Sikh U.S. Army captain allowed to wear beard, turban in uniform

[GMDino]

(04-05-2016, 10:15 AM)michaelsean Wrote: No Fred claimed that I said or implied that I send my kids to Catholic school to save the tax payer's money. 

The diocese runs the schools as in oversees them, but they are still connected to the individual church.  The church, at least here, covers a big chunk of running the school.  Tuition is based on what is needed after the church contributes.   

OK, I misunderstood that part of the discussion then.

In our area, when I went to Catholic school, each parish contributed based on the number of students that went to the school.  We had our OWN grade school, but they contributed to the high school based on the number of students.

That changed before MY kids went.  Then it became the diocese ran the schools and each parish in the diocese made a flat contribution to the central control.  From that came the bean counters who started closing the grade schools and busing kids further and further which caused a further drop in attendance throughout the counties.

Meanwhile the two high schools got treated completely differently.  The one closer to the center of the diocese got flush with funding to build and attract students.  The other was told to increase enrollment or they would shut it down and ship everyone another 40 minutes to the central one.

It is a huge joke.

I can't think of one church ran grade school in the diocese at all.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-05-2016, 10:20 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I answered your question.  Just because you don't like the answer does not mean I am avoiding anything.

If there was another reason you were sending your kids to school other than church taxes then why would you pull your kids from private school and "dump" them into the private school system?

Why did you keep talking about dumping 40,000 students into the public system if there was some other reason you sent your kids to private school?

I answered your question.  Now you answer mine.

You didn't answer it.

Quote:Stop puffing about how you are doing this for the benefit of others.

Show me.  

[*michaelsean*]

(04-05-2016, 10:21 AM)GMDino Wrote: OK, I misunderstood that part of the discussion then.

In our area, when I went to Catholic school, each parish contributed based on the number of students that went to the school.  We had our OWN grade school, but they contributed to the high school based on the number of students.

That changed before MY kids went.  Then it became the diocese ran the schools and each parish in the diocese made a flat contribution to the central control.  From that came the bean counters who started closing the grade schools and busing kids further and further which caused a further drop in attendance throughout the counties.

Meanwhile the two high schools got treated completely differently.  The one closer to the center of the diocese got flush with funding to build and attract students.  The other was told to increase enrollment or they would shut it down and ship everyone another 40 minutes to the central one.

It is a huge joke.

I can't think of one church ran grade school in the diocese at all.

It's been maybe two years since I've really looked at their financials because honestly I stopped caring, but it showed what they contributed directly to the school. 

Is the flat contribution the same for each church?

[fredtoast]

(04-05-2016, 10:26 AM)michaelsean Wrote: You didn't answer it.

Yes I did.

(04-05-2016, 09:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Even after I said that people would still send their kids to private schools even if the churches paid taxes you kept repeating the same point about "dumping 40,000 students into the public system".  

So what other conclusion could I draw except that you believe that if churches were required to pay taxes you and everyone else would "dump" your kids into the public system?

Why else would you keep squealing about dumping every student into the public system unless you thought it would happen?  Surely you are not trying to make a point with some imaginary scenario  that would never happen, are you?  Is that really all you got?

[*michaelsean*]

(04-05-2016, 10:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes I did.



Why else would you keep squealing about dumping every student into the public system unless you thought it would happen?  Surely you are not trying to make a point with some imaginary scenario  that would never happen, are you?  Is that really all you got?

 No Fred I'm not playing this.  Backup your assertion or say, "Yeah I was wrong". Or don't. I'm done with your games. I can have a nice conversation with Dino about this topic where there is give and take and maybe learn something. as in right now i'm checking to see if our church just sends money to the diocese instead of directly to the schools.

[GMDino]

(04-05-2016, 10:30 AM)michaelsean Wrote: It's been maybe two years since I've really looked at their financials because honestly I stopped caring, but it showed what they contributed directly to the school. 

Is the flat contribution the same for each church?

Yes the last time I was involved with it.  When I get the financials from the elementary school it includes the amount "given" by the diocese that is from that lump sum that all the parishes contribute to.

Mind you my oldest started in catholic school in 2003, our kids switched to public school six years ago.  I don't know when the rules changed, but I know it is still basically the way it was when we left the school.

That's why the schools have so many fund raisers to create a fund for families to pull from.

Honestly, applying to go to catholic school is almost as bad as college.  Income statements, forms...it gets crazy.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-05-2016, 10:54 AM)GMDino Wrote: Yes the last time I was involved with it.  When I get the financials from the elementary school it includes the amount "given" by the diocese that is from that lump sum that all the parishes contribute to.

Mind you my oldest started in catholic school in 2003, our kids switched to public school six years ago.  I don't know when the rules changed, but I know it is still basically the way it was when we left the school.

That's why the schools have so many fund raisers to create a fund for families to pull from.

Honestly, applying to go to catholic school is almost as bad as college.  Income statements, forms...it gets crazy.

Hell you could be right.  Maybe the contribution I saw was to the diocese and I just read it as to the school.  The churches don't give the same amount do they?  I mean there is a big disparity in which each church can bring in.

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2016, 07:44 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Explain the necessity. What necessity is their for punishment for any of those items beyond pay grade reduction or discharge? Why can there not be reasonable accommodations for religious reasons?

The punishment must be more severe because the cost of failing to follow orders can be more severe. Disobey an order and lives can be lost.

There are reasonable accomidations made for Religion and if this CPT is the Chaplin for that religion I have zero issue with him wearing the headgear and beard; nor, would I object to hime wearing such gear while in prayer. However, if he wants to alter his appearance as a member of a rifle squad then I have an issue (moreso the uniform change than the facial hair) as we begin to traverse the slippery slope.

[Shake n Blake]

When you sign that contract and take that oath, you are no longer a normal US citizen with normal rights. You are government property and held to different standards and laws, including the UCMJ. I agree with bfine that it's a slippery slope. The military has always had provisions for religious members. I had a cross under my uniform, a Bible in my pocket and I attended Church every Sunday at Fort Jackson.

That said, none of those things conflicted with uniformity. Wearing a turbin and beard obviously does.

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2016, 02:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The punishment must be more severe because the cost of failing to follow orders can be more severe. Disobey an order and lives can be lost.

And what of those items I put in bold earlier are disobeying orders that would result in lost lives? I can see an argument made for publicly critiquing the command if you draw out several "if this, then that" scenarios. But I see none otherwise.

(04-05-2016, 02:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There are reasonable accomidations made for Religion and if this CPT is the Chaplin for that religion I have zero issue with him wearing the headgear and beard; nor, would I object to hime wearing such gear while in prayer. However, if he wants to alter his appearance as a member of a rifle squad then I have an issue (moreso the uniform change than the facial hair) as we begin to traverse the slippery slope.

Why? If the regulations stipulate that the accommodations must not effect military readiness and that they must not interfere with helmet or gas mask use, what other concerns would you have with the uniform issue?

[Shake n Blake]

(04-05-2016, 03:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And what of those items I put in bold earlier are disobeying orders that would result in lost lives? I can see an argument made for publicly critiquing the command if you draw out several "if this, then that" scenarios. But I see none otherwise.

If you disobey orders such as the ones you bolded, you may be more prone to disobeying orders in the heat of battle.

That's why ALL rules and uniformity are important in the military. 

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2016, 03:51 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: If you disobey orders such as the ones you bolded, you may be more prone to disobeying orders in the heat of battle.

That's why ALL rules and uniformity are important in the military. 

So, then a reprimand up to and including the possibility of a discharge would work fine, would it not? No need for anything that would be akin to criminal charges. That was the crux of my question from the get go. Locking someone up for doing these things would be a violation of rights, but reprimanding them up to and including the possibility of a discharge is not and it is akin to the same actions that can be taken by any other employer. So, do you agree with that?

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2016, 03:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And what of those items I put in bold earlier are disobeying orders that would result in lost lives? I can see an argument made for publicly critiquing the command if you draw out several "if this, then that" scenarios. But I see none otherwise.


Why? If the regulations stipulate that the accommodations must not effect military readiness and that they must not interfere with helmet or gas mask use, what other concerns would you have with the uniform issue?

The environment of strict punishment must be present throughout the entire spectrum; it is a mentality that must be ingrained. Discipline is key and that goes all the way down to uniform standards. There is a Regulation that governs wear of the uniform and these strict guidlines must be followed or a breakdown in discipline can occur. Today it's wear your headgear of choice, tomorrow it's bring your own weapon.

Perhaps this Soldier's modified appearance does not effect readiness, but what if the Mormon advocates to wear white shirt, black pants, and black tie? Readiness is not effected

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2016, 03:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, then a reprimand up to and including the possibility of a discharge would work fine, would it not? No need for anything that would be akin to criminal charges. That was the crux of my question from the get go. Locking someone up for doing these things would be a violation of rights, but reprimanding them up to and including the possibility of a discharge is not and it is akin to the same actions that can be taken by any other employer. So, do you agree with that?

I disagree with you comparing serving in the armed forces with "any other" employment. How many other jobs are you going to be put in harms way today or maybe instructed to eliminate someone?

This isn't someone at McDonalds fighting against wearing the visor with the M on it.

[NATI BENGALS]

We were always told a big part of having to shave was hygiene. Having a beard out in the field with no shower and you are more likely to get sick and possibly spreading your nastiness to others.

This dude is an officer too. Having a different appearance on the battlefield can have consequences. If the enemy found out , hey the officer is the one wearing the turban with the beard. Pretty easy target.

It was all about uniformity. We had to go run when it was 20 degrees out. One ***** forgot his sweatshirt well nobody got to wear one.

If you want exceptions find another profession.

[fredtoast]

None of these "ant-beard" arguments hold any water because the military has already made exceptions and allowed other military personnel to wear beards for medical reasons.

If it was as dangerous as some pof you are claiming then the military would have discharged all of these other guys who wanted to wear beards instead of allowing them to remain in the military.

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2016, 04:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The environment of strict punishment must be present throughout the entire spectrum; it is a mentality that must be ingrained. Discipline is key and that goes all the way down to uniform standards. There is a Regulation that governs wear of the uniform and these strict guidlines must be followed or a breakdown in discipline can occur. Today it's wear your headgear of choice, tomorrow it's bring your own weapon.

Perhaps this Soldier's modified appearance does not effect readiness, but what if the Mormon advocates to wear white shirt, black pants, and black tie? Readiness is not effected

Your Mormon situation is irrelevant as that is not a requirement of their faith.

I guess I am just failing to see how someone being allowed to wear a beard when there have been, according to the article at the start, 100k exceptions for medical reasons alone already and a turban that we have seen can be worn in the same pattern as the uniform and I have seen in other articles can be made small enough to fit under a cap and/or helmet is going to cause any real breakdown in uniformity.

(04-05-2016, 04:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I disagree with you comparing serving in the armed forces with "any other" employment. How many other jobs are you going to be put in harms way today or maybe instructed to eliminate someone?

This isn't someone at McDonalds fighting against wearing the visor with the M on it.

Sorry to tell you, but the government is an employer, military included. They should be held to the same standards as every other employer. I don't give the government leeway in breaking their own laws. As for jobs that may put you in harms way, there are plenty of them out there. There are many jobs that require the type of cohesiveness that exists in the military in order for them to perform their jobs safely and effectively. They must all make those reasonable accommodations.

[Rotobeast]

Hey, Military Guys.....

Tell them how much grief there is for not wearing your PT belt.

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-05-2016, 04:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: None of these "ant-beard" arguments hold any water because the military has already made exceptions and allowed other military personnel to wear beards for medical reasons.

If it was as dangerous as some pof you are claiming then the military would have discharged all of these other guys who wanted to wear beards instead of allowing them to remain in the military.

To my knowledge this isn't like they are allowed to grow full fledge beards. They just get a pass on shaving every day because they get razor bumps too bad and risk infection. That was the medical reasoning. They were allowed to have some stubble.

When I was deployed we had some HET (human intelligence exploitation team) guys with us with full beards. But they were intel. And part of their job was blending in and hiding their identity.

The way my beard grows there is no way I would want to trust a gas mask sealing on my face if I had a beard.

That doesn't change the fact it is what your employer tells you that you have to wear. When you sign your life away you have to listen or risk punishment. Its not like a normal job were you can just quit.

Who gets to rule what religions get recognition. How many crazy people every year claim they are God? What if somebody decides they are the real God and become a follower. And that God requires all the followers to wear only thongs and bubble coats. We are not putting anybody in danger. Why can I not serve in my thong and bubble coat?

Its just dumb. Rules are rules. If he couldn't live with not growing a beard and wearing a turban he should have got a failure to adapt and got kicked out.

[McC]

This is a slippery slope, at best.

Since no one gets drafted, anyone who joins the Army does it voluntarily and probably has a pretty good idea what is involved. When you sign on the line, you are agreeing to their rules. That should be the end of it. But not in this hey look at me world in which we now live.