PDA

View Full Version : Changes coming to JROTC policies on head coverings



txradioguy
12-23-2011, 04:34 AM
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Cadets of the Army's junior ROTC program are going to be allowed to wear religious head coverings after a Muslim high school student in Tennessee was not allowed to participate because she wore a headscarf.The Army office for diversity and leadership said in a letter this week that procedures are being developed to allow exemptions to their JROTC uniform policy based on religious beliefs.

Headscarves such as a hijab or a turban will be allowed, according to the letter to the Council on American-Islamic Relations.A Muslim student at Ravenwood High School was told she could not wear her hijab while marching in a homecoming parade earlier this year.

Army spokesman George Wright said JROTC policies are a greater accommodation of religious beliefs and practices.


http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/22/4141025/changes-coming-to-jrotc-policies.html#storylink=cpy

txradioguy
12-23-2011, 04:35 AM
Ody...DAT...get ready for the changes to AR 670-1.


I'll bet my stripes they are on the way.

Jonsey...bet they are being drafted for the AF reg on wear and appearance of the uniform as well.


This is just nuts...:mad:

NJCardFan
12-23-2011, 11:43 AM
Does it stop at Islamic headwear or can Jews wear yarmulke's?

linda22003
12-23-2011, 11:58 AM
Turbans are mostly to accommodate Sikhs, who are by no means Muslim.

AmPat
12-23-2011, 12:02 PM
Ody...DAT...get ready for the changes to AR 670-1.


I'll bet my stripes they are on the way.

Jonsey...bet they are being drafted for the AF reg on wear and appearance of the uniform as well.


This is just nuts...:mad:
This paves the way for our newest members to wear panties and miniskirts. I can only hope that shaving standards won't be relaxed and that it will include the legs as well.:eek:

NJCardFan
12-23-2011, 01:57 PM
Turbans are mostly to accommodate Sikhs, who are by no means Muslim.

I don't recall mentioning turbans being Muslim. Linda gleaning what she wants from a post. Go figure. :rolleyes:

DumbAss Tanker
12-23-2011, 03:08 PM
Ody...DAT...get ready for the changes to AR 670-1.


I'll bet my stripes they are on the way.

Jonsey...bet they are being drafted for the AF reg on wear and appearance of the uniform as well.


This is just nuts...:mad:

Well, JROTC is really a world of its own, tied closer to the school systems than DOD, so how much this will bleed over into the real military is a big unknown.

Still, the Big Army has waffled back and forth on this over the years, depending on the whims of the Secretaries and the senior military leaders. Back in the early 80s I was in the 101st at Campbell, there was a Sikh in it then who was allowed to wear his turban (Also his beard I think, but he may have had a profile for that). The rules changed later, and have more-or-less consistently prohibited it for the last 20 years or so. There are some Federal cases on it from back in the conscription days, mainly about yarmulkes. This is one of those things that comes and goes, though, depending on the mood of the times.

Novaheart
12-23-2011, 03:18 PM
I think they should allow the headscarves if the person is an ethnic Muslim and at least a third generation American. No European Muslims, Nation of Islam, no converts, no children or grandchildren of immigrants.

txradioguy
12-23-2011, 05:42 PM
Well, JROTC is really a world of its own, tied closer to the school systems than DOD, so how much this will bleed over into the real military is a big unknown.

Its the camel's nose under the tent flap. Especially with CAIR behind the scenes on this issue.

I can guarentee you that when this comes to a head in the Big Army...this case will be cited.


Still, the Big Army has waffled back and forth on this over the years, depending on the whims of the Secretaries and the senior military leaders. Back in the early 80s I was in the 101st at Campbell, there was a Sikh in it then who was allowed to wear his turban (Also his beard I think, but he may have had a profile for that). The rules changed later, and have more-or-less consistently prohibited it for the last 20 years or so. There are some Federal cases on it from back in the conscription days, mainly about yarmulkes. This is one of those things that comes and goes, though, depending on the mood of the times.

The only Yarmulkes I've seen worn by any soldiers were ACU pattern and worn during Jewish services by either the Rabbi or his Chaplain's assistant.

linda22003
12-23-2011, 06:24 PM
I don't recall mentioning turbans being Muslim. Linda gleaning what she wants from a post. Go figure. :rolleyes:

I gleaned it from your all-inclusive term "Islamic headwear". I may have been mistaken, as you were when you put an apostrophe in "yarmulkes", a plural, not a possessive. :cool:

DumbAss Tanker
12-23-2011, 06:45 PM
Most Muslim men don't wear turbans, the most common religious headwear for the men is a thin skullcap which is about equally as obtrusive as a yarmulke. Some ethnic groups/cultures who are Moslem wear turbans but that's not really a pan-Islam thing, it's more of a nationality/cultural thing.

On the other hand, Sikh men do all wear turbans as required religious garb.

NJCardFan
12-24-2011, 12:11 AM
I gleaned it from your all-inclusive term "Islamic headwear". I may have been mistaken, as you were when you put an apostrophe in "yarmulkes", a plural, not a possessive. :cool:

What the fuck ever you tights assed fleeb.

NJCardFan
12-24-2011, 12:12 AM
Most Muslim men don't wear turbans, the most common religious headwear for the men is a thin skullcap which is about equally as obtrusive as a yarmulke. Some ethnic groups/cultures who are Moslem wear turbans but that's not really a pan-Islam thing, it's more of a nationality/cultural thing.

On the other hand, Sikh men do all wear turbans as required religious garb.

That would be a kufi. As for Sikh's, they can wear something like this:
http://www.bandanashop.com/images/stock_sikh_180x230.gif

Odysseus
12-27-2011, 12:26 AM
Ody...DAT...get ready for the changes to AR 670-1.


I'll bet my stripes they are on the way.

Jonsey...bet they are being drafted for the AF reg on wear and appearance of the uniform as well.


This is just nuts...:mad:

AR 670-1 already had a religious exemption for certain religious items. However, a headscarf does not meet the criteria. See the highlighted portions below:


1–7. Personal appearance policies
a. General. The Army is a uniformed service where discipline is judged, in part, by the manner in which a soldier wears a prescribed uniform, as well as by the individual’s personal appearance. Therefore, a neat and well-groomed appearance by all soldiers is fundamental to the Army and contributes to building the pride and esprit essential to an effective military force. A vital ingredient of the Army’s strength and military effectiveness is the pride and self discipline that American soldiers bring to their Service through a conservative military image. It is the responsibility of commanders to ensure that military personnel under their command present a neat and soldierly appearance. Therefore, in the absence of specific procedures or guidelines, commanders must determine a soldier’s compliance with standards in this regulation. Soldiers must take pride in their appearance at all times, in or out of uniform, on and off duty. Pride in appearance includes soldiers’ physical fitness and adherence to acceptable weight standards, in accordance with AR
600–9.
b. Exceptions to appearance standards based on religious practices.
(1) As provided by AR 600–20, paragraph 5–6, and subject to temporary revocation because of health, safety, or mission requirements, the following applies to the wear of religious apparel, articles, or jewelry. The term “religious apparel” is defined as articles of clothing worn as part of the observance of the religious faith practiced by the soldier. Religious articles include, but are not limited to, medallions, small booklets, pictures, or copies of religious symbols or writing carried by the individual in wallets or pockets. Except as noted below, personnel may not wear religious items if they do not meet the standards of this regulation, and requests for accommodation will not be entertained (see AR 600–20, para 5–6g(2)(d)).
(a) Soldiers may wear religious apparel, articles, or jewelry with the uniform, to include the physical fitness uniform, if they are neat, conservative, and discreet. “Neat conservative, and discreet” is defined as meeting the uniform criteria of this regulation. In other words, when religious jewelry is worn, the uniform must meet the same standards of wear as if the religious jewelry were not worn. For example, a religious item worn on a chain may not be visible when worn with the utility, service, dress, or mess uniforms. When worn with the physical fitness uniform, the item should be no more visible than identification (ID) tags would be in the same uniform. The width of chains worn with religious items should be approximately the same size as the width of the ID tag chain.
(b) Soldiers may not wear these items when doing so would interfere with the performance of their duties or present a safety concern. Soldiers may not be prohibited, however, from wearing religious apparel, articles, or jewelry meeting the criteria of this regulation simply because they are religious in nature, if wear is permitted of similar items of a nonreligious nature. A specific example would be wearing a ring with a religious symbol. If the ring meets the uniform standards for jewelry and is not worn in a work area where rings are prohibited because of safety concerns, then wear is allowed and may not be prohibited simply because the ring bears a religious symbol.
(c) During a worship service, rite, or ritual, soldiers may wear visible or apparent religious articles, symbols, jewelry, and apparel that do not meet normal uniform standards. Commanders, however, may place reasonable limits on the wear of non-subdued items of religious apparel during worship services, rites, or rituals conducted in the field for operational or safety reasons. When soldiers in uniform wear visible religious articles on such occasions, they must ensure that these articles are not permanently affixed or appended to any prescribed article of the uniform.
(d) Chaplains may wear religious attire as described in this regulation, CTA 50–909, and AR 165–1 in the
performance of religious services and other official duties, as required. Commanders may not prohibit chaplains from wearing religious symbols that are part of the chaplain’s duty uniform. (See AR 600–20, para 5–6g(7).)
(2) Soldiers may wear religious headgear while in uniform if the headgear meets the following criteria.
(a) It must be subdued in color (black, brown, green, dark or navy blue, or a combination of these colors).
(b) It must be of a style and size that can be completely covered by standard military headgear, and it cannot interfere with the proper wear or functioning of protective clothing or equipment.
(c) The headgear cannot bear any writing, symbols, or pictures.
(d) Personnel will not wear religious headgear in place of military headgear when military headgear is required (outdoors, or indoors when required for duties or ceremonies).
(3) Personal grooming. Hair and grooming practices are governed by paragraph 1–8 of this regulation, and exceptions or accommodations based on religious practices will not be granted. As an exception, policy exceptions based on 2 AR 670–1 • 3 February 2005 religious practice given to soldiers in accordance with AR 600–20 on or prior to 1 January 1986 remain in effect as long as the soldier remains otherwise qualified for retention.


Does it stop at Islamic headwear or can Jews wear yarmulke's?
Yes, under certain conditions. See above.

This paves the way for our newest members to wear panties and miniskirts. I can only hope that shaving standards won't be relaxed and that it will include the legs as well.:eek:


That would be a kufi. As for Sikh's, they can wear something like this:
http://www.bandanashop.com/images/stock_sikh_180x230.gif

Only if it does not interfere with the issued headgear. If you cannot wear a soft cap or beret over it, it's not authorized. Obviously, the head scarf, which must cover all of a woman's hair, and would therefore prevent the wear of a soft cap or beret, and which cannot be worn with a protective mask, would not qualify.

ABC in Georgia
12-27-2011, 09:09 AM
I gleaned it from your all-inclusive term "Islamic headwear". I may have been mistaken, as you were when you put an apostrophe in "yarmulkes", a plural, not a possessive. :cool:

Pssst! Miss Linda ...

You must not give in to your unkind obsessions. :nono:

It shows a definite lack of class, darlin'.

~ Auntie Mame :p

txradioguy
12-27-2011, 09:31 AM
Pssst! Miss Linda ...

You must not give in to your unkind obsessions. :nono:

It shows a definite lack of class, darlin'.

~ Auntie Mame :p

It takes a certain kind of idiot to think he/she has made a great intellectual point by saying "your spelling or punctuation is incorrect...see how smart I am by pointing that out to you."

txradioguy
12-27-2011, 09:35 AM
AR 670-1 already had a religious exemption for certain religious items. However, a headscarf does not meet the criteria.

I knew that part. What I'm saying is that while it doesn't meet the criteria now...IMHO it soon will because the CAIR radical Islam types won't rest until their blend of radical Islam permeates everything...to include military dress codes.

As I said the JROTC ruling is the camels nose under the tent flap...regular army is next with this case being cited as precedent.

And from there it's not much of a step to force the military to accept full face coverings for Muslim women.

ABC in Georgia
12-27-2011, 09:48 AM
It takes a certain kind of idiot to think he/she has made a great intellectual point by saying "your spelling or punctuation is incorrect...see how smart I am by pointing that out to you."

Hi Tex ...

I came in to make a short comment on the dhimmitude that is creeping into our lives thanks to CAIR, and forgot to do it, after seeing that "great intellectual" remark! :D

Anyway ... wondering how long it would be acceptable for non-muslim women in muslim countries to go about without a head covering.

Probably just up to the moment before beheading them perhaps?

~ ABC

txradioguy
12-27-2011, 11:31 AM
Hi Tex ...

I came in to make a short comment on the dhimmitude that is creeping into our lives thanks to CAIR, and forgot to do it, after seeing that "great intellectual" remark! :D

Anyway ... wondering how long it would be acceptable for non-muslim women in muslim countries to go about without a head covering.

Probably just up to the moment before beheading them perhaps?

~ ABC

If I remember correctly...our female soldiers that were stationed in Saudi Arabia had to wear headscarves...much to the dislike of some of the females who went outside the gates of the bases we were at.

I believe the same applies in Kuwait.

And in Afghanistan the female engagement teams are wearing headscarves when they interact with the local women.

So we've already been having to require women serving to do it in host nations...there just hasn't been that big a fuss made except in some rare occasions.

Novaheart
12-27-2011, 11:40 AM
If I remember correctly...our female soldiers that were stationed in Saudi Arabia had to wear headscarves...much to the dislike of some of the females who went outside the gates of the bases we were at.

I believe the same applies in Kuwait.

And in Afghanistan the female engagement teams are wearing headscarves when they interact with the local women.

So we've already been having to require women serving to do it in host nations...there just hasn't been that big a fuss made except in some rare occasions.

So I just got a mental image of a US Soldier with a machine gun and a head scarf in a country where women can't drive a car or travel unescorted.

But seriously, I suppose there is a difference between being in a host country or even an occupied country, and having this invasive species worming its way into our culture and demanding accommodation.

Are our leaders blind and without access to the internet? Do they not know or simply not care what harm the muzzie presence in Europe and Great Britain is doing or pursuing?

ABC in Georgia
12-27-2011, 11:57 AM
So I just got a mental image of a US Soldier with a machine gun and a head scarf in a country where women can't drive a car or travel unescorted.

But seriously, I suppose there is a difference between being in a host country or even an occupied country, and having this invasive species worming its way into our culture and demanding accommodation.

Are our leaders blind and without access to the internet? Do they not know or simply not care what harm the muzzie presence in Europe and Great Britain is doing or pursuing?

Wow, Nova ...

Must be the spirit of the season! :D I find myself in complete agreement with you.

The difference you referred to above, must be because we as Americans do comply with host country rules ... and THEY on the other hand ... are determined to "transform" (sound familiar?) our country to fit their way of life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No matter how long it takes. And yes, I am indeed an acolyte of Robert Spencer. :)

~ ABC

DumbAss Tanker
12-27-2011, 11:58 AM
Are our leaders blind and without access to the internet? Do they not know or simply not care what harm the muzzie presence in Europe and Great Britain is doing or pursuing?

No, our current leadership believes fully in the multi-culti bullshit, despite the fact that even the slow-witted, leftward-slanting Euros have figured out it is incredibly poisonous.

ABC in Georgia
12-27-2011, 12:16 PM
No, our current leadership believes fully in the multi-culti bullshit, despite the fact that even the slow-witted, leftward-slanting Euros have figured out it is incredibly poisonous.

I have a feeling Nova knows about all the PCMC BS "his" prez. believes in ... but is not 100% OK within himself to accept thinking about it ... being the lib that he is.

Who knows? Perhaps there is just the tiniest bit of hope for him yet, on this subject at least. :p

~ ABC

Tipsycatlover
12-27-2011, 12:28 PM
If I remember correctly...our female soldiers that were stationed in Saudi Arabia had to wear headscarves...much to the dislike of some of the females who went outside the gates of the bases we were at.

I believe the same applies in Kuwait.

And in Afghanistan the female engagement teams are wearing headscarves when they interact with the local women.

So we've already been having to require women serving to do it in host nations...there just hasn't been that big a fuss made except in some rare occasions.

That's because our military cannot break the laws of other countries. It's not done as a courtesy, or make the host nation feel like we want to be included. It is the law and a death penalty offense.

ABC in Georgia
12-27-2011, 12:58 PM
It is the law and a death penalty offense.

Indeed, by golly ... we must not offend their beloved prophet (PBUH) and the "P" in my words does not quite stand for "Peace" can you believe? :rotfl:

~ ABC (and outta here!)

txradioguy
12-27-2011, 01:08 PM
So I just got a mental image of a US Soldier with a machine gun and a head scarf in a country where women can't drive a car or travel unescorted.

Like this?

http://www.defense.gov/DODCMSShare/NewsStoryPhoto/2010-01/scr_100117-f-2222c-386a.jpg


Are our leaders blind and without access to the internet? Do they not know or simply not care what harm the muzzie presence in Europe and Great Britain is doing or pursuing?

They don't care. Political correctness and the fear of drawing the ire of Ibrahim Hooper and the rest of the C.A.I.R. mafia trumps all.

DumbAss Tanker
12-27-2011, 01:45 PM
Like this?

Tx, for what it's worth, I was last in Kuwait in late '06, our female Soldiers did not wear any headscarves when they left the bases then. Kuwait City was actually a fairly cosmopolitan kind of place, by Arab standards.

Of course the old Emir passed away in late 05 or early 06, and the relative who replaced him was on his last legs, so it's possible they've changed the laws since then.

Odysseus
12-27-2011, 04:04 PM
I knew that part. What I'm saying is that while it doesn't meet the criteria now...IMHO it soon will because the CAIR radical Islam types won't rest until their blend of radical Islam permeates everything...to include military dress codes.

As I said the JROTC ruling is the camels nose under the tent flap...regular army is next with this case being cited as precedent.

And from there it's not much of a step to force the military to accept full face coverings for Muslim women.
Agreed. Ironically, there are a number of Muslim women serving in the US military, and they are extremely western in their outlook and conduct (one of the ones that I knew even dated Jewish guys). They'd be the first ones to oppose wearing a headscarf. They oppose the imposition of Sharia and want nothing to do with the kind of Muslims that we're at war with.


That's because our military cannot break the laws of other countries. It's not done as a courtesy, or make the host nation feel like we want to be included. It is the law and a death penalty offense.
Unless, of course, we've conquered that country, in which case the law is what we say it is until their civil authorities have been restored. And, if we're there to protect them, then they really shouldn't be too critical of how we do it. The Saudis were perfectly happen to let us protect them from Saddam in 1992, as long as we didn't confront them with our culture. Americans were barred from bringing bibles, crosses and other religious objects into the country because the Saudis would be offended by the the worship of anything but Allah, as defined by the Wahhabi cleric, but I suspect that they'd have been more offended by being rolled over by Saddam Hussein's army. I'd say that the standard should be that any country that wants us to assist them in their defense should be willing to deal with the culture that we bring with us. If they don't want the culture that makes us effective, then they don't want the effects of it.

Tx, for what it's worth, I was last in Kuwait in late '06, our female Soldiers did not wear any headscarves when they left the bases then. Kuwait City was actually a fairly cosmopolitan kind of place, by Arab standards.

Of course the old Emir passed away in late 05 or early 06, and the relative who replaced him was on his last legs, so it's possible they've changed the laws since then.

The PM recently stepped down under pressure from the Islamist opposition. I have a bad feeling about that.

DumbAss Tanker
12-27-2011, 04:20 PM
The PM recently stepped down under pressure from the Islamist opposition. I have a bad feeling about that.


Well shit. I agree with you, that doesn't bode well.