Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    2,651
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,011
    Quote Originally Posted by linda22003 View Post
    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.
    What the fuck ever you tights assed fleeb.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,011
    Quote Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker View Post
    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:
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    Does it stop at Islamic headwear or can Jews wear yarmulke's?
    Yes, under certain conditions. See above.
    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    That would be a kufi. As for Sikh's, they can wear something like this:
    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.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Drive-by Poster ABC in Georgia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    2,778
    Quote Originally Posted by linda22003 View Post
    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.
    Pssst! Miss Linda ...

    You must not give in to your unkind obsessions.

    It shows a definite lack of class, darlin'.

    ~ Auntie Mame :p
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,776
    Quote Originally Posted by ABC in Georgia View Post
    Pssst! Miss Linda ...

    You must not give in to your unkind obsessions.

    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."
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,776
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    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.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Drive-by Poster ABC in Georgia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    2,778
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    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
    Last edited by ABC in Georgia; 12-27-2011 at 09:51 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,776
    Quote Originally Posted by ABC in Georgia View Post
    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.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •