment.

Christians already get special treatment because, you know, England is a Christian nation. Sorry.

Spoken like a true arrogant American. You don't live in the UK, so you don't know. England is a de facto Christian Country, but it gets no special treatment at all. In fact, over the course of the Bush years, Christians in the US got far more special Treatment, even though you are a "Secular" country.

Well to be quite honest, you would only see something liek this happen in the UK. we are too soft on all this human rights milarchy,

dont get me wrong, im not suggesting i hate them or anything like that, i fully respect their views etc, but they must understandthat they cant demand things like a kevlar turban, just put a helmet on cover it wit ha turban ... problem solved.

My great grandma said it, and now i know why ... "Come the revolution"

So Grots may get their way after all

but back to a more serious note, If they allow this that means religious groups all over britain will start to dmeand for littel thiungs like this to be changed, and if they dont get it they will sue probablly ... that is a bit harsh i know but its what i see will happen.

Gwar! wrote:Spoken like a true arrogant American. You don't live in the UK, so you don't know. England is a de facto Christian Country, but it gets no special treatment at all. In fact, over the course of the Bush years, Christians in the US got far more special Treatment, even though you are a "Secular" country.

Christians in the US don't actually have any special legal standing. Much as they have no special legal standing in the UK. You're making a ridiculous argument which entirely ignores the institutional force of Christian custom when viewed by an outsider who evolved in an entirely different tradition. Everything you do in your daily life, from eating to putting on clothes, is symbolic of Christendom because you live in Christendom.

Also, it seems you don't know what secular means. Allow me to enlighten you. Secular derives from the Latin 'saecularis' which means 'of the present world'. In the modern context this generally taken to mean 'without religion', but that isn't at all what the word actually means. Rather, the specific meaning of the term is 'worldly or temporal'. It is pragmatism bent against faith. The kind of thing which entails recognition of various religions; including those which hold a large degree of conventional influence. Like Christianity in England.

Wolf wrote:but back to a more serious note, If they allow this that means religious groups all over britain will start to dmeand for littel thiungs like this to be changed, and if they dont get it they will sue probablly ... that is a bit harsh i know but its what i see will happen.

I know right? It's actually gotten to the point where Police cannot arrest suspects anymore because they are black/arab/whatever and if they so much as sneeze out of place it results in being sacked, a loss of pension and most likely a criminal prosecution.

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Spoken like a true arrogant American. You don't live in the UK, so you don't know. England is a de facto Christian Country, but it gets no special treatment at all. In fact, over the course of the Bush years, Christians in the US got far more special Treatment, even though you are a "Secular" country.

Christians in the US don't actually have any special legal standing. Much as they have no special legal standing in the UK. You're making a ridiculous argument which entirely ignores the institutional force of Christian custom when viewed by an outsider who evolved in an entirely different tradition. Everything you do in your daily life, from eating to putting on clothes, is symbolic of Christendom because you live in Christendom.

Also, it seems you don't know what secular means. Allow me to enlighten you. Secular derives from the Latin 'saecularis' which means 'of the present world'. In the modern context this generally taken to mean 'without religion', but that isn't at all what the word actually means. Rather, the specific meaning of the term is 'worldly or temporal'. It is pragmatism bent against faith. The kind of thing which entails recognition of various religions; including those which hold a large degree of conventional influence. Like Christianity in England.

So... Because I live in "Christendom" I should go and laud it over everything else? Also, your argument over the meaning of the word "secular" just proves how narrowminded you are.

This is getting ridiculous.

BrookM wrote:This is getting ridiculous.

QFT