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

[GMDino]

(04-06-2016, 12:01 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Gots to assume you do not know the meaning of strawman, as I quoted exactly what  he said, but yeah, enough about you "two". 

You exaggerated his sentence (in fact he specifically said ONE person) to make it your argument that he was saying everyone opposed was racist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Quote:The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

1. Person 1 asserts proposition X.
2. Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.
   

This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.
For example:

• Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[3]
• Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[2]
• Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
• Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
  

Pretty much exactly what happened.

So stop and continue with the topic.

[GMDino]

(04-06-2016, 01:48 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

THAT was his name!  "BengalRugby".

All I could remember was "I never said that..."

[GMDino]

(04-06-2016, 12:35 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: 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.

Some folks on here want to be treated much different than they treat others...but hey I'm kinda proud that someone finally thinks I have an alt on here!  LOL!

One that I don't even agree with some of the time!  

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2016, 10:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.  

He's been like this since we were kids. He's gotten his ass kicked for it more times than I can count as we both lived in an area where we were the minority. I don't talk to him but still see his activity on Facebook (how I know his statements on this particular story), so I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't still getting his ass kicked for it.

[Belsnickel]

Serious question, and I don't know how many Mormons serve, but does anyone know if an LDS service member is allowed to wear their temple garments?

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2016, 01:48 AM)fredtoast Wrote: 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.

Just because you make assumptions in your head does not mean that is actually what someone said or implied. believe it or not; you may not be as bright as you think.

Isn't "I never said that' just another way of saying "strawman", Kettle?

[GMDino]

(04-06-2016, 11:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Just because you make assumptions in your head does not mean that is actually what someone said or implied. believe it or not; you may not be as bright as you think.

Isn't "I never said that' just another way of saying "strawman", Kettle?

(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*]

(04-06-2016, 12:01 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Gots to assume you do not know the meaning of strawman, as I quoted exactly what  he said, but yeah, enough about you "two". 

(04-06-2016, 07:35 AM)GMDino Wrote: You exaggerated his sentence (in fact he specifically said ONE person) to make it your argument that he was saying everyone opposed was racist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man



Pretty much exactly what happened.

So stop and continue with the topic.

As I suspected.

[fredtoast]

(04-06-2016, 11:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Just because you make assumptions in your head does not mean that is actually what someone said or implied. believe it or not; you may not be as bright as you think.

And just because you try to deny you ever said or implied something does not mean anyone will believe you.

Clearly you are the one who is not as bright as you think you are.  just go back and look at your own words.

(04-03-2016, 03:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As a retiree; I cannot say I am in favor of it, 

(04-03-2016, 04:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  There has to be a degree of uniformity in a institution that defends a Nation.

(04-04-2016, 04:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is called uniformed services for a reason.

(04-04-2016, 11:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  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. 

(04-05-2016, 04:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There is a Regulation that governs wear of the uniform and these strict guidlines must be followed or a breakdown in discipline can occur.

(04-05-2016, 06:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Uniformity.  I am of the more traditional variety.

[GMDino]

(04-06-2016, 11:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As I suspected.

Oh, I had no delusions that you would see/admit what happened...but every now again its good to give that old college try.

Do you think he should be allowed to wear the turban?

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2016, 11:45 AM)GMDino Wrote:

No doubt I should have said IF instead of just making the assuption these things were said/happen. Thanks Fred.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

In an attempt to get this a bit back on topic, most of you know me as a fairly liberal guy (but yes I did serve in the military) and most definitely agree that anyone regardless of religious beliefs, race, or sexual orientation should be able to serve their country without prejudice. However IMHO the uniform standards are not that difficult to follow. I just get irritated when people use religion to not follow standards or rules.

Kinda like when I schedule people to work on Sunday and they tell me they can't because of their religious beliefs. I just look at them like "do you need a job or not?"

I've never understood the grooming standards put forth by different religions other than an arbitrary excuse not to conform to society. I have a hard time believing that God is going to send you to hell because you shaved your beard or worked on Sunday. But it's a convenient excuse isn't it.

Anyway just my two pennies.

[GMDino]

Since we (some) are hung up on the turban because that was in the original story I wondered if other religions had their requirements banned.

While searching I found this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_v._Weinberger

Quote:Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a Jewish Air Force officer was denied the right to wear a yarmulkewhen in uniform on the grounds that the Free Exercise Clause applies less strictly to the military than to ordinary citizens.


Background[edit]

Goldman joined the United States Air Force as an inactive reserve in 1973. He received a Health Professions scholarship to work towards a PhD in Psychology at theLoyola University of Chicago. Subsequently, Goldman entered service at March Air Force Base in Riverside, California as a commissioned officer and clinical psychologistat the on-base mental health clinic. As an Orthodox Jew and rabbi, Goldman's faith required him to wear a yarmulke to show that he is aware that God is a higher power and above him.

For years, Goldman wore his yarmulke without controversy by staying near his station at the clinic and wearing his service cap above the yarmulke while outdoors. In 1981, however, he was required to testify as a defense witness at a court-martial. His testimony discredited the prosecution witness.
Subsequently, a government attorneylodged a complaint about Goldman's wear of the yarmulke. Subsequently, his commanding officer at the hospital,
Colonel Joseph Gregory, informed him that he was violating Air Force Regulation 65-10, which states that "headgear will not be worn... while indoors except by armed security police in the performance of their duties." The officer then ordered him to not wear the yarmulke while in uniform outside the hospital.

Goldman refused this order, and instead his attorney filed a complaint to the Air Force General Counsel. Gregory then ordered that Goldman cease wearing his yarmulke even when within the hospital. Goldman requested to be allowed to report for duty in civilian clothes until the issue was settled in court, but he was denied this and was threatened with court-martial. It was at this point that Goldman sued the Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger for Free Exercise Clause violations. He was favored at the District Court of Washington, D.C., but that decision was reversed in the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari.

Supreme Court decision[edit]

Because Goldman alleged that this was a Free Exercise violation, he indicated that the defense had to pass the Sherbert test: by demonstrating a "compelling interest" for the violation. He then submitted evidence that there was not a compelling interest for preventing the display of religious apparel, because it presented no danger to military discipline. However, the Court decided against him on a 5-4 decision. The majority opinion, written by Rehnquist, held that this was of no consequence- it contended that the Sherbert test did not apply because the Free Exercise Clause and even the First Amendment in general did not apply to the military in the same way that it did to civilian society. The justification for this was a need to "foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps." The dissenters argued that the decision gave too much deference to the military's judgment and that some judicial scrutiny of military necessity claims should be required.[1]

Congressional response[edit]
In the court's ruling it was only decided that the Constitution failed to protect the freedom to wear religious apparel in uniform- it did not outright bar it. This distinction gave Congress the power to enact legislation that would reverse the policy. Allowing "neat and conservative" religious apparel accommodations had been in consideration since 1985, following the cases' ruling in the Court of Appeals.[2] Proposals to do so failed during the case's trial period, but finally succeeded in 1988 through a provision to the annual National Defense Authorization Act. It provides for a general rule that "a member of the armed forces may wear an item of religious apparel while wearing the uniform of the member's armed force." The bill containing the provision was passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan.

[GMDino]

Also this:

http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/about/religious-freedom-and-the-military-a-short-history/

Religious Freedom & the Military: An Ongoing History

Quote:Many argue against our stance on the basis that somehow our nation and our governing document, the Constitution, were founded on Christian principles.
Because each member of our armed forces takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution, it’s important to understand its origin with respect to religion.

Our founding fathers set up a government based on democratic principles, not religious principles. Our Constitution is secular. There is no mention of Christianity or any other religion.

There are however, two references to religion and both are exclusionary. Clause three article six in the body of the Constitution itself states very clearly that  “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust.” The other reference is in the First Amendment that states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

It is important to note several things,

#1. The presidential oath of office, the only oath specified in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase “So help me, God” or show any requirement to swear on a bible.

#2. The pledge of allegiance written in 1892 did not contain, “under god.” until it was added by Congress in 1954.

#3. Most significantly the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli, negotiated under President Washington, unanimously approved by the Senate and signed by President Adams, declares, “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

The founding fathers, many of who were religious gentlemen, created a secular government for very specific reasons.

#1. They were very conscious of the pitfalls the church-state alliances had fostered in Europe, the reasons for many to depart and forge a new path in the new world.

#2. They looked back to our early American colonial period where some colonies officially established churches and taxed all citizens to support them regardless of whether they were members of the church or not.

Among the many things that make this country unique are the liberties guaranteed in our Constitution, including religious freedom. Because we live in this pluralistic society set up by our founders, people of all faiths or no faith are welcome and we as Americans enjoy more religious freedom than any other people in the world. Simply stated, our founders understood two very simple and important things:

#1. That the separation of church and state would allow all faiths to flourish.

#2. That in matters of religion our government would be set up to remain neutral.

All Americans have the right to worship as they see fit within the bounds of the law, but no one has the right to use the government, military, or power of the state to endorse or promote his or her religious beliefs or demand help in spreading sectarian messages. Given that, it is imperative that when military professionals take the oath to support and defend the Constitution, these democratic principles are what they are promising to protect.  On September 1, 2011 the Chief of Staff, General Norton A. Schwartz sent a memorandum for all commanders; the subject was “Maintaining Government Neutrality Regarding Religion.”  In this memo he states, ” Leaders at all levels must balance Constitutional protections for an individuals free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and its prohibition against governmental establishment of religion”. Further ” They must avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.” To do so, he states, ” Commanders or supervisors who engage in such behavior may cause members to doubt there impartially and objectivity. The potential result is a degradation of the unit’s morale, good order, and discipline. Thus the flagrant proselytizing of subordinates by superiors, non voluntary evangelizing of members by chaplains and public prayer in official, mandatory settings, outside of voluntary worship, are at the root of what the Military Religious Freedom Foundation is fighting against.

All branches of the United States military are afforded the same rights to religious freedom, as are American civilians. However, members of the Armed Forces willingly surrender on a temporary basis certain free exercise rights when it impinges on military discipline and the successful completion of a military objective.
This guarantee of religious freedom is codified for the Armed Forces in Title 10, United States Code (USC), sections 3073, 3547, 5142, and 8067. Free exercise of religious freedom for military personnel is further detailed in Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 1300.17, “Accommodation of Religious Practices Within the Military Services,” which describes the commander’s responsibility to provide for religious accommodation.

Codes and directives notwithstanding, the free exercise of religious freedom in the military has, by and large, followed the mores of American society in general. That is, as the understanding of free exercise expanded outside the military, so did it expand within the U.S. Armed Forces. This history of the growing embrace of religious pluralism can perhaps best be seen in the expansion of the Chaplaincy, whose role it is to provide for the free expression of religious belief by members of the Armed Forces.

For example, not until the war with Mexico in 1846 were Roman Catholics incorporated into the chaplaincy corps. Until then, only Protestants served as chaplains, a situation that put the United States at a propaganda disadvantage when fighting Catholic Mexico. In 1862, “Christian” was stricken from regulations governing the appointment of chaplains by recognized religious denominations to allow for the appointment of Jewish chaplains. This change was brought about as a result of a request made to President Abraham Lincoln by the Board of Delegates of American Israelites.

During World War II, Greek Orthodox chaplains were authorized to minister to members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and in 1987, the Department of Defense registered the Buddhist Churches of America as an ecclesiastical endorsing agency, thus opening the door for Buddhist chaplains. In 1993, the first Muslim chaplain was added by the Army – yet another sign of America’s growing religious diversity and the recognition that it is the Armed Forces’ Constitutional responsibility to meet the free expression needs of those in its ranks who hold minority religious views.

Religious freedom takes on an additional importance in the current international environment, where religious motivations are an increasing rationale for waging conflict. At a time when the United States is encouraging greater religious freedom in Muslim nations, it is imperative upon America to show by example that religious pluralism is a viable and preferred option. Any sign of hypocrisy in Unites States policy, official or otherwise, toward the free exercise of religion within the military makes it more difficult to convince others to follow our nation’s chosen path.
MRFF’s role is to ensure that our government does indeed adhere to the spirit as well as the letter of the Constitution; that it leads by example. The next chapter in the never-ending struggle to expand religious freedom in the military is being written, and MRFF is playing a critical part in the effort. A watchdog’s role requires constant vigilance.

 

[*PhilHos*]

(04-06-2016, 03:48 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: In an attempt to get this a bit back on topic, most of you know me as a fairly liberal guy (but yes I did serve in the military) and most definitely agree that anyone regardless of religious beliefs, race, or sexual orientation should be able to serve their country without prejudice.  However IMHO the uniform standards are not that difficult to follow.  I just get irritated when people use religion to not follow standards or rules.

Kinda like when I schedule people to work on Sunday and they tell me they can't because of their religious beliefs.  I just look at them like "do you need a job or not?"

I've never understood the grooming standards put forth by different religions other than an arbitrary excuse not to conform to society.  I have a hard time believing that God is going to send you to hell because you shaved your beard or worked on Sunday. But it's a convenient excuse isn't it.

Anyway just my two pennies.

And here's the thing about working on Sunday. First off, Jesus worked on the Sabbath. And more importantly, the Sabbath was intended as a day of rest for mankind. Thus, many, if not most, theologians believe that as long as you have one day a week that you take and rest from labor and honor God, then you're honoring God's command of keeping the Sabbath.

Just a little help the next time a Christian tries to pull that with you. 

[fredtoast]

(04-07-2016, 11:42 AM)PhilHos Wrote: And here's the thing about working on Sunday. First off, Jesus worked on the Sabbath. And more importantly, the Sabbath was intended as a day of rest for mankind. Thus, many, if not most, theologians believe that as long as you have one day a week that you take and rest from labor and honor God, then you're honoring God's command of keeping the Sabbath.

I don't see how this could be true at all.  Throughout the bible it is clear that the Sabbath is the same day for everyone.  There are all sorts of examples of activities that effected the entire city, family, or groups of people.  That would be impossible if the Sabbath was different for every person.

Sounds to me like certain "theologians" just want to keep their stores open on Saturday or Sunday.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(04-07-2016, 11:42 AM)PhilHos Wrote: And here's the thing about working on Sunday. First off, Jesus worked on the Sabbath. And more importantly, the Sabbath was intended as a day of rest for mankind. Thus, many, if not most, theologians believe that as long as you have one day a week that you take and rest from labor and honor God, then you're honoring God's command of keeping the Sabbath.

Just a little help the next time a Christian tries to pull that with you. 

While I do appreciate the theological lesson (and I'm not being sarcastic).  I don't think that these employees are all that religious.  like I said, a convenient excuse.  I readily admit that I don't understand the grooming standards of many religions.



That being said I don't have a problem with people wearing turbans or beards or long hair, etc (many of our special forces do). However I am a traditionalist when it comes to the military uniform.   IMO before you are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Skih....you are American.  Matt showed a picture of a Army soldier with a camo turban.  Where in this mans religious doctrine says that he must where a turban or not where US Army head gear?  Beyond ridiculous IMO.

l

[Belsnickel]

(04-07-2016, 01:43 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: While I do appreciate the theological lesson (and I'm not being sarcastic).  I don't think that these employees are all that religious.  like I said, a convenient excuse.  I readily admit that I don't understand the grooming standards of many religions.



That being said I don't have a problem with people wearing turbans or beards or long hair, etc (many of our special forces do). However I am a traditionalist when it comes to the military uniform.   IMO before you are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Skih....you are American.  Matt showed a picture of a Army soldier with a camo turban.  Where in this mans religious doctrine says that he must where a turban or not where US Army head gear?  Beyond ridiculous IMO.

l

I truly don't know about the turban itself, but it is used to contain their hair, which a baptized Sikh is strictly forbidden to cut. They are forbidden to cut hair from anywhere on their body.

[Element]

(04-06-2016, 11:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As I suspected.

Bfine Ive never seen you win an argument with Fred, you'll just go back to " I never said that" or some petty insults, you just make yourself look silly each time, this thread included. Give it a rest

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2016, 11:52 AM)fredtoast Wrote: And just because you try to deny you ever said or implied something does not mean anyone will believe you.

Clearly you are the one who is not as bright as you think you are.  just go back and look at your own words.

As I predicted the usual suspect(s) would scour the thread looking for "got ya(s)"

I did say I would not be in favor of it. If you consider that or speaking in opposition of the same as saying he should not be allowed then that speaks volumes.