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.

 insaniak wrote:
Of course, whether or not it worked, and whether or not it was actually the best way of dealing with the issue are not the same thing...

That's fine. Whether or not the military handles various irrelevant social issues in the 'best' way is rather low on my list of priorities for it.

 Hordini wrote:

The same way any different options for any different uniform or gear items are allowed and it doesn't boil down to letting everything be allowed. There would still be regulations, even if the current regulations were to be modified. Just because some things are allowed doesn't mean everything is allowed.

So you allow some religious people to wear their religious clothing.

Then how can you deny me wearing my religious clothing?

There are always possible issues of practicality and proportionality.

Baxx wrote:

So you allow some religious people to wear their religious clothing.

Then how can you deny me wearing my religious clothing?

Is your religious clothing something that your faith requires you to wear, or just something that you chose to wear to signify your faith?

The former should be allowed where it won't cause issues with performance of duty. The latter is not required, and so can be excluded.

My religious clothing is something my faith requires me to wear.

Let me explain your question:

Do I want to wear this clothing? If yes, my religion requires me to wear it. If no, my religion does not require me to wear it.

chose to wear to signify faith = required by faith

So by that standard, anyone should be allowed to wear anything as long as it doesn't cause issues with performance or duty.

Baxx wrote:
My religious clothing is something my faith requires me to wear.

Let me explain your question:

Do I want to wear this clothing? If yes, my religion requires me to wear it. If no, my religion does not require me to wear it.

chose to wear to signify faith = required by faith

So by that standard, anyone should be allowed to wear anything as long as it doesn't cause issues with performance or duty.

That just makes no sense. You can't say an outside agency makes it a requirement, based on your own preference.

The Hijab is not "required" by the Quran. Modest dress is, and I promise you, there is nothing immodest about our uniforms.

That is covered by the revised not instructions.

The thing is, a lot of religion is interpretation.

The Bible doesn't require Roman Catholics not to use contraception or be men and not get married if they are priests. It's something that has been interpreted into the religion by popes.

if a Muslim is told by their mullah that they should wear a hijab, they probably are going to want to wear a hijab.

When the base commander has to judge that soldier's request to wear a hijab, he is going to take advice from a military muslim chaplain, even from a mullah of the sect that the soldier belongs to.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
When the base commander has to judge that soldier's request to wear a hijab, he is going to take advice from a military muslim chaplain, even from a mullah of the sect that the soldier belongs to.

Well, base commander's not going to be deciding, but either way I can tell you that no, he's not.

 djones520 wrote:

Baxx wrote:
My religious clothing is something my faith requires me to wear.

Let me explain your question:

Do I want to wear this clothing? If yes, my religion requires me to wear it. If no, my religion does not require me to wear it.

chose to wear to signify faith = required by faith

So by that standard, anyone should be allowed to wear anything as long as it doesn't cause issues with performance or duty.

That just makes no sense. You can't say an outside agency makes it a requirement, based on your own preference.

The Hijab is not "required" by the Quran. Modest dress is, and I promise you, there is nothing immodest about our uniforms.

My own preference and the outside agency is the same thing in this case.

Nothing is "required" unless you want it to. Everything is "required" if you want it to.

It's up to you to decide. If I want to wear some special clothing, what stops me from making it a religious requirement to do so?

Baxx wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Baxx wrote:
My religious clothing is something my faith requires me to wear.

Let me explain your question:

Do I want to wear this clothing? If yes, my religion requires me to wear it. If no, my religion does not require me to wear it.

chose to wear to signify faith = required by faith

So by that standard, anyone should be allowed to wear anything as long as it doesn't cause issues with performance or duty.

That just makes no sense. You can't say an outside agency makes it a requirement, based on your own preference.

The Hijab is not "required" by the Quran. Modest dress is, and I promise you, there is nothing immodest about our uniforms.

My own preference and the outside agency is the same thing in this case.

Nothing is "required" unless you want it to. Everything is "required" if you want it to.

It's up to you to decide. If I want to wear some special clothing, what stops me from making it a religious requirement to do so?

The regs.

The regs specify the standard uniform, not what religious dress might be.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The regs specify the standard uniform, not what religious dress might be.

But they specify when an exception to policy may be asked for. And 'I feel religious' don't cut it.

That's right. You can't just suddenly decide you have a religion that requires you to wear a purple helmet or something. The people examining your application will look into the background of the basis for the claim.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's right. You can't just suddenly decide you have a religion that requires you to wear a purple helmet or something. The people examining your application will look into the background of the basis for the claim.

Which is why the regulations are an acceptable answer to:

It's up to you to decide. If I want to wear some special clothing, what stops me from making it a religious requirement to do so?

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The regs specify the standard uniform, not what religious dress might be.

But they specify when an exception to policy may be asked for. And 'I feel religious' don't cut it.

Sure it does, I have seen multiple examples of it in this thread. It cuts it just fine, which is why also I am allowed to wear turban, hijab or anything else I would like. All I have to say is "religion". At least that's what they do, so in the name of equality I'd expect to have the same rights.

If it is justified then you be granted a waiver to wear the article for religion purposes. Also it is I believe TRADOC that decides that issue. Not some base commander.

Baxx wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The regs specify the standard uniform, not what religious dress might be.

But they specify when an exception to policy may be asked for. And 'I feel religious' don't cut it.

Sure it does, I have seen multiple examples of it in this thread. It cuts it just fine, which is why also I am allowed to wear turban, hijab or anything else I would like. All I have to say is "religion". At least that's what they do, so in the name of equality I'd expect to have the same rights.

No, it does not cut it. Not in the US military or commissioning programs which is what the thread is about. Which is why the potential cadet in the original article cannot do as you seem to be able to.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
If it is justified then you be granted a waiver to wear the article for religion purposes. Also it is I believe TRADOC that decides that issue. Not some base commander.

The guidance was posted earlier. If I remember correctly (and may very well not be doing so) it is a service secretary call. So above TRADOC.

I stand corrected

 CptJake wrote:

No, it does not cut it. Not in the US military or commissioning programs which is what the thread is about. Which is why the potential cadet in the original article cannot do as you seem to be able to.

So some religions are favoured, while others are oppressed?

How do you say yes to one person because of the religion and no to another person because of another religion?

Certainly to "feel religious" cut it for those pictured in this thread. It just don't cut it for people of other religions.

Baxx wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

No, it does not cut it. Not in the US military or commissioning programs which is what the thread is about. Which is why the potential cadet in the original article cannot do as you seem to be able to.

So some religions are favoured, while others are oppressed?

How do you say yes to one person because of the religion and no to another person because of another religion?

Certainly to "feel religious" cut it for those pictured in this thread. It just don't cut it for people of other religions.

Because we enforce the Regs that are there. We don't create them. We just enforce them

So they are not created?

I don't agree with oppressing and diversifying rules, I just enforce them. For the injustice of others.

Certainly this kind of religious favourism does not work in other parts of society, I refer to drivers license photo for instance.



I can see kitchen tools worn on head being equally impractical as similar religious clothing from other religions.

Also I expect men to be allowed wearing hijab in any situation a woman would. Or is gender equality out the window too?

Baxx wrote:
So they are not created?

I don't agree with oppressing and diversifying rules, I just enforce them. For the injustice of others.

Certainly this kind of religious favourism does not work in other parts of society, I refer to drivers license photo for instance.



I can see kitchen tools worn on head being equally impractical as similar religious clothing from other religions.

Also I expect men to be allowed wearing hijab in any situation a woman would. Or is gender equality out the window too?

I refer to Operator Permit of the US Military...which hasn't changed in a long...long....long damn time

Front


Back

Baxx wrote:
So they are not created?

I don't agree with oppressing and diversifying rules, I just enforce them. For the injustice of others.

Certainly this kind of religious favourism does not work in other parts of society, I refer to drivers license photo for instance.



I can see kitchen tools worn on head being equally impractical as similar religious clothing from other religions.

Also I expect men to be allowed wearing hijab in any situation a woman would. Or is gender equality out the window too?

How is a metal colander going to fit under a helicopter pilot's helmet?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How is a metal colander going to fit under a helicopter pilot's helmet?

Who cares as long as he's free to express himself?

That's what the military's all about.

I can see a additional +1 armor save but....since he/she is a pilot of a rotary aircraft...

 Jihadin wrote:
I can see a additional +1 armor save but....since he/she is a pilot of a rotary aircraft...

Would only come into play if they are in hover mode... If they are zooming... well, tough tinsel .

Baxx wrote:
If I want to wear some special clothing, what stops me from making it a religious requirement to do so?

The lack of any requirement to do so in the recognised religion you're claiming it's a part of.

And what clothing in the infinite space of possible religions would lack requirements?

I have no idea what you're trying to ask, there.

Baxx wrote:
How do you say yes to one person because of the religion and no to another person because of another religion?

This is the question that comes up in every single one of these religious exemption threads, and it basically boils down to "what if it became impossible for human beings to apply sense or reason?"

Fortunately humans are still capable of such. We can make an assessment between something that is dictated by the religion, and something that individuals in the religion simply like to do. This doesn't mean that all humans everywhere will always agree on every decision, there will be an inherent level of subjectivity, but the idea that we cannot do it at all is basically to reject the human capacity for reason.