Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Coming Soon to the U.S. Army: Turbans, Beards, Hijabs, and Cornrows.
The Atlantic ^ | 1/4/2017 | Emma Green

Posted on 01/04/2017 5:23:56 PM PST by blackbetty59

In the final days of the Obama administration, the military has issued new guidelines for religious accommodations and dress.

(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: diversity; godhelpus; nuts; obama; usarmy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last
To: blackbetty59

Better grow that beard fast coz it’s coming off on the 21st.


21 posted on 01/04/2017 5:50:42 PM PST by KyCats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackbetty59

The basis for this started years ago in regards to the yarmulke as an exception to the uniform code:

Perhaps the most notable American court decision involving the yarmulke is Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986). In Goldman, the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with the question of whether an Air Force policy prohibiting personnel from wearing headgear indoors violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, because it prohibited the wearing of a yarmulke. This post will summarize the Goldman decision, and a future post will discuss the legislative response and current law.....

....Less than two weeks after the Supreme Court decided Goldman in 1986, several congressmen introduced legislation that would allow members of the armed forces to wear certain religious apparel. Both in the Senate and in the House, the proposed legislation allowed religious apparel that was neat, conservative and unobtrusive. The proponents insisted that religious headgear, such as the yarmulke, would not disrupt military effectiveness. Opponents argued that making such an exception would be adverse to military uniformity and morale, it would be difficult to apply, and it would lead to much litigation over the appropriate standards. Although it failed to pass in 1987, the legislation was included as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989.

The current law is codified at 10 U.S.C. § 774. It allows a member of the armed forces to wear an item of religious apparel while in uniform, unless the Secretary concerned determines that it would interfere with the performance of military duties, or that it is not neat and conservative.

https://jewishandamericanlaw.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/yarmulke-in-the-military-part-1/


22 posted on 01/04/2017 5:51:36 PM PST by Tours
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackbetty59

Are cornrows and dreads supposed to instill fear in an enemy?

Beards too? Turbans?

The modern US Army is laughable!


23 posted on 01/04/2017 5:54:36 PM PST by Roman_War_Criminal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackbetty59

And MS-13 tatts and practices; don’t forget that.


24 posted on 01/04/2017 5:55:59 PM PST by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beautiful_Gracious_Skies

25 posted on 01/04/2017 5:56:27 PM PST by dontreadthis (I finally came up with this tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

Funny you said that: I actually pictured something similar in my head, and thought, “we let rastafarian stoners carry weapons in our military”?


26 posted on 01/04/2017 5:57:48 PM PST by blackbetty59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: blackbetty59
SUPAH FLY..!!!

NoME SaYiN'..?!

27 posted on 01/04/2017 6:00:53 PM PST by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackbetty59

Shave their heads. All of them. Every soldier, marine, airman and sailor. Male and female. Every last one.


28 posted on 01/04/2017 6:01:21 PM PST by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackbetty59

29 posted on 01/04/2017 6:02:06 PM PST by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc
Submariner?

No, but my son was.

I was lucky to go in when Zumwalt was Chief of Naval Operations.

It went to hell after he retired.

30 posted on 01/04/2017 6:07:26 PM PST by Elderberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MagUSNRET

Or during a fire fight.


31 posted on 01/04/2017 6:10:37 PM PST by laplata ( Liberals/Progressives have diseased minds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gaijin

LOL


32 posted on 01/04/2017 6:19:25 PM PST by blackbetty59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: gaijin

That romantic image made me throw up in my mouth a little.


33 posted on 01/04/2017 6:20:58 PM PST by blackbetty59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: gaijin

BHAAARRRRRRFFFFFF!!!!


34 posted on 01/04/2017 6:25:32 PM PST by NorthMountain (Northmountain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: blackbetty59

I have respect for Sikhs. I know they are fierce fighters. I know all that.

But I was and am adamantly opposed to making grooming concessions for them in the US military. This is precisely why. It won’t stop at grooming, it is going to have to include any number of other things, such as clothing and such.

And to anyone who thinks this kind of thing does NOT have a deleterious effect on a military, they don’t know what they are talking about.


35 posted on 01/04/2017 6:26:46 PM PST by rlmorel (Orwell described Liberals when he wrote of those who "repudiate morality while laying claim to it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

Oh Lord I hope so......this is so outrageous!!


36 posted on 01/04/2017 6:32:43 PM PST by Dawgreg (Happiness is not having what you want, but wanting what you have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blackbetty59

Isn’t having different physical standards for men and women a violation of Title IX?


37 posted on 01/04/2017 6:48:21 PM PST by oblomov (We have passed the point where "law," properly speaking, has any further application. - C. Thomas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackbetty59

Also, leaving soon from the military if Trump’s generals have their way... Which they will.


38 posted on 01/04/2017 6:53:47 PM PST by Bullish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy

Abso-f’ing-lutely!!!!!!
Please already, someone with common sense intervene!!!


39 posted on 01/04/2017 6:56:51 PM PST by bantam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gaijin

Arrgghhh! I’m blind! What a horrible picture. Yuck.


40 posted on 01/04/2017 9:04:45 PM PST by Pining_4_TX (For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind. ~ Hosea 8:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson