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

[Vas Deferens]

(04-04-2016, 04:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How the hell did this thread become about Catholic Schools?

someone said the word uniform.

[*bfine32*]

(04-03-2016, 04:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have a hard time with that, though. You are volunteering to defend the freedoms f this country, but are not able to enjoy them?

You may have a hard time with it, but that's exactly what I am saying. I cannot waer my hair in any fashion I want, I cannot dye my hair any unnatural color, I cannot grow any facial hair other than a Hitler moustache, I can't smoke dope if I am in Colorado, I cannot participate in anti-war rallies, I cannot burn the flag, I cannot publically criticize my Chain of Command, i cannot wear a cross, crucifix, or Star of David around my neck exposed and the list goes on.

It is called uniformed services for a reason.

[*bfine32*]

(04-04-2016, 04:11 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: someone said the word uniform.

We are a sorted bunch.

[fredtoast]

(04-04-2016, 03:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: If you show me where a church violates the rules of the non-profits then sure. 

Nobody at my parish is getting rich.  There is no slush fund.

The number of religious groups lobbying in Washington D.C. has grown five times larger from 1970 to today, according to a Pew report released Monday.

The number of lobbyists grew from only 40 religious advocacy groups in 1970 to nearly 200 today. The growth has accounted for 1,000 jobs in the Washington D.C. area.

The study found that just under $400 million is spent annually by the lobbyists to influence lawmakers on more than 300 issues, according to the study.

The report found that most religious advocacy is done by Christian groups.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/religious-groups-spend-400-million-annually-lobbying-in-dc-study-finds-62750/#9UcwZEGqmcUbYf85.99










Poor little non-profits. 


None of them are making any money, but somehow they come up with $400 million to influence law makers.

[Belsnickel]

(04-04-2016, 04:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You may have a hard time with it, but that's exactly what I am saying. I cannot waer my hair in any fashion I want, I cannot dye my hair any unnatural color, I cannot grow any facial hair other than a Hitler moustache, I can't smoke dope if I am in Colorado, I cannot participate in anti-war rallies, I cannot burn the flag, I cannot publically criticize my Chain of Command , i cannot wear a cross, crucifix, or Star of David around my neck exposed and the list goes on.

It is called uniformed services for a reason.

I also have a problem with any restrictions on those, if those restrictions would result in anything that would be considered criminal. However, if they only result in verbal/written reprimand or a reduction in pay/grade or discharge, then I have no issue. Any employer can legally do the same to their employee and it is not a forfeit of any rights, same for all the rest of the things listed.

However, reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs are mandated by law for every employer. So I do not see that the military should be any different.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-04-2016, 04:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote:
The number of religious groups lobbying in Washington D.C. has grown five times larger from 1970 to today, according to a Pew report released Monday.

The number of lobbyists grew from only 40 religious advocacy groups in 1970 to nearly 200 today. The growth has accounted for 1,000 jobs in the Washington D.C. area.

The study found that just under $400 million is spent annually by the lobbyists to influence lawmakers on more than 300 issues, according to the study.

The report found that most religious advocacy is done by Christian groups.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/religious-groups-spend-400-million-annually-lobbying-in-dc-study-finds-62750/#9UcwZEGqmcUbYf85.99










Poor little non-profits. 


None of them are making any money, but somehow they come up with $400 million to influence law makers.

I'm still waiting for you to back up your last statement.  And as I said before, every individual church has its own exemption.  If you find one or many violating that exemption, then yank it.  

[*michaelsean*]

(04-04-2016, 04:05 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: By no means am I insinuating that you or anyone at your specific church is getting rich.  But there are instances across the country, where people involved in the church are getting rich.  Texas christian megachurches don't just raise themselves like a scene out of the witness.

As I said above, I have no problem with yanking exemptions from churches that aren't in compliance, but that's no reason to just eliminate them across the board.

[fredtoast]

(04-04-2016, 03:44 PM)michaelsean Wrote: What the hell are you talking about?  We are talking about whether they save money, and I said unload 40,000 kids into the system here and see what happens.  Please point out where I said or implied I send my kids to Catholic schools in order to save taxpayers money.  What is it you like to say?  "I'll wait."

The discussion is not about randomly closing private schools.  It is about churches being tax exempt.  Even if churches paid taxes there would not be a massive dump of 40,000 kids into the system.  So I don't know what your point is.  

[fredtoast]

(04-04-2016, 04:42 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm still waiting for you to back up your last statement.  And as I said before, every individual church has its own exemption.  If you find one or many violating that exemption, then yank it.  

And I am still waiting for you to admit that you were wrong when you claimed only 12 churches in the nation made any profit.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-04-2016, 11:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And I am still waiting for you to admit that you were wrong when you claimed only 12 churches in the nation made any profit.

Really you had to go back to that? You never asked me to admit it so I dont know why you are waiting.Sure I'll admit it as it wasn't a serious number and everyone knew it. Now back to you. You made a specific statement about me and you need to back it up.

[*bfine32*]

(04-04-2016, 04:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I also have a problem with any restrictions on those, if those restrictions would result in anything that would be considered criminal. However, if they only result in verbal/written reprimand or a reduction in pay/grade or discharge, then I have no issue. Any employer can legally do the same to their employee and it is not a forfeit of any rights, same for all the rest of the things listed.

However, reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs are mandated by law for every employer. So I do not see that the military should be any different.

And again simply because you have a problem with it; doesn't change the necessity. As a member of the Armed Forces you must accept the fact that you are willing to give up many of the rights that you swear to protect. If we were an Army of conscription then your concerns may have more merit. 

[*michaelsean*]

(04-04-2016, 04:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I also have a problem with any restrictions on those, if those restrictions would result in anything that would be considered criminal. However, if they only result in verbal/written reprimand or a reduction in pay/grade or discharge, then I have no issue. Any employer can legally do the same to their employee and it is not a forfeit of any rights, same for all the rest of the things listed.

However, reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs are mandated by law for every employer. So I do not see that the military should be any different.

So you think if a soldier just walks off base or worse off a battlefield they should only face discharge? The rules in the military aren't there becaus they think it's fun to boss people around.

[Belsnickel]

(04-04-2016, 11:56 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So you think if a soldier just walks off base or worse off a battlefield they should only face discharge? The rules in the military aren't there becaus they think it's fun to boss people around.

Negligence in your duty can result in criminal charges in a number of job situations. I have no problem with criminal charges for being UA.

[Belsnickel]

(04-04-2016, 11:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And again simply because you have a problem with it; doesn't change the necessity. As a member of the Armed Forces you must accept the fact that you are willing to give up many of the rights that you swear to protect. If we were an Army of conscription then your concerns may have more merit. 

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?

[fredtoast]

(04-04-2016, 11:49 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You made a specific statement about me and you need to back it up.

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?

[fredtoast]

First of all I think we can all agree that wearing a beard in the military is MUCH different from making political statements like burning flag or taking part in an anti-war protest.

I think we can also agree that an employer can restrict a person from smoking marijuana even in Colorado.

So we are basically down to "personal appearance". In this area I think the military should be like other employees that have dress codes. An employer is usually required to make reasonable exceptions based on religious beliefs. If the beard does not interfere with his ability to perform his duties then it should be allowed.

I think what bothers a lot of people is that military personnel are not allowed to wear christian trinkets with their uniform. But displaying a cross or crucifix is not required by the Christian religion. They can't see the difference between what Christian "wants" to do and what is "required" to do by his religion.

[*michaelsean*]

(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?

Still avoiding.  It's OK.  We are used to it.

[GMDino]

(04-05-2016, 10:03 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Still avoiding.  It's OK.  We are used to it.

I think Fred is saying that the tax exemptions would not affect the religious schools.  After all they still would have a tuition to collect.

In your hypothetical *if* every church closed its school then we would have to deal with that.

Another caveat:  Earlier you made a point that each church has its own exemptions.  However the schools are Diocesan ran.  At least here they are.  They are no longer part of the "church" buildings but rather part of the Catholic Education Department within the Diocese.  So if an individual church lost its exemption it would not affect the school anyway.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-05-2016, 10:09 AM)GMDino Wrote: I think Fred is saying that the tax exemptions would not affect the religious schools.  After all they still would have a tuition to collect.

In your hypothetical *if* every church closed its school then we would have to deal with that.

Another caveat:  Earlier you made a point that each church has its own exemptions.  However the schools are Diocesan ran.  At least here they are.  They are no longer part of the "church" buildings but rather part of the Catholic Education Department within the Diocese.  So if an individual church lost its exemption it would not affect the school anyway.

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.   

[fredtoast]

(04-05-2016, 10:03 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Still avoiding.  It's OK.  We are used to it.

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.