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

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2016, 03:30 PM)Element Wrote: 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

Your prowess of observation and adjudication aside: at least we both agree Fred and Dino very well may be the same person. Or is their an Element to the equation that I am missing?

[fredtoast]

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

(04-07-2016, 03:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  If you consider that or speaking in opposition of the same as saying he should not be allowed then that speaks volumes.

Yeah right.

Who would ever assume that "speaking in opposition" is anything like "being opposed to"?

Just anyone who speaks English.

"I wasn't opposed to it.  I just spoke in opposition to it. Derp."


This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

[GMDino]

(04-07-2016, 03:30 PM)Element Wrote: 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

(04-07-2016, 03:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your prowess of observation and adjudication aside: at least we both agree Fred and Dino very well may be the same person. Or is their an Element to the equation that I am missing?

Well, enough about me.

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2016, 03:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yeah right.

Who would ever assume that "speaking in opposition" is anything like "being opposed to"?

Just anyone who speaks English.

"I wasn't opposed to it.  I just spoke in opposition to it. Derp."


This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Most people can see that the two staements are answering two different questions and taken in context do not mean the same. Also the order in which they were posted would have merit to some. But if you must......Good Job with the fish shooting.

bfine32 Wrote:As I predicted the usual suspect(s) would scour the thread looking for "got ya(s)"

Clockwork

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2016, 03:57 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Well, enough about me.

Hell, tell it to Element; "he" called you Fred.

[GMDino]

(04-07-2016, 04:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, tell it to Element; "he" called you Fred.

Hmmmm.....someone might be closing in on one of the lines drawn in the sand my the mods around here with this kind of talk.

Do think he should be allowed to wear the turban?  

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(04-07-2016, 02:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

I completely understand this.  I still maintain though that grooming standards for religious reasons is absurd.  I guess it's because I'm not religious.

[*bfine32*]

(04-07-2016, 04:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: Do think he should be allowed to wear the turban?  

As I have said: I think what the Army is doing here is wise. Allow it, closely monitor it, see if the snowball grows (crucifixes, stars of David, kippahs...), and asses it.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-07-2016, 04:29 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I completely understand this.  I still maintain though that grooming standards for religious reasons is absurd.  I guess it's because I'm not religious.

I still believe in God, but it is things like this, although Catholic versions, that always left me scratching my head.  You mean the Being that created everything, and is all powerful gets upset if I eat mean on Friday during a certain part of the year?  That's a discipline, and not a matter of faith, but still the implication is God will be unhappy.  

[Belsnickel]

(04-07-2016, 04:29 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I completely understand this.  I still maintain though that grooming standards for religious reasons is absurd.  I guess it's because I'm not religious.

I know I couldn't do it. I may wear a beard, but I like it neat and tidy. Too much hair on my head and I get too hot.

(04-07-2016, 04:49 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I still believe in God, but it is things like this, although Catholic versions, that always left me scratching my head.  You mean the Being that created everything, and is all powerful gets upset if I eat mean on Friday during a certain part of the year?  That's a discipline, and not a matter of faith, but still the implication is God will be unhappy.  

So, a long time ago I read an article on this sort of thing and how the sacrifice for Lent is is really anti-Christian. The theologian's position was that Jesus did things like living as an ascetic for a period of time and sacrificing himself so that we didn't need to sacrifice any longer. He argued that the idea of Lent where you sacrifice something, albeit temporarily, is misguided and that in reality we should make Lent a 40 day long party. Continue the theme of Mardi Gras throughout the season to celebrate and revel in the gift that Jesus/God has granted us by sacrificing himself.

It was a very interesting take on it all. At the time I had never been involved in a church where Lent was taken very seriously, Anabaptists don't do much with the liturgical calendar. I kind of want to dig into this a bit more now that I am a member of a more liturgical church.

[fredtoast]

(04-07-2016, 04:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Clockwork

Congratulations on accurately predicting that I would make fun of you for contradicting yourself.

But let me save you the trouble of making this obvious comment in the future.  I guarantee I will call you out every time you contradict yourself.

[GMDino]

(04-07-2016, 04:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I have said: I think what the Army is doing here is wise. Allow it, closely monitor it, see if the snowball grows (crucifixes, stars of David, kippahs...), and asses it.

Then you are for it.

Glad we settled that.

[fredtoast]

(04-07-2016, 04:29 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I completely understand this.  I still maintain though that grooming standards for religious reasons is absurd.  I guess it's because I'm not religious.

It sounds a little silly to me also.

But pretty sane compared to cutting the skin off the end of your dick.

[fredtoast]

(04-07-2016, 04:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, tell it to Element; "he" called you Fred.

I don't care what Bfine believes, but somewhere (I am guessing in Northern Kentucky) Element is laughing his ass off.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(04-07-2016, 06:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It sounds a little silly to me also.

But pretty sane compared to cutting the skin off the end of your dick.

I agree



However, I did read an article recently (I believe it was Mens Health) that circumcision is actually healthier for you.  Less bacteria and easier to keep clean (I clean mine often ) and said that circumcised men contracted STD's 70% less than uncircumcised men.  Sounds good to me, especially since I don't remember being circumcised.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(04-07-2016, 04:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know I couldn't do it. I may wear a beard, but I like it neat and tidy. Too much hair on my head and I get too hot.

As far as the topic goes.  I have no problem with people practicing what ever religion they choose or sexual orientation they prefer, or even what their sex is.  They can either perform the job or they can't.  One standard and the Uniform is part of that IMO.  Again I readily admit I don't understand why it is so important for some to adhere to their grooming standards of their religion as to those of the military.  I'm also aware that some might find the military's grooming standards to be absurd.  Hell I bucked the system when I was in and wore my hair longer than I should have, until a chief told me I wasn't leaving the ship (we were pier side) until my hair was regulation...I buzzed it boot camp clean.  Point being at the time is that I would've preferred drinking beer and chasing girls rather than take a stance on my hair.  I just find it weird where people "draw the line" as to what is important to them.

[Bengalsrob]

(04-08-2016, 02:32 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: As far as the topic goes.  I have no problem with people practicing what ever religion they choose or sexual orientation they prefer, or even what their sex is.  They can either perform the job or they can't.  One standard and the Uniform is part of that IMO.  Again I readily admit I don't understand why it is so important for some to adhere to their grooming standards of their religion as to those of the military.  I'm also aware that some might find the military's grooming standards to be absurd.  Hell I bucked the system when I was in and wore my hair longer than I should have, until a chief told me I wasn't leaving the ship (we were pier side) until my hair was regulation...I buzzed it boot camp clean.  Point being at the time is that I would've preferred drinking beer and chasing girls rather than take a stance on my hair.  I just find it weird where people "draw the line" as to what is important to them.

You bring up an interesting point in your experiences in the military which made me think: How did this guy get through boot camp without being buzzed down, or do they not do that anymore?

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(04-11-2016, 08:41 PM)Bengalsrob Wrote: You bring up an interesting point in your experiences in the military which made me think: How did this guy get through boot camp without being buzzed down, or do they not do that anymore?

If I remember the article correctly, he'd had his hair buzzed like everyone else in boot camp, and had worn it at regulation until recently.  I guess he has become more devoted and thus it is now a big deal?  I think the requirements are pretty much the same as to when I was in.