Quote:A Sikh U.S. Army captain has been granted a long-term religious accommodation to wear a beard, turban and uncut hair in uniform, a decision supporters hailed on Friday as a landmark that could help other religious Sikhs to serve in the military.



Captain Simratpal Singh received the accommodation in a memorandum from Assistant Army Secretary Debra Wada dated March 30. The memo spelled out certain limitations and said the Army was working to develop uniform standards for soldiers who receive such waivers.


The accommodation for Singh is the first for an active-duty Sikh soldier since the Pentagon took steps two years ago to give individual troops greater latitude to wear turbans, head scarfs, yarmulke and tattoos as part of their religion.


The Pentagon's move sought to make it easier for Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Wiccans and others to follow the tenets of their faith while serving in the U.S. military. But advocacy groups say the process remains difficult.

The accommodation for Singh, a West Point graduate and Army Ranger, was granted only after he sued to prevent the service from requiring him to undergo extensive testing to ensure that his beard and hair did not interfere with his helmet or gas mask.


Even as his court case was pending, Singh passed a routine gas mask test with his unit. In barring the extensive testing, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell said it made little sense since 100,000 soldiers had been allowed beards for medical reasons.


Advocates say Singh is the first active duty Sikh soldier to be permitted to begin wearing a turban, long hair and beard even though he had previously served without them. Singh followed Army grooming standards when he entered the military academy at West Point but regretted it and sought an accommodation last year.


"My faith ... is an integral part of who I am. I am thankful that I no longer have to make the choice between faith and service to our nation,” Singh said in a statement issued by the Sikh Coalition.


Amandeep Sidhu, one of Singh's attorneys with McDermott Will & Emery, called the Army decision "a step in the right direction" but added "we are not satisfied with the U.S. military’s arduous, piecemeal approach to this issue, which forces all observant Sikhs to seek individual religious accommodations."


Singh's legal team also filed a federal lawsuit this week on behalf of three other Sikh service members seeking a religious accommodation.

(04-03-2016, 03:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Isn't this a violation of Separation of Church and State?

As a retiree; I cannot say I am in favor of it, but I'm not a decision maker. Hell, I was pissed when they went to boots your don't shine and uniforms you don't press while in a garrison environment.

(04-03-2016, 03:54 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Interested in knowing how you see it at such.  Personally I don't see it anymore a violation of church and state than churches exemption from taxes. 

(04-03-2016, 04:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because you are a federal employee defending your Nation. There has to be a degree of uniformity in a institution that defends a Nation. I do feel consideration should be given to practice your religion; however, certain concessions must be made if you but country above all else. 

(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? I think the rules set a couple of years ago saying that as long as they do not hinder military readiness then accommodations can be made is an appropriate one. As it says in the article, thousands of soldiers have been allowed beards for medical reasons, and the turban, well, they can often fit right in.

(04-03-2016, 03:54 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Interested in knowing how you see it at such.  Personally I don't see it anymore a violation of church and state than churches exemption from taxes. 

(04-04-2016, 09:29 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Jesus I hope they lift the exemption, and the 12 churches that make money in this country can pay your beloved taxes.

Quote:UPMC is Pennsylvania’s largest nongovernmental employer and Allegheny County’s largest property owner, with 656 acres and $1.6 billion in land and buildings. Eighty-six percent of that property is tax-exempt, according to a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette analysis.

If it were not a nonprofit, and thus exempt from paying certain taxes, UPMC would owe the city $20 million more in taxes every year.

(04-04-2016, 09:50 AM)GMDino Wrote: You don't seriously believe that do you?

The Catholic church (for one) is a better ran business than most of the businesses I have been part of.

The Diocese is well in the black.  Most individual churches within it are too now that they have closed and combined so many of them.

It may not be the $71 billion in taxes collected that gets bandied about....but it is crazy that they are exempt.

But then in the Pittsburgh area one of the largest land/property owners is also exempt...and it ain't a church.

(04-04-2016, 10:05 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Every individual church/parish is it's own exemption.  Our church is in one of the wealthier areas of the city, and we are happy when we break even.  Perhaps we should close our schools and dump all our kids in the public school system and let them build buildings and hire teachers to accomodate them. 

They are non-profit organizations.  Why should they be treated differently?

(04-04-2016, 10:58 AM)GMDino Wrote: Only if they don't campaign for candidates or preach politics from the pulpit.

But using the individual parishes is the same argument UPMC is making.  Sure the parent company is flush with profits but each hospital has it's own place so you can tax the parent company.

(04-04-2016, 10:05 AM)michaelsean Wrote: They are non-profit organizations.  Why should they be treated differently?

(04-04-2016, 11:20 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I've never heard a priest say one political thing in Church.  And I don't know what you mean "same argument".  Each church has it's own exemption. 

Give me an example of these dioceses flush with profits.  We have 40,000 kids in Catholic School alone in the Cincinnati dioceses.  What do you think the cost of buildings and teachers for them would be?

Dump all the Catholic school kids in the public system  and collect your property tax and see how that works out.

(04-04-2016, 11:20 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I've never heard a priest say one political thing in Church.  And I don't know what you mean "same argument".  Each church has it's own exemption. 

Give me an example of these dioceses flush with profits.  We have 40,000 kids in Catholic School alone in the Cincinnati dioceses.  What do you think the cost of buildings and teachers for them would be?

Dump all the Catholic school kids in the public system  and collect your property tax and see how that works out.

Quote:For the fourth consecutive year, the diocese has recognized a surplus in the change in unrestricted net assets resulting in an increase of the unrestricted net assets by approximately $1.5 million. As of June 30, 2014, the unrestricted net asset balance for the Pastoral Center was $3,319,202, which is a reasonable amount for a not-for-profit entity with revenues in excess of $10 million. During the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014, the diocese realized a surplus in the change in unrestricted net assets of $379,539 as well as a surplus in the change in temporarily restricted net assets of $165,603. This was mainly attributed to realized and unrealized gains on investments of approximately $300,000,

and also being under budget in expenses in most offices of the Pastoral Center.

 
Total assets continued to decrease over the past three years, which is attributed to the decrease in the “Today’s Challenge ~ Tomorrow’s Hope” pledge receivable. As of June 30, 2014, the diocese has collected more than $43 million of the total pledges made to the campaign, and it has distributed $16 million back to parishes, $4 million to Catholic schools, and disbursed $20 million to the campaign case elements. One of the case elements directed funds to the Priest Pension Fund, which is fully funded as of June 30, 2014, and results in a savings to parishes as a decrease in the priest pension expense.

(04-04-2016, 11:20 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Dump all the Catholic school kids in the public system  and collect your property tax and see how that works out.

(04-04-2016, 11:34 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote:

(04-04-2016, 11:39 AM)fredtoast Wrote: People would still send their kids to private schools even if churches paid taxes.

And then maybe your church would spend money on charity to help the poor instead of wealthy individuals who pay for private school just to bypass public education.  Personally I don't consider people who can afford private school tuition as the ones who need "charity".

(04-04-2016, 11:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: Never?  Ever?

Congrats...you found a four leaf clover at the end of a rainbow over a unicorn.

I've had priests telling the congregation which party to vote for if they were "true" Christians.  And that's mild.

All I can tell you is our Dioceses makes the local parishes borrow money from them, and pay it back with interest, to do repairs and improvements.  Even if the parish is in the black.  I sat on the church board when it happened.  Part of the reason I do not sit on the church board anymore.

And this is in one of the poorest areas of SW PA.

I also sit on the school board for our local catholic elementary school.  They clear a profit every year.  It is not huge, but it is a profit.  It would be slightly bigger but the dioceses bills them for "services" that it provides.

That's what it is listed as "services".  

Here is their report.  Please not they do not call it a "profit".

http://www.dioceseofgreensburg.org/about/Pages/annualreport.aspx



One of their big schemes is they have a special pledge drive and if your parish can reach the goal set by the diocese then the church gets to keep the amount collected over and above the goal.

Seriously.

As to Catholic school I must be missing your point as we had out two in them while we were also paying school taxes.  Not that I complained, but what difference would it make if more kids went to public school when politicians are already salivating to cut funds and close schools?