Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Okay, a few terms need to be defined.

    • The Hijab is the head covering, usually a scarf that wraps around the head and hides the hair.
    • The Chador is the full-length cloak that covers a woman from the top of her head to her ankles, and has a hole which allows her face to be seen.
    • The Niqab is the the face veil which, when worn with the chador, completely covers every part of a woman except her eyes, hands and feet.
    • The Burqa is a full body garment that has a screen in front of the eyes and only permits the hands and feet to be seen.
    When we are discussing the JROTC rule, we are discussing the hijab. Now, here is the problem: AR 670-1 allows religious garments only if they do not conflict with the proper wear of the uniform. A Yarmulke complies with this, as does the skull cap that male Muslims tend to wear. A Turban is a bit more problematical, but the way that other armies have gotten around this is to establish Sikh regiments whose duty uniform includes the turban. Given that the US military already has separate headgear for different units (Airborne, Ranger and SF), it is conceivable that a Sikh exception could be made, but only if they formed separate units, which would defeat the purpose of integration into the armed forces. Separate uniforms for ethnically segregated units would be a horrible precedent to set, as would permitting the wear of items which are not uniform in order to promote ethnic or religious separatism.
    --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  
     

  2. #12  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Wood View Post

    I know it's fun for everyone to get their panties in a bunch and then run around in circles flailing their arms in the air while wailing about how this one little girl is going to impose Sharia upon the entire US by way of the JROTC, probably with some stealth help from 4-H and the Girl Scouts, but the reality is that just isn't happening. All you do is make yourself look foolish when you wail and gnash your teeth over something so petty as this, and then when the real threat does come along in the form of Nidal Hasan there's no credibility left.
    Individually these things may same petty but when you combine them enentually they will bury us with separate regulations for every group.






    Look up the meaning of "uniform" this might give you a clue and help bring down your flailing self righteous arms.
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Senior Member ironhorsedriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Coal Fields of WV
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Wood View Post
    Well, it certainly does change a lot of things.

    You folks do realize that people wear hijabs voluntarily as part of their religious expression, right? Whereas a burqa is something women are forced to wear?


    So, why the intentional lie in the OP?


    Well, I think we all know the answer to that.



    Look, it's just not unreasonable to accommodate this girl in high school in the same fashion that the military already accommodates Jews who wear a yarmulke or Sikhs who wear a turban.

    I know it's fun for everyone to get their panties in a bunch and then run around in circles flailing their arms in the air while wailing about how this one little girl is going to impose Sharia upon the entire US by way of the JROTC, probably with some stealth help from 4-H and the Girl Scouts, but the reality is that just isn't happening. All you do is make yourself look foolish when you wail and gnash your teeth over something so petty as this, and then when the real threat does come along in the form of Nidal Hasan there's no credibility left.
    First. Jewish members of the US Military are forced to conform with uniform regulations. They don't wear a yarmulke with their uniform. If they choose to wear it off duty, so be it. Muslims can wear their garb off duty as well. Sikhs can wear turbans in the British Army because it was part of their uniform when they joined.They originally joined the British Army as basically mercenaries.
    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 ironhorsedriver View Post
    First. Jewish members of the US Military are forced to conform with uniform regulations. They don't wear a yarmulke with their uniform. If they choose to wear it off duty, so be it. Muslims can wear their garb off duty as well. Sikhs can wear turbans in the British Army because it was part of their uniform when they joined.They originally joined the British Army as basically mercenaries.
    Jewish Soldiers can wear yarmulkes with the uniform, as long as it doesn't interfere with the wear of required uniform items.

    The man problem with women wearing the hijab is that it is visible under the issue headgear and cannot be worn safely in training. I also highly doubt that the Muslim women currently serving in the military want to wear it. The JROTC cadets who demand the right to wear it are not going to join the active force after they graduate from high school. The enlistment oath conflicts with Sharia, as it demands that the Soldier "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," while Sharia forbids obedience to any law other than Allah's.
    --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  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,717
    Nobody clicks the links, apparently.
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Wood View Post
    Nobody clicks the links, apparently.
    No, I read the Sikh story, but he received an exception to the policy, not a change in the policy. And, his hair and headgear are going to be a problem for him in training. He's going to truly hate the gas chamber.
    --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  
     

  7. #17  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    The enlistment oath conflicts with Sharia, as it demands that the Soldier "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," while Sharia forbids obedience to any law other than Allah's.
    Can you tell me where there is a "credible source" online which affirms what you have written here? I ask, because surely this would not only preclude many Moslem immigrants from becoming US citizens, it would invalidate the citizenship of many who have pretended to take the oath of citizenship.

    I am so sick of people saying that this is "just another religion" and that my opposition to Islamic infiltration in this country is similar to some irrational prejudice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    No, I read the Sikh story, but he received an exception to the policy, not a change in the policy. And, his hair and headgear are going to be a problem for him in training. He's going to truly hate the gas chamber.
    I forget, are they the ones who don't wash their hair?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    950
    Sikhs in the miiitary are not permitted to wear a turban. Whatever they wear has to accommodate a helmet. A yamulke being a small thin circlet of fabric isn't an issue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post

    I am so sick of people saying that this is "just another religion" and that my opposition to Islamic infiltration in this country is similar to some irrational prejudice.
    It is not similar; it is.
    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
  •