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.

When reason comes into play, the issue of practicality has to be addressed.

The armed forces obviously must be good at fighting. If your religion requires you to wear something that prevents you from fighting well, for example, a special hat that stops you from wearing a helmet, then it's absolutely right for the armed forces not to allow you to wear that hat.

It then becomes your choice whether to serve and forgo your special hat, or to find some other occupation less affected by choice of headgear. Or it may be possible to find a compromise solution.

In the case of the sikh turban, there are various compromises. One is the cammo or plain black turban that makes a smart substitute for the usual cap, another one is a special mini-turban worn by UK forces sikhs under helmets.

 sebster wrote:

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.

So there is sense and reason for women to wear hijab because an omnipotent being said so 1300 years ago?

I expect you would give men wanting to wear hijab the same right?

And there is sense and reason in allowing muslims to wear their religious clothing while denying others?

Every single religious requirement is something that individuals simply like to do. And anyone is free to choose a religion which requires them to wear whatever they want. This is the resaon in it.

Because of practicality, I expect anyone to be able to wear anything similar to sikh's turban if they so wish.

When governments can't deny pastafarians to wear pasta drain on their heads while taking driver's license photo, I think you see where we are going with this.

No, you're wrong.

Major world religions with a long history and millions of faithfu are not the same as you deciding that today you want to wear a pink top hat and tomorrow you want wear a purple bowler hat.

Baxx wrote:

So there is sense and reason for women to wear hijab because an omnipotent being said so 1300 years ago?@

That's not why muslim women wear a hijab.

I expect you would give men wanting to wear hijab the same right?

Have any muslim men asked for permission to wear a hijab?

Do you expect any to do so?

And there is sense and reason in allowing muslims to wear their religious clothing while denying others?

There is sense in assessing the requirements of different religions on their own merits, due to every religion having different expectations of their followers.

Every single religious requirement is something that individuals simply like to do.

That's not how religion works. There are any number of things that some people are bound to by their religion that they would rather not do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for pastafarians, more recently than that drivers licence photo, we've had a US court rule (correctly, as far as I can see) that Pastafarianism is a work of satire, not an actual religion. I expect that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has had his day in the sun.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No, you're wrong.

Major world religions with a long history and millions of faithfu are not the same as you deciding that today you want to wear a pink top hat and tomorrow you want wear a purple bowler hat.

I don't see the difference. Age and numbers are factors making islam less important than celtic religion. Some religions start out small, so they need more members to get clothing rights?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

As for pastafarians, more recently than that drivers licence photo, we've had a US court rule (correctly, as far as I can see) that Pastafarianism is a work of satire, not an actual religion. I expect that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has had his day in the sun.

And other religions are not satire? I speak to religious people every day saying things like "the pope is the antichrist" or "these muslims are false" or similar nonsense.

Christianity or Islam is just as big a joke as any other, perhaps darker even.

 insaniak wrote:

That's not how religion works. There are any number of things that some people are bound to by their religion that they would rather not do.

I beg to differ, that is exactly how religion works.

And if you're particularly clever, you make up your own religious rules to your liking.

"I don't like... wait, my god dislikes/likes this and that. Therefore it's forbidden/required"

 insaniak wrote:

Have any muslim men asked for permission to wear a hijab?

Do you expect any to do so?

Now I have served in the military and there was not allowed to wear hijab or religious clothing. But should I come in a similar situation today where religious clothing is allowed to be worn with a uniform, I'd be the first one to convert and wear a hijab.

Baxx wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No, you're wrong.

Major world religions with a long history and millions of faithfu are not the same as you deciding that today you want to wear a pink top hat and tomorrow you want wear a purple bowler hat.

I don't see the difference. Age and numbers are factors making islam less important than celtic religion. Some religions start out small, so they need more members to get clothing rights?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

As for pastafarians, more recently than that drivers licence photo, we've had a US court rule (correctly, as far as I can see) that Pastafarianism is a work of satire, not an actual religion. I expect that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has had his day in the sun.

And other religions are not satire? I speak to religious people every day saying things like "the pope is the antichrist" or "these muslims are false" or similar nonsense.

Christianity or Islam is just as big a joke as any other, perhaps darker even.

 insaniak wrote:

That's not how religion works. There are any number of things that some people are bound to by their religion that they would rather not do.

I beg to differ, that is exactly how religion works.

And if you're particularly clever, you make up your own religious rules to your liking.

"I don't like... wait, my god dislikes/likes this and that. Therefore it's forbidden/required"

 insaniak wrote:

Have any muslim men asked for permission to wear a hijab?

Do you expect any to do so?

Now I have served in the military and there was not allowed to wear hijab or religious clothing. But should I come in a similar situation today where religious clothing is allowed to be worn with a uniform, I'd be the first one to convert and wear a hijab.

Which is why it is a good thing we have regs to go by instead of the opinion of those like you.

All religions are not a satire and it's extremely rude to say they are.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
All religions are not a satire and it's extremely rude to say they are.

Thank you for that.

The fact comes down to this is a military uniform for a college. The purpose especially during the freshman year is to make everyone look as same as possible. There isn't room for expressing oneself inside the uniform. The people who voluntarily sign up for the military or to go to this military college know whats expected of them before they sign up. If it is a hassle for them not to have their religious garb then they don't sign up.

Is this student going to this school? We don't know. This woman was admitted to the school, and simply asked a question. I spoke with a Citadel student who is in my crew this past weekend at drill about this, apparently the only reason this even made headlines is the president of the school is getting the boot and wanted to make a stink about it to get back at the school. Aside from him, the vote from every ranking member of the school who got one was a unanimous no. Thus he leaked it out to make bad press. The actual question made far less waves in the school than the president being an intentional ass, again apparently.

Saying some religion is satire is rude, while saying other religion is satire is not rude? Certainly courts have judged christianity to be satire in courts too? I've heard many say other religions have had their day in the sun, they've said it about islam, about greek religion, about celtic religion, and now also about pastafarianism.

Where do you draw the line in all this?

It's perfectly good some say no to all religious clothing instead of having opinions similar to some have here.

Baxx wrote:
Saying some religion is satire is rude, while saying other religion is satire is not rude? Certainly courts have judged christianity to be satire in courts too? I've heard many say other religions have had their day in the sun, they've said it about islam, about greek religion, about celtic religion, and now also about pastafarianism.

Where do you draw the line in all this?

It's perfectly good some say no to all religious clothing instead of having opinions similar to some have here.

In this thread, the line gets drawn at what accommodations to legitimate religious attire the Citadel and US military must make.

So, pretty much none of your anti-religious ranting has any place in the thread to be honest.

As for your claim " Certainly courts have judged christianity to be satire in courts too?". Fantastic, cite the court's decisions as to how that backs up your (as of this point emotionally driven instead of fact based) opinion.

 djones520 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I ask again. Why? what is wrong with allowing people individualism within the military?

Because ordering an individual to storm a hill defended by a dozen heavy machine guns is a hell of a lot harder to do. There is a reason they shave our heads, make us wear the same exact clothing, glasses, etc, from day 1 of our service. To help remove some of that individualism.

Cue...



\m/

 CptJake wrote:

Baxx wrote:
Saying some religion is satire is rude, while saying other religion is satire is not rude? Certainly courts have judged christianity to be satire in courts too? I've heard many say other religions have had their day in the sun, they've said it about islam, about greek religion, about celtic religion, and now also about pastafarianism.

Where do you draw the line in all this?

It's perfectly good some say no to all religious clothing instead of having opinions similar to some have here.

In this thread, the line gets drawn at what accommodations to legitimate religious attire the Citadel and US military must make.

So, pretty much none of your anti-religious ranting has any place in the thread to be honest.

As for your claim " Certainly courts have judged christianity to be satire in courts too?". Fantastic, cite the court's decisions as to how that backs up your (as of this point emotionally driven instead of fact based) opinion.

I don't disagree with your points Jake but I think Baxx has a valid take that it's reasonable and defensible for the Citadel to take the position that no religious clothing or icons can be visible while in uniform (at least that's how I interpreted the later part of Baxx's post). There's no way for the Citadel to defend a position that it's ok for a female cadet to wear a hijab but still not ok for other cadets to have a visible crucifix or rosary or any other religious clothing or icon. If visible expression of private individual relgious beliefs while in dress uniform is ok for one cadet of one particular religion than the same justifications make it ok for all cadets with invidual religious beliefs to also do so, and that opens Pandora's box. In this instance the subjective quality of a given religion is irrelevant because any religious expression while in uniform creates the same counter productive attitude to the conformist espirit de corps required for an effective military.

 whembly wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I ask again. Why? what is wrong with allowing people individualism within the military?

Because ordering an individual to storm a hill defended by a dozen heavy machine guns is a hell of a lot harder to do. There is a reason they shave our heads, make us wear the same exact clothing, glasses, etc, from day 1 of our service. To help remove some of that individualism.

Cue...

Spoiler:

\m/

Slayer's 'Mandatory Suicide' fits too. Great tune.

Baxx wrote:
Saying some religion is satire is rude, while saying other religion is satire is not rude? .

No, calling religion satire is rude.

Calling something that was made up specifically to make fun of religions a satire is not rude.

Baxx wrote:
Saying some religion is satire is rude, while saying other religion is satire is not rude? Certainly courts have judged christianity to be satire in courts too? I've heard many say other religions have had their day in the sun, they've said it about islam, about greek religion, about celtic religion, and now also about pastafarianism.

Where do you draw the line in all this?

It's perfectly good some say no to all religious clothing instead of having opinions similar to some have here.

You're saying all religions are a satire. That is extremely rude and I am saying that as a moderator.

Whew....where are we at on this? We're still dealing with the US Military AR670-1 and Waivers or we gone onward to satire and Judicial Courts?

Baxx wrote:
Saying some religion is satire is rude, while saying other religion is satire is not rude? Certainly courts have judged christianity to be satire in courts too? I've heard many say other religions have had their day in the sun, they've said it about islam, about greek religion, about celtic religion, and now also about pastafarianism.

Where do you draw the line in all this?

Why don't you tell us, since you seem to have such a deep, well-rounded and nuanced understanding of world religions and their various theologies and practices?

I can't wait to read your suggestions.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
When reason comes into play, the issue of practicality has to be addressed.

The armed forces obviously must be good at fighting. If your religion requires you to wear something that prevents you from fighting well, for example, a special hat that stops you from wearing a helmet, then it's absolutely right for the armed forces not to allow you to wear that hat.

It then becomes your choice whether to serve and forgo your special hat, or to find some other occupation less affected by choice of headgear. Or it may be possible to find a compromise solution.

I absolutely agree with everything you’ve posted there. What you’ve written strikes the right balance between fairness and practicality. And fortunately it is the solution in place in almost all circumstances.

As such, the only time there seems to be a problem with this is when someone decides that people can’t reason an acceptable middle position. So we get arguments of ‘if they say yes to one thing, then they have to say yes to everything, because reason cannot possibly be applied’.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Baxx wrote:
So there is sense and reason for women to wear hijab because an omnipotent being said so 1300 years ago?

You’ve missed the point. There is no expectation for anyone to show reason in their clothing. There is no reason in any kind of clothing expectations, it’s just social standards that have become what they have over time.

The expectation of reason is one we put upon administrators and courts, who are expected to draw a line between fairness and practicality. It’s a fairly simple standard, and the only argument against it is this very strange one that somehow humans might somehow be incapable of applying reason when considering individual cases.

That's the point right there Sebster, there is no individual in uniform, nor individual cases. Uniform is the antithesis of individual. The uniform is the same for everyone, that is the most fair and equal as you can possibly get. Going into that situation you are no longer an individual, you are part of a unit with everything that entails.


There are several Christian religions that are pretty hardcore that say women shouldn't wear pants. Should they be allowed to wear a skirt even though the uniform for everyone is a pair of pants?
Again, voluntary association, going into it you know what the requirements are beforehand. Under no circumstances should you expect to be treated differently because of your beliefs.

Do you favour segregating units by religion?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do you favour segregating units by religion?

What would even prompt that question? Nothing he posted indicated anything close to a position like that.

He thinks everyone in a unit should wear the same uniform. Segregating religions is a possible way of allowing all Sikhs to wear turbans, and so on.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
He thinks everyone in a unit should wear the same uniform. Segregating religions is a possible way of allowing all Sikhs to wear turbans, and so on.

I don't want to speak for him, but I assume he thinks everyone in a service (like the Army) should wear the same uniform, not by unit.

From a practical perspective you cannot field units by religion, no way to get the correct MOS mixture in the correct numbers. It would entail a complete reworking of the promotion and other personnel actions and there would be no benefit to warfighting capability. It would be silly to have different uniforms by religion. Frankly, just a crap idea for the US at this point in history.

Col. Dash wrote:
That's the point right there Sebster, there is no individual in uniform, nor individual cases. Uniform is the antithesis of individual. The uniform is the same for everyone, that is the most fair and equal as you can possibly get. Going into that situation you are no longer an individual, you are part of a unit with everything that entails.


There are several Christian religions that are pretty hardcore that say women shouldn't wear pants. Should they be allowed to wear a skirt even though the uniform for everyone is a pair of pants?
Again, voluntary association, going into it you know what the requirements are beforehand. Under no circumstances should you expect to be treated differently because of your beliefs.

Well said.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Baxx wrote:
Saying some religion is satire is rude, while saying other religion is satire is not rude? Certainly courts have judged christianity to be satire in courts too? I've heard many say other religions have had their day in the sun, they've said it about islam, about greek religion, about celtic religion, and now also about pastafarianism.

Where do you draw the line in all this?

It's perfectly good some say no to all religious clothing instead of having opinions similar to some have here.

You're saying all religions are a satire. That is extremely rude and I am saying that as a moderator.

He does have a point, though. What makes a set of beliefs different than another (including atheism) ? The number of believers and how old that particular set of beliefs is ?

No, he doesn't.

Nobody is questioning which beliefs have merit and which don't. Nobody actually believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's a work of satire created to poke fun at religions.

Of course it is, but what if people were dead serious about it ?

Hell, look at scientology.

(I'm afraid the thread might derail, though.)

People can pretend to believe in whatever they like. People can completely genuinely believe in things that seem ridiculous to other people.

That's why the advice on uniforms can't give people a right to wear whatever they like, but it can give them a right to have their professed beliefs considered by the authorities.

Col. Dash wrote:
The fact comes down to this is a military uniform for a college. The purpose especially during the freshman year is to make everyone look as same as possible. There isn't room for expressing oneself inside the uniform. The people who voluntarily sign up for the military or to go to this military college know whats expected of them before they sign up. If it is a hassle for them not to have their religious garb then they don't sign up.

Is this student going to this school? We don't know. This woman was admitted to the school, and simply asked a question. I spoke with a Citadel student who is in my crew this past weekend at drill about this, apparently the only reason this even made headlines is the president of the school is getting the boot and wanted to make a stink about it to get back at the school. Aside from him, the vote from every ranking member of the school who got one was a unanimous no. Thus he leaked it out to make bad press. The actual question made far less waves in the school than the president being an intentional ass, again apparently.

Most people dont care about proper regulation if it conflicts with their feels. Everybody wants to be a special snowflake these days.