Give an inch..they take a mile

[Timw286]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/22/armys-jrotc-to-change-policies-on-head-coverings/#ixzz1hMWwqi00

One of the main pillars of the military is uniformity. This I do not agree with. :mad2:

[DOOM]

So I guess they will be able to wear their beards next.

[guspech750]

Yep. That's pretty stupid.


---
- Sent from my iPhone
Eaton Swap + 4.10's = Wreeeeeeeeeedom!!

[-Matt-]

So I guess they will be able to wear their beards next.

They already can...

But the big difference here is that its JROTC... NOT active military. C'mon guys, its a High School. If they decide to join, the head gear is gone.

[Mr. Man]

Wonder who will get the contract of make Kevlar turbans?:dunno::rolleyes:

[Shaijack]

Next thing you know they will females on ships with males. LOL

[RF Overlord]

I guess that means my tinfoil hat is OK now, too...

[rayjay]

JROTC, what is that??? Not in the PRNY.
I gotta move to a free state and get away from these Communists....

[guspech750]

I guess that means my tinfoil hat is OK now, too...

Maggot Twat base player, "Spam" has a tinfoil hat!!

http://img.tapatalk.com/638e1323-fa95-8134.jpg
http://img.tapatalk.com/638e1323-faa5-001b.jpg


---
- Sent from my iPhone
Eaton Swap + 4.10's = Wreeeeeeeeeedom!!

[jwibbity]

Next thing you know they will females on ships with males. LOL
well at least on aircraft carriers and destroyers they do, they just started them on subs too, like mid 2010ish

[sailsmen]

The first step towards enslavement is to divide into groups.

[MrBluGruv]

JROTC, what is that???

Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps.

Being in what is essentially an air force hub city, my high school had a fairly active JROTC.

If they keep "accommodating" everything though, I'm not sure exactly what these young people are actually going to be training for...

[Mercguy04]

Wonder who will get the contract of make Kevlar turbans?:dunno::rolleyes:

Halliburton (http://www.halliburton.com/careers/), who else.


,

[rayjay]

Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps.

Being in what is essentially an air force hub city, my high school had a fairly active JROTC.

If they keep "accommodating" everything though, I'm not sure exactly what these young people are actually going to be training for...

I'll reiterate, NOT in the PRNY... :rolleyes:

[Spectragod]

I don't understand why one would come to America, and want to continue with the beliefs of the country you left. Why not just stay where you were if you want to continue that way of life???

[CBT]

Good, let them wear what they want. Can't offend anyone nowadays, not even illegals....


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/21/arizona-sheriffs-officers-turn-in-federal-credentials/?intcmp=obnetwork

[05crownsport]

Australia is looking more and more promising as a place of refuge from this type of behavior.

[kernie]

[QUOTE=CBT;1127509]Good, let them wear what they want. Can't offend anyone nowadays, not even illegals....




Ha! What's left eh!

:beer:

[-Matt-]

You all are such racists

[sailsmen]

Search NoGo Zones in France and Europe. There is no assimilation, a country within a country. Europe is literally dying. There is a tipping point in a culture wherein the living cannot replace the dying.
Europe opened immigration to increase their population of younger workers. To expand their economies and bolster their retirement system. Unfortunately the welfare benefits are more generous then many of the jobs. The immigrants are having high birth rates and eventually will out vote.
The only way for Europe to remain free is to become a dictatorship.

[RF Overlord]

I don't understand why one would come to America, and want to continue with the beliefs of the country you left. Why not just stay where you were if you want to continue that way of life???Because their way of life back home was as a dirt farmer who drove a donkey cart to his stall in the marketplace and had to give free products to the dictator's soldiers or risk being disappeared. In America they can get a better job, pay no taxes, refuse to learn English, and have politicians make it mandatory to give them everything.

[Spectragod]

Because their way of life back home was as a dirt farmer who drove a donkey cart to his stall in the marketplace and had to give free products to the dictator's soldiers or risk being disappeared. In America they can get a better job, pay no taxes, refuse to learn English, and have politicians make it mandatory to give them everything.

I actually knew the answer, sorry to say.......

[Black&Gifted]

hmmm, this thread makes me wonder about the principles this country was founded upon and why our forefathers came here...

[Black&Gifted]

Because their way of life back home was as a dirt farmer who drove a donkey cart to his stall in the marketplace and had to give free products to the dictator's soldiers or risk being disappeared. In America they can get a better job, pay no taxes, refuse to learn English, and have politicians make it mandatory to give them everything.


I don't understand who your gripe is with from the bolded statement? The people who come here legally and pay taxes and etc. (like the people discussed in the original article posted), or the people who come here illegally? If it is with illegal immigrants, shouldn't your gripe be with U.S. CITIZENS and U.S. EMPLOYERS who employ illegal immigrants?

[CBT]

hmmm, this thread makes me wonder about the principles this country was founded upon and why our forefathers came here...

To escape being opressed by the British and to be able to pray however they wanted. And to hang sheetrock and do landscaping and stuff at a lower price than the local Indians. I could be wrong.

[sailsmen]

I grew up around family members whose first language was not English. They all learned English, obeyed the laws and became citizens. None accepted food stamps or any other form of welfare.

My grand father lived in a card board box in the basement of his home so his mother could rent out his room. He graduated from College with out ever having purchased a book because he had no money.

None of them marched under the flag of a foreign country in the USA making demands.

They marched under the flag of the USA over seas.

[05crownsport]

I don't understand who your gripe is with from the bolded statement? The people who come here legally and pay taxes and etc. (like the people discussed in the original article posted), or the people who come here illegally? If it is with illegal immigrants, shouldn't your gripe be with U.S. CITIZENS and U.S. EMPLOYERS who employ illegal immigrants?

The original article doesn't state anything about legal or illegal citizens. It simply says that someone who wanted to join a JROTC program didn't want to be in uniform by removing her native countries head wrap...so I say to her...you can't be a part of this group unless you want to conform to the rules. I firmly believe that everyone has the right to worship as they please, just don't try to change my beliefs or traditions to suit your needs.

[05crownsport]

I grew up around family members whose first language was not English. They all learned English, obeyed the laws and became citizens. None accepted food stamps or any other form of welfare.

My grand father lived in a card board box in the basement of his home so his mother could rent out his room. He graduated from College with out ever having purchased a book because he had no money.

None of them marched under the flag of a foreign country in the USA making demands.

They marched under the flag of the USA over seas.

That's exactly what this country is about. Anyone has the opportunity to succeed. Thanks for sharing.

[sailsmen]

"March, 2011
What GAO Found
The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about 55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal year 2009 (the most recent data available), and the majority were from Mexico. The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons increased about 7 percent from about 51,000 in fiscal year 2005 while the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails increased about 35 percent from about 220,000 in fiscal year 2003. The time period covered by these data vary because they reflect updates since GAO last reported on these issues in 2005. Specifically, in 2005, GAO reported that the percentage of criminal aliens in federal prisons was about 27 percent of the total inmate population from 2001 through 2004."

"About 50 percent of the criminal aliens in our study population were arrested at least once for either assault, homicide, robbery, a sex offense, or kidnapping. About half of the criminal aliens were arrested at least once for a drug violation."

[Black&Gifted]

to escape being oppressed and to be able to pray however they wanted..... I could be wrong.

fixed....:D

[Black&Gifted]

I grew up around family members whose first language was not English. They all learned English, obeyed the laws and became citizens. None accepted food stamps or any other form of welfare.

My grand father lived in a card board box in the basement of his home so his mother could rent out his room. He graduated from College with out ever having purchased a book because he had no money.

None of them marched under the flag of a foreign country in the USA making demands.

They marched under the flag of the USA over seas.

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding your story, but I understand it to mean that your family members came here, learned English and served in the United States army. Is this correct?

If so, I fail to understand the difference between your story and the news story in the original post? I may have also misread the original story as well, which I understood to mean young muslim americans want to learn to serve in OUR (i.e., U.S. citizens') military but are having difficulties reconciling their religious views with military ways. If my understanding is even in the same ballpark, hasn't religion (not just Islam) been a thorn in the side of the military long before the girl in the original story was born?????

[Black&Gifted]

The original article doesn't state anything about legal or illegal citizens. It simply says that someone who wanted to join a JROTC program didn't want to be in uniform by removing her native countries head wrap...so I say to her...you can't be a part of this group unless you want to conform to the rules. I firmly believe that everyone has the right to worship as they please, just don't try to change my beliefs or traditions to suit your needs.


I don't even know where to begin with the fallacies in your statements. You are right on one thing, though, as the original article didn't mention legal or illegal immigrants. I made that statement specifically in response to quoted language in my post where the poster made (what I believe to be) a ridiculous statement and I challenged the statement. Also, the logical inference with the posters statement is that he is referring to illegal immigrants.

fyi: I don't think I read in the article that she wore the "head wrap" because of her "native country." I am willing to be $5000 cash, right now, that she was born in the U.S.A. Wouldn't that make the U.S.A. her native country?

[sailsmen]

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding your story, but I understand it to mean that your family members came here, learned English and served in the United States army. Is this correct?

If so, I fail to understand the difference between your story and the news story in the original post? I may have also misread the original story as well, which I understood to mean young muslim americans want to learn to serve in OUR (i.e., U.S. citizens') military but are having difficulties reconciling their religious views with military ways. If my understanding is even in the same ballpark, hasn't religion (not just Islam) been a thorn in the side of the military long before the girl in the original story was born?????

My post was in response to your post - "hmmm, this thread makes me wonder about the principles this country was founded upon and why our forefathers came here..."

My forefathers who came here put their new country the USA ahead of their native language and religion.

From Wikki -"Some Muslims argue that unlike Christianity, Islam does not separate religion from state, and that for example it is apolitical Islam not political Islam that requires explanation and that is an historical fluke of the "shortlived heyday of secular Arab nationalism between 1945 and 1970."[10]

In contrast, scholar Olivier Roy argues that "a defacto separation between political power" of sultans and emirs and religious power of the caliph was "created and institutionalized ... as early as the end of the first century of the hegira," what has been lacking in the Muslim world is "political thought regarding the autonomy of this space." No positive law was developed outside of sharia. The sovereign's religious function was to defend the Islamic community against its enemies, institute the sharia, ensure the public good (maslaha). The state was instrument to enable Muslims to live as good Muslims and Muslims were to obey the sultan if he did so. The legitimacy of the ruler was "symbolized by the right to coin money and to have the Friday prayer (Jumu'ah khutba) said in his name."[11]"

[Black&Gifted]

Thank you, sir, for the explanation. People came to this country to escape unnecessary persecution. At the same time, it is imperative that they assimilate. I do, however, believe the story about your forefathers goes directly to this story, and actually supports my position. From what I read in this thread are a number of responses that attack religious beliefs for challenging the system. If the system was never challenged, this country would NOT exist as it does today. You cannot have your cake and eat it too...if you did, it would be a DICTATORSHIP.

I'm not sitting here defending right-wing religious beliefs, or that there should not be a separation between religion and state, but things are not being put into perspective.

[sailsmen]

[QUOTE=Black&Gifted;1128603]Thank you, sir, for the explanation. People came to this country to escape unnecessary persecution. At the same time, it is imperative that they assimilate. I do, however, believe the story about your forefathers goes directly to this story, and actually supports my position. From what I read in this thread are a number of responses that attack religious beliefs for challenging the system. If the system was never challenged, this country would NOT exist as it does today. You cannot have your cake and eat it too...if you did, it would be a DICTATORSHIP.

I'm not sitting here defending right-wing religious beliefs, or that there should not be a separation between religion and state, but things are not being put into perspective.[/QUOTE

I tried to make it quite clear that my forfathers came to the USA to embrace the system and not to "challenge" the system.

I don't think any religious group should be allowed to keep their hair, beards, hair coverings, daggers or attire when joining the military. When you join the military you put your Country first. The purpose of the "uniform" is to make everyone uniform for a unified and cohesive fighting force.

When our Gov't calls a terrorist attack on a USA Military base "work place violence" so as not to offend a religion we should all be concerned.

[Black&Gifted]

If people didn't challenge the system, why would they need to leave their original country of origin in the first place? Sounds to me like a flock of sheep by just going with the flow.

I wholeheartedly agree with your point on joining the military and the "uniformity" as well as country. However, it wasn't too long ago that there was tension between the military and women (and there may still be). Hasn't the military made changes to accomodate women in general? I think it is evolving as a society and being dynamic. Positions and systems change everyday based on new information. Not every decision made is correct, but you live and hopefully learn.

Also, why is everyone up in arms over a 14 year old girl about wearing her hajab? Shouldn't people have more issue with military person in charge who is allowing this?

[CBT]

If people didn't challenge the system, why would they need to leave their original country of origin in the first place? Sounds to me like a flock of sheep by just going with the flow.

I wholeheartedly agree with your point on joining the military and the "uniformity" as well as country. However, it wasn't too long ago that there was tension between the military and women (and there may still be). Hasn't the military made changes to accomodate women in general? I think it is evolving as a society and being dynamic. Positions and systems change everyday based on new information. Not every decision made is correct, but you live and hopefully learn.

Also, why is everyone up in arms over a 14 year old girl about wearing her hajab? Shouldn't people have more issue with military person in charge who is allowing this?

I spent 20 years in the Navy accomodating and easing the tension of women in the military. :flag: Your welcome, America!!! :D
Edit: With the exception of the National Guard women, never had the opportunity. But then again, the day ain't over. Muhahahaha....

[PonyUP]

Alright flame me if you want, but imagine you weren't allowed to wear a cross around your neck. One may leave their country, but still hold on to their religion. If the ROTC wants to allow this, WTF do you care?
There was also a time that African Americans weren't allowed to serve and only counted as 1/6 of a person. A society has to evolve with the times. As long as when you go to serve the head dress doesn't deter you from shooting straight, it's fine by me

Flame suit on


Pony seal of Approval

[HammerDown]

The original article doesn't state anything about legal or illegal citizens. It simply says that someone who wanted to join a JROTC program didn't want to be in uniform by removing her native countries head wrap...so I say to her...you can't be a part of this group unless you want to conform to the rules. I firmly believe that everyone has the right to worship as they please, just don't try to change my beliefs or traditions to suit your needs.


yes--just say NO to the student who doesn't want to remove head wrap. It should be so simple--say to her "This is the rule--end of discussion". Don't understand why this stuff has to go on & on & on.......................

[sailsmen]

From my above post - "The first step towards enslavement is to divide into groups."

The concern is when the Gov't favors one religion over another or favors any religion. Examples one religion gets to wear a complete mask over their face for a DL? One religion gets special search procedures by TSA?

Will other religions get to wear their traditional dress such as dreadlocks, daggers, beards, clothing?

DODD-1300.17
A. REISSUANCE AND PURPOSE
This Directive reissues reference (a) and, pursuant to references (b) and (c), prescribes policy, procedures, and responsibilities for the accommodation of religious practices in the Military Services.



C. POLICY

A basic principle of our nation is free exercise of religion. The Department of Defense places a high value on the rights of members of the Armed Forces to observe the tenets of their respective religions. It is DoD policy that requests for accommodation of religious practices should be approved by commanders when accommodation will not have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, standards or discipline.
The following goals are to be used by the Military Departments in the development of guidance on the exercise of command discretion concerning the accommodation of religious practices. Nothing in these goals or in the implementing rules of the Military Departments (except when expressly provided therein) shall be interpreted as requiring a specific form of accommodation in individual circumstances.
a. Worship services, holy days, and Sabbath observance should be accommodated, except when precluded by military necessity.

b. The Military Departments should include religious belief as one factor for consideration when granting separate rations, and permit commanders to authorize individuals to provide their own supplemental food rations in a field or "at sea" environment to accommodate their religious beliefs.

c. The Military Departments should consider religious beliefs as a factor for waiver of immunizations, subject to medical risks to the unit and military requirements, such as alert status and deployment potential.

d. The Military Departments should include relevant materials on religious traditions, practices, and policies in the curricula for command, judge advocate, chaplain, and similar courses and orientations.

e. The Military Departments should develop a statement advising of DoD policy on individual religious practices and military requirements to applicants for commissioning, enlistment, and reenlistment.

f. Religious items or articles not visible or otherwise apparent may be worn with the uniform, provided they shall not interfere with the performance of the member's military duties, as discussed in subparagraph C.2.g.(5), below, or interfere with the proper wearing of any authorized article of the uniform.

g. Under Public Law 100-180, section 508 (reference (c)), members of the Armed Forces may wear visible items of religious apparel while in uniform, except under circumstances in which an item is not neat and conservative or its wearing shall interfere with the performance of the member's military duties.

Under this Directive, "religious apparel" is defined as articles of clothing worn as part of the doctrinal or traditional observance of the religious faith practiced by the member. Hair and grooming practices required or observed by religious groups are not included within the meaning of religious apparel. Jewelry bearing religious inscriptions or otherwise indicating religious affiliation or belief is subject to existing Service uniform regulations just as jewelry that is not of a religious nature.
In the context of the wearing of a military uniform, "neat and conservative" items of religious apparel are those that:
(a) Are discreet, tidy, and not dissonant or showy in style, size, design, brightness, or color.

(b) Do not replace or interfere with the proper wearing of any authorized article of the uniform.

(c) Are not temporarily or permanently affixed or appended to any authorized article of the uniform.

The standards in subparagraph C.2.g.(2), above, are intended to serve as a basis for determining a member's entitlement under Public Law 100- 180, section 508 (reference (c)), to wear religious apparel with the uniform. For example, unless prohibited by subparagraph C.2.g.(6), below, a Jewish yarmulke may be worn with the uniform whenever a military cap, hat, or other headgear is not prescribed. A yarmulke may also be worn underneath military headgear as long as it does not interfere with the proper wearing, functioning, or appearance of the prescribed headgear.
Exceptions to the standards in subparagraph C.2.g.(2), above, and other special accommodations for members of particular religious groups may be granted by the Military Departments under section D., below.
Whether an item of religious apparel interferes with the performance of the member's military duties depends on the characteristics of the item, the circumstances of its intended wear, and the particular nature of the member's duties. Factors in determining if an item of religious apparel interferes with military duties include, but are not limited to, whether the item may:
(a) Impair the safe and effective operation of weapons, military equipment, or machinery.

(b) Pose a health or safety hazard to the wearer or others.

(c) Interfere with the wearing or proper functioning of special or protective clothing or equipment (e.g., helmets, flack jackets, flight suits, camouflaged uniforms, gas masks, wet suits, and crash and rescue equipment).

(d) Otherwise impair the accomplishment of the military mission.

A complete prohibition on the wearing of any visible items of religious apparel may be appropriate under unique circumstances in which the member's duties, the military mission, or the maintenance of discipline require absolute uniformity. For example, members may be prohibited from wearing visible religious apparel while wearing historical or ceremonial uniforms; participating in review formations, parades, honor or color guards, and similar ceremonial details and functions.
The authority to approve the wearing of an item of religious apparel with the uniform, under the guidelines of this paragraph, shall be exercised at the command level specified by each Military Department. Denials of requests to wear religious apparel shall be subject to review at the Service Headquarters level. Final review shall occur within 30 days following the date of initial denial for cases arising in the United States, and within 60 days for all other cases. Exceptions to these deadlines shall be limited to exigent circumstances, such as extended deployment. Service members shall be obliged to comply with orders prohibiting the wearing of questionable items of religious apparel pending review of such orders under regulations issued by the Secretaries of the Military Departments.
h. Notwithstanding paragraphs C.2.f. and g., above, chaplains may wear any required religious apparel or accouterments with the uniform while conducting worship services and during the performance of rites and rituals distinct to their faith groups.
D. PROCEDURES

Under rules prescribed by the Secretary of the Military Department concerned, military commanders should consider the following factors along with any other factors deemed appropriate in determining whether to grant a request for accommodation of religious practices addressed in section C., above:
a. The importance of military requirements in terms of individual and unit readiness, health and safety, discipline, morale, and cohesion.

b. The religious importance of the accommodation to the requester.

c. The cumulative impact of repeated accommodations of a similar nature.

d. Alternative means available to meet the requested accommodation.

e. Previous treatment of the same or similar requests, including treatment of similar requests made for other than religious reasons.

The factors in subsection D.1, above, are intended to promote standard procedure for resolving difficult questions involving accommodation of religious practices. In view of the different mission requirements of each command, individual consideration of specific requests for accommodation is necessary; With the exception of requests involving the wearing of visible items of religious apparel with the uniform, denials of which must be reviewed at the Service Headquarters level, the appropriate level of command for resolution of these issues shall be determined by each of the Military Departments, based on its particular requirements and circumstances.
When requests for accommodation are not in the best interest of the unit and continued tension between the unit's requirements and the individual's religious beliefs is apparent, administrative actions should be considered. These actions may include, but are not limited to, assignment, reassignment, reclassification, or separation. Nothing in this Directive precludes action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (reference (d)) in appropriate circumstances.

[sailsmen]

..........There was also a time that African Americans weren't allowed to serve and only counted as 1/6 of a person. A society has to evolve with the times. As long as when you go to serve the head dress doesn't deter you from shooting straight, it's fine by me

Flame suit on


Pony seal of Approval

Per Wikki - The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the enumerated population of slaves would be counted for representation purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.

The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:



“

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

”
A free African American was counted as a "whole Number". New Orleans had a large population of "Free Men of Color" and a number were slave owners.

[babbage]

"March, 2011
What GAO Found
The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about 55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal year 2009 (the most recent data available), and the majority were from Mexico. The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons increased about 7 percent from about 51,000 in fiscal year 2005 while the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails increased about 35 percent from about 220,000 in fiscal year 2003. The time period covered by these data vary because they reflect updates since GAO last reported on these issues in 2005. Specifically, in 2005, GAO reported that the percentage of criminal aliens in federal prisons was about 27 percent of the total inmate population from 2001 through 2004."

"About 50 percent of the criminal aliens in our study population were arrested at least once for either assault, homicide, robbery, a sex offense, or kidnapping. About half of the criminal aliens were arrested at least once for a drug violation."


I'd like to see this get outsourced to china. (illegals in our jails)
I'm very sure China could do it for less - saving us money -- and if they actually escape.... :)

[05crownsport]

yes--just say NO to the student who doesn't want to remove head wrap. It should be so simple--say to her "This is the rule--end of discussion". Don't understand why this stuff has to go on & on & on.......................

Ditto...and thank you.

[sailsmen]

As I stated above I don't want the Gov't committing "discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin".

In the Military this means if one religion can wear something different on their head then all religions or non religions can wear some thing different on their head, see post #9.

We will no longer have a uniform, i.e. one form, and cohesive fighting force.

[05crownsport]

As I stated above I don't want the Gov't committing "discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin".

In the Military this means if one religion can wear something different on their head then all religions or non religions can wear some thing different on their head, see post #9.

We will no longer have a uniform, i.e. one form, and cohesive fighting force.

I couldn't agree more. No one joins the military or a rotc program to fight the system...you are the system!