Similar or dissimilar?

Discussion in 'Off-topic Political' started by Bkite, Jun 5, 2017.

  1. Bkite

    Bkite PawPaw x 3

    7,839
    359
    83
  2. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    63
    48
    I'll go with 'not at all similar'.
     

  3. Bkite

    Bkite PawPaw x 3

    7,839
    359
    83
    My son said that one thing that keeps them from being even remotely comparable is that one is the Army and one is the Marines. He said that the Army would be more likely to give in to political correctness where as the Marines are like yeah well whatever. You can't start that here. He said that the Marines would not be able to ban head rags and beards and such if they let someone post scripture.

    Found this while I was doing a little more investigating on the topic.
    http://www.military.com/daily-news/...lating-us-constitution-religious-display.html
     
  4. Bkite

    Bkite PawPaw x 3

    7,839
    359
    83
    And this.
    As a general rule, the Department of Defense prohibits facial hair and the wearing of religious headgear among service members, though it offers "accommodation" on a case-by-case basis in recognition of "sincerely held beliefs."
    Such waivers, however, are given only when they would not undermine "military readiness, unit cohesion, good order, discipline, health and safety, or any other military requirement."
    http://www.npr.org/2015/06/05/41227...bservant-sikh-men-serving-in-the-u-s-military


    Makes me wonder. I guess the Marine's posting of scripture from religion undermined unit cohesion that headcoverings and beards do not.
     
  5. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    63
    48
    The Sikhs are wearing beards and turbans to conform to long held religious requirements of their faith, the Marine was as best proselytizing and trying to preach her beliefs at others (taping Biblical verses, or perhaps one certain verse), in multiple places at her government provided workstation.

    She was never prosecuted for her beliefs; Sterling was court-martialed for various offenses relating to separate incidents – including disrespecting a superior officer, disobeying lawful orders, and failing to report to an assigned duty. She brought it on herself by being insubordinate to her employer's wishes.

    I would note that I was in the military at a time when Sikhs were allowed to wear turbans and beards, and I was still in when that practice was disallowed. I don't recall any Sikhs wearing beards and turbans when it was banned, only that they petitioned for years before it was again allowed.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2017
  6. Bkite

    Bkite PawPaw x 3

    7,839
    359
    83
    Pretty much agree with most of what you post except for the "was as best proselytizing" part. I do not believe that just because someone puts up a Bible verse on their on work station that are necessarily proselytizing. I still wonder at what level the commanding officer took exception to the posting of Bible verses. I wonder at what level the DOD would have a problem with it. I wonder at what level would the DOD change dress codes to accommodate other religions. Should religious persuasion be advertised either way for any religion due to the possible undermining effects it code have on unit cohesion? Just don't know here.
     
  7. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    63
    48
    I'm seeing 'a' difference between 'a Bible verse' and having 'three Bible verses' taped to one's employer provided workspace. And I suspect (no proof obviously in the timeline) her posting of Isiah 54:17: "No weapon formed against thee shall prosper." was a poke in the eye directed towards her superiors and didn't go over well... for her.


    It doesn't matter much to me, but if I tell my employee that overt displays of a political, religious and other divisive issues aren't allowed in the workspace I'm providing for them then the have the choice of respecting my wishes or finding other employment.
     
  8. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,476
    595
    113
    Discrimination is bad, except when done against Christians. That's the worldview anyway.
     
  9. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    63
    48
    If I may ask, how was she discriminated against?

    Was she forbidden to practice her religion?
    Was she forbidden to attend religious services?
    Was she forbidden to wear religious amulets?

    She was told to not affix messages to her employer provided workstation, it could have as easily been an "Impeach Trump" sticker and she was insubordinate to those orders. One will note that there isn't one thing about religious intolerance in her court-martial.

    If anything, the government is now going out of its way to be more impartial and more accommodating to different religions.