[Progniusis]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/20...iform/#content

You can wear a Muslim head scarf, and you can wear the uniform of the Junior ROTC. Just not at the same time.

That’s the word from the U.S. Army, which is supporting an officer’s ruling last month that a 14-year-old Tennessee girl could not wear her traditional head covering while in uniform at a parade.

The student, Demin Zawity, of Brentwood, Tenn., quit the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps program at Ravenwood High School and returned to regular gym classes when commanding officers said she had to take off her hijab if she wanted to march in the homecoming parade.

I really don't think there should be the wearing of any religious garb while in uniform, unless you're a chaplain, but why is this okay:

http://www.army.mil/article/36339/ Sikh Soldiers allowed to serve, retain their articles of faith

Sikh soldiers can have beards, uncut hair (all things that are against regulation) and a turban but she can't wear a scarf? But yet they want female soldiers who are on FETs to wear head scarves with their uniform while in Afghanistan...to me it's just a little confusing on who the standards apply to with these type of things.

It is just JRTOC though which means really nothing. Again I don't think anyone should be wearing religious clothing while in uniform. Wear a religious token on a chain with your dog tags, have something in your pocket, etc fine. It just starts causing all these exception rules. Just my opinion.

[YpbWF5Yo]

To begin with, I am frankly mystified why a Muslim girl would even WANT to join the American military, but meh whatever -

But you do raise an interesting point with the Sikh being given leeway on the uniform, but not Muslims.

I'm not sure I have any particular opinion on this, in all honesty...

[Calluffence]

To begin with, I am frankly mystified why a Muslim girl would even WANT to join the American military, but meh whatever -

But you do raise an interesting point with the Sikh being given leeway on the uniform, but not Muslims.

I'm not sure I have any particular opinion on this, in all honesty...

I just think if the Army is going to give waivers on one religion why not others? I say no exemptions to any religion in regards to while wearing the uniform.

There are Muslim females and males who are in the American military already so I'm not sure why it's mystifying that she would want to join.

[Pedsshuth]

To begin with, I am frankly mystified why a Muslim girl would even WANT to join the American military, but meh whatever -

But you do raise an interesting point with the Sikh being given leeway on the uniform, but not Muslims.

I'm not sure I have any particular opinion on this, in all honesty...

Just because they are in JRROTC doesn't mean they have any intention of joining the military. It gets them out of gym class. I really don't see what the big deal is. It isn't like they have to meet the other standards-weight in particular...

[CedssypeEdids]

Speaking of weight, I'll bet that officer is a little on the chunky side himself! :P

[Keeriewof]

Speaking of weight, I'll bet that officer is a little on the chunky side himself! :P

An overweight retiree? Surely you jest!

But you do raise an interesting point with the Sikh being given leeway on the uniform, but not Muslims.

Not sure if you read the story or kept up with it or not but it wasn't that simple. Essentially the Army told them they would make an exception to policy for them, they went to school on the Army's dime, then when the time came for them to go AD (a condition of the Army paying for school) the Army tried to go back on their original promise and make them shave and ditch the turban...

[harriettvanders]

An overweight retiree? Surely you jest!

Of course it was a jest! Everybody knows retirees PT two times a day, and runs a fitness test every six month. If he gets less than first class score, he hazes himself!

Not sure if you read the story or kept up with it or not but it wasn't that simple. Essentially the Army told them they would make an exception to policy for them, they went to school on the Army's dime, then when the time came for them to go AD (a condition of the Army paying for school) the Army tried to go back on their original promise and make them shave and ditch the turban... Nah, I didn't look into it that closely. In all honesty I'm surprised ANYBODY was able to get an exception made for them.

[conurgenceDen]

Nah, I didn't look into it that closely. In all honesty I'm surprised ANYBODY was able to get an exception made for them.

I actually wouldn't have a beef with the Army if they refused the exception. What I had a problem was the Army giving them an exception then once they were on the hook for AD because the Army paid for their schooling, they tried to pull the exception. THAT was shady in my book.

I really don't think there should be the wearing of any religious garb while in uniform, unless you're a chaplain,

Do you REALLY mean that? You want to prevent people from wearing a cross, St Christopher's medal, religious undergarmets, etc...? Why? If they aren't visible or a safety hazard, what do you care?

[Cajlwdvx]

An overweight retiree? Surely you jest!



Not sure if you read the story or kept up with it or not but it wasn't that simple. Essentially the Army told them they would make an exception to policy for them, they went to school on the Army's dime, then when the time came for them to go AD (a condition of the Army paying for school) the Army tried to go back on their original promise and make them shave and ditch the turban...

No that's not entirely true - one of them made it all the way through basic training with his beard, hair and turban.

[jojocomok]

I actually wouldn't have a beef with the Army if they refused the exception. What I had a problem was the Army giving them an exception then once they were on the hook for AD because the Army paid for their schooling, they tried to pull the exception. THAT was shady in my book.



Do you REALLY mean that? You want to prevent people from wearing a cross, St Christopher's medal, religious undergarmets, etc...? Why? If they aren't visible or a safety hazard, what do you care?

I said garb - as in garments is what I meant. I said in another post if you want to wear a cross or other medallion on a chain or have it in your pocket then fine. In fact I said this in my first post:
It is just JRTOC though which means really nothing. Again I don't think anyone should be wearing religious clothing while in uniform. Wear a religious token on a chain with your dog tags, have something in your pocket, etc fine. It just starts causing all these exception rules. Just my opinion.

Maybe read before you start jumping all over people. And yes I really do mean what I said as in if you can't see it in uniform, have at it.

[huerta]

No that's not entirely true - one of them made it all the way through basic training with his beard, hair and turban.

Maybe you should go back and actually READ the article (or one of the many others -OR the entire thread dedicated to the subject)... First off, Medical Officers don't even go to basic training. Second, EVERY word I typed was true. The article was dated the 25th of March and the first one started the Basic Officer Leadership Course on the 19th of March. They started school under the Army program more than four years ago and the decision to actually honor the committment the Army made more than four years ago was communicated 1 Dec. Like I said, the Army promised one thing then once they were on the hook, tried to F--k them.

I said garb - as in garments is what I meant. I said in another post if you want to wear a cross or other medallion on a chain or have it in your pocket then fine. In fact I said this in my first post:
It is just JRTOC though which means really nothing. Again I don't think anyone should be wearing religious clothing while in uniform. Wear a religious token on a chain with your dog tags, have something in your pocket, etc fine. It just starts causing all these exception rules. Just my opinion.

Maybe read before you start jumping all over people. And yes I really do mean what I said as in if you can't see it in uniform, have at it.

Noted but according to your original post, you would still ban religious undergarmets which you now say you wouldn't...

[vicgirl]

Maybe you should go back and actually READ the article (or one of the many others -OR the entire thread dedicated to the subject)... First off, Medical Officers don't even go to basic training. Second, EVERY word I typed was true. The article was dated the 25th of March and the first one started the Basic Officer Leadership Course on the 19th of March. They started school under the Army program more than four years ago and the decision to actually honor the committment the Army made more than four years ago was communicated 1 Dec. Like I said, the Army promised one thing then once they were on the hook, tried to F--k them.



Noted but according to your original post, you would still ban religious undergarmets which you now say you wouldn't...

Hmm...maybe you should re-read my post. I don't think I said anything about banning religious undergarments AND I actually copied for you what I had originally typed in the first post. Reading comprehension? I guess I shouldn't have used the word "religious garb" and should have said no one should wear it "outside" their uniform.

Again for your comprehension THIS is from my ORIGINAL post: It is just JRTOC though which means really nothing. Again I don't think anyone should be wearing religious clothing while in uniform. Wear a religious token on a chain with your dog tags, have something in your pocket, etc fine. It just starts causing all these exception rules. Just my opinion.

Didn't change it after your comment, that's what I started with.

Oh and the Sikh I read about wasn't officers - there was a male Sikh who went through BASIC training - all 10 weeks - with his beard, hair, turban. Maybe what you said happened but that's not what I was referring to.

So here's the article you're referring to: http://www.army.mil/article/36339/

Got it. That was right. But not ALL Sikhs are treated that way. See following:

http://www.army.mil/article/47924/ke...asic-training/

http://www.army.mil/article/58866/Si...ling_to_serve/

So therefore what I was talking about was correct and what you were was correct. I thought I read that you stated they did this to ALL Sikhs and they didn't. Misunderstandings happen. Maybe though you should take a breath before you freak out on someone's post...

No here was your post: Not sure if you read the story or kept up with it or not but it wasn't that simple. Essentially the Army told them they would make an exception to policy for them, they went to school on the Army's dime, then when the time came for them to go AD (a condition of the Army paying for school) the Army tried to go back on their original promise and make them shave and ditch the turban...

This I wasn't talking about in my post at all. I was talking about the Sikh who had to go through basic because he wasn't a citizen so he couldn't be an officer and is a SPC.

[Alina20100]

I actually wouldn't have a beef with the Army if they refused the exception. What I had a problem was the Army giving them an exception then once they were on the hook for AD because the Army paid for their schooling, they tried to pull the exception. THAT was shady in my book.

Before my first deployment, the battalion sergeant major announced we could buy and wear our own personal non-USMC boots during the deployment. After we were already in country, and many people had already bought boots and carried them over in their bags - the guy changed his mind and said we couldn't wear them.

[KLhdfskja]

Before my first deployment, the battalion sergeant major announced we could buy and wear our own personal non-USMC boots during the deployment. After we were already in country, and many people had already bought boots and carried them over in their bags - the guy changed his mind and said we couldn't wear them.

It's a pretty common theme in the US military...

[CibQueersejer]

No. It's wrong to allow ANY religion exceptions from uniform regulations. Serving in the U.S. Military is not a "Right", it is a privelege. You don't even HAVE all the same rights you defend for the citizens of the U.S. (i.e. freedom of speech) therefore to claim a religious "right" allows you to either serve or to violate ANY regulation, uniform or otherwise, is ludicrous. That Sikh should be given two options, shave your beard or ETS (right now). This is one of the problems we currently have, people think they are "entitled" to serve in the military.

[perhilzit]

IIRC, the head covering is cultural, not religious.

[tsovimnpb]

The waivers are granted on a case-by-case basis. In the story about the Sikhs, they were adult medical officers who obtained a dispensation from on high with the backing of congressional representative and interest groups.

The cadet in the original post is a student. She can apply for an exception if the JROTC rules provide for it. But until she gets her exception, she has to abide by the rules the rest of the JROTCers live by. After all, the uniform regulations are rules of general applicability; trying to find an actionable civil rights issue there will be a steep uphill battle.

[Trercakaressy]

-We already allow facial hair for medical waivers, is it such a leap of logic to allow it for religious beliefs?

-If turbans and headscarves are Conservative in nature/color - are they detracting in any way from military image?

[perhilzit]

-We already allow facial hair for medical waivers, is it such a leap of logic to allow it for religious beliefs?

-If turbans and headscarves are Conservative in nature/color - are they detracting in any way from military image?

"For medical reasons" and "For religious reason" are so cosmically distant on the scale of legitimacy that if one were to suffer a catastrophic explosion, it would take the better part of a decade for the other to notice. Also, again, the headscarf (and perhaps the turban) is not a religious garment; it is a cultural one.

Wrap a bedsheet around your head and show up in a formation at a change of command and let me know if it looks conservative and appropriate. You going to wear a hat with it too?

Methinks you've taken up a bad position.

[Giselle]

"For medical reasons" and "For religious reason" are so cosmically distant on the scale of legitimacy that if one were to suffer a catastrophic explosion, it would take the better part of a decade for the other to notice. Also, again, the headscarf (and perhaps the turban) is not a religious garment; it is a cultural one.

Wrap a bedsheet around your head and show up in a formation at a change of command and let me know if it looks conservative and appropriate. You going to wear a hat with it too?

Methinks you've taken up a bad position.

I dunno - IMO a turban can still look professional.