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

[fredtoast]

(04-05-2016, 07:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Where they hell did I say they should sacrifice skill and ability in the name of uniformity.  

When you said uniformity was more important than having this Engineer with a degree from West Point in the army. 

[fredtoast]

(04-05-2016, 08:41 PM)McC Wrote: You think he was the first ***** guy in the Army who was religious?  This whole thing is pure bullshit and symptomatic of the ridiculous attitude that is permeating this society, that all rules must be abandoned and every little pissant walking has some god given right to express himself and the rules shouldn't apply to me because I came up with some horseshit exception. 

Everybody else can conform but this guy shouldn't have to.  The bleeding hearts are out of control.  And the Army lets him do it to avoid all the further bullshit that would come down if they didn't.

The only thing that is ridiculous is the idea that letting a guy wear a turban is going to hurt the Army in any way.

I know it is easier to shut down your brain and resist all change, but there comes a point where logic is more important than "tradition".  

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2016, 09:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When you said uniformity was more important than having this Engineer with a degree from West Point in the army. 

Where did i say that? You just can't make up things folks say to try to strengthen your strawman approach. 

[fredtoast]

(04-05-2016, 09:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Where did i say that? You just can't make up things folks say to try to strengthen your strawman approach. 

If he is not allowed to wear the turban then he probably would not stay in the army.  They would kick him out for not obeying the rules.

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2016, 09:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If he is not allowed to wear the turban then he probably would not stay in the army.  They would kick him out for not obeying the rules.

He has complied in the past. Now you are just making assumptions to support your feeble strawman. Anything else you want to try? 

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2016, 08:58 PM)michaelsean Wrote: But the army is also a political machine so the top may not always make decisions based on what is actually best.

And I'm not just talking this incident. Matt is expressing concerns about the loss of rights, and all 3 guys who voluntarily accepted that are saying it's necessary. It has nothing to do wirh being punitive because thwy can, but rather because ir's a job unlike any other. Other people have dangerous jobs, but none of them have a job in which killing people and destroying things is their primary duty. No other job is comparable in the least. Cops have to kill people on occasion, but that's not their job.

I was against gays in the military because I believed it could cause some issues in close quarters. Then just about every military person I knew said they couldn't care less. I figured if it doesn't bother them then it doesn't bother me.

The people I know in the service currently have not had any problem with this, including three officers that knew Singh at the USMA and one who graduated the year before Singh arrived. I know of only one person currently in the military that is against this, but he referred to Singh as a "sand ******," so it is what it is. Everyone has opinions on this sort of thing.

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2016, 09:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The people I know in the service currently have not had any problem with this, including three officers that knew Singh at the USMA and one who graduated the year before Singh arrived. I know of only one person currently in the military that is against this, but he referred to Singh as a "sand ******," so it is what it is.

Good work painting anyone that would have issue with this measure as an ignorant racist; as that can be the only motivation for sharing that "tidbit."

If someone on Active Duty referred to a fellow Soldier in such a derogatory term; especially to you as a civilian, I hope you reported him or her to his or her Chain of Command so appropriate actions can be taken to get someone who harbors such in-bedded racial hate the training they require.

If you embellished or flat out lied you should be ashamed.    

[GMDino]

(04-05-2016, 07:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What is that straw thing you and others around here accuse others of employing?

Where they hell did I say they should sacrifice skill and ability in the name of uniformity.  

(04-05-2016, 09:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Where did i say that? You just can't make up things folks say to try to strengthen your strawman approach. 

(04-05-2016, 09:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He has complied in the past. Now you are just making assumptions to support your feeble strawman. Anything else you want to try? 

(04-05-2016, 09:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The people I know in the service currently have not had any problem with this, including three officers that knew Singh at the USMA and one who graduated the year before Singh arrived. I know of only one person currently in the military that is against this, but he referred to Singh as a "sand ******," so it is what it is. Everyone has opinions on this sort of thing.

(04-05-2016, 10:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Good work painting anyone that would have issue with this measure as an ignorant racist; as that can be the only motivation for sharing that "tidbit."

If someone on Active Duty referred to a fellow Soldier in such a derogatory term; especially to you as a civilian, I hope you reported him or her to his or her Chain of Command so appropriate actions can be taken to get someone who harbors such in-bedded racial hate the training they require.

If you embellished or flat out lied you should be ashamed.    

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2016, 10:16 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Instead of posting a meme that makes 0 sense Fred; perhaps you want to share with us the motivation you feel compelled Matt to share the tidbit about the ONE guy against the measure.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-05-2016, 09:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The people I know in the service currently have not had any problem with this, including three officers that knew Singh at the USMA and one who graduated the year before Singh arrived. I know of only one person currently in the military that is against this, but he referred to Singh as a "sand ******," so it is what it is. Everyone has opinions on this sort of thing.

Like I said, not just this issue, but the other things you had problems with. While it seems odd that the people who fight to defend our rights surrender some of theirs, guys here who have done so say it is essential.

As to this issue, I don't have the experience to draw a conclusion on something this specific, nor do I have the experience to understand if it could has the potential for unintended consequences.

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2016, 10:28 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Like I said, not just this issue, but the other things you had problems with.  While it seems odd that the people who fight to defend our rights surrender some of theirs, guys here who have done so say it is essential.

As to this issue, I don't have the experience to draw a conclusion on something this specific, nor do I have the experience to understand if it could has the potential for unintended consequences.

I don't believe I have flat out said I am opposed to the exemption (usual suspects furiously scour posts looking for something that may indicate otherwise(; I have merely pointed out some concerns with it. It appears the Army shares these concerns as they have mandated the situation be closely monitored. Like Matt's friend, there are those in the Military that are in need of sensitivity training. That coupled with the chance that this could be the start of a avalanche  of exemption requests makes me apprehensive, But as I said in one of my early posts (before it turned into a thread about Catholic School) I am not a decision maker in these matters.  

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2016, 10:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Good work painting anyone that would have issue with this measure as an ignorant racist; as that can be the only motivation for sharing that "tidbit."

If someone on Active Duty referred to a fellow Soldier in such a derogatory term; especially to you as a civilian, I hope you reported him or her to his or her Chain of Command so appropriate actions can be taken to get someone who harbors such in-bedded racial hate the training they require.

If you embellished or flat out lied you should be ashamed.    

Or the motivation could be expressing that his opinion could be tainted by his attitudes. He has always had this type of view, and he isn't alone in it from my experiences with his weekend warrior brethren before he went on active duty. I don't think everyone against this has the same attitude, but the only person I know currently serving that does has it.

As for reporting, I don't feel it's right. He may be a racist asshole but I'm not going report him to anyone for that even if I felt like looking up to whom he reports.

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2016, 10:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Like Matt's friend, there are those in the Military that are in need of sensitivity training.  

Let's be clear, not a friend. Someone I went to high school with and did a good deal of drinking with, but I consider him no more than as I labelled him, someone I know.

Don't want to be an ass about it, there are just people from my past that have proven they are not friends in any sense of the word. He is among them.

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2016, 10:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Or the motivation could be expressing that his opinion could be tainted by his attitudes. He has always had this type of view, and he isn't alone in it from my experiences with his weekend warrior brethren before he went on active duty. I don't think everyone against this has the same attitude, but the only person I know currently serving that does has it.

As for reporting, I don't feel it's right. He may be a racist asshole but I'm not going report him to anyone for that even if I felt like looking up to whom he reports.

I guess only you know your reasoning for sharing the tidbit. But either motivation was to show him a racist.

Perhaps your acquaintance has "always been this type", because nobody feels it's right or worth the effort to report such overt hatred.  

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-05-2016, 06:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No rights are without limits, but where do you draw the line? Does the religious exemption for a turban and beard create enough of a reason to deny someone the right to defend their country if they can perform the duties as well as any other military personnel?

Why should his religious rights trump the rights of an adult to get a tattoo? Plenty of people have been rejected because of tattoos.

There are rules and regulations. And you give up a lot joining the military. If you cant comply dont join. No one made you.

You have the right to be a racist bigot. Does that mean the dude with giant swatstika tattoos gets to join?

My point is the exemption is bad business. Will it kill him to not grow a beard and not wear a turban? No. So go do that when you become a civilian. Until then put on the proper uniform and follow the rules like everybody else serving along side you.

Officers in the military have better things to do than listing to individual arguements about why they shouldnt have to wear the same uniform as everybody else.

[GMDino]

(04-05-2016, 10:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Instead of posting a meme that makes 0 sense Fred; perhaps you want to share with us the motivation you feel compelled Matt to share the tidbit about the ONE guy against the measure.

I don't know his "motivation" other than what he quoted.

I also didn't make a strawman out of it after complaining (repeatedly) that others were doing it.

But, hey, enough about me.

And Fred I suppose.

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2016, 11:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't know his "motivation" other than what he quoted.

I also didn't make a strawman out of it after complaining (repeatedly) that others were doing it.

But, hey, enough about me.

And Fred I suppose.

Gots to assume you do not know the meaning of strawman, as I quoted exactly what  he said, but yeah, enough about you "two". 

[Rotobeast]

(04-05-2016, 11:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: But, hey, enough about me.

And Fred I suppose.

One can never get enough Fred !

But anyway.... way to wrap it back around to the speaking for, or being him.


I just want to see Breech's dusty butt in this thread.

[fredtoast]

(04-05-2016, 09:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He has complied in the past. Now you are just making assumptions to support your feeble strawman. Anything else you want to try? 

So you would not grant him the exemption, but you would not discipline him if he did not comply?


Sorry I assumed someone like you would believe there should be "consequences for actions".  Don't know where I would have gotten that idea.

[fredtoast]

(04-05-2016, 10:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't believe I have flat out said I am opposed to the exemption

Ah, the old "I never said that" line from Bfine after he has been arguing one side for an entire thread.

We should implement a "BengalRugby Award" for the most creative use of "I never said that" in a thread.