PDA

View Full Version : Pentagon to Relax Rules on Religious Wear



technomage1
01-22-2014, 10:03 PM
Anyone catch the announcement that the Pentagon is relaxing rules on religious wear?

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/22/22376938-pentagon-to-relax-rules-on-personal-religious-wear-including-beards-turbans?lite

Commanders can allow beards, turbans, etc as long as they don't interfere with the functioning of gear or equipment. People will have to reapply every PCS or TDY.

garhkal
01-22-2014, 10:12 PM
Yup. Wonder what fueled this?

Chief_KO
01-22-2014, 10:17 PM
Pastafarians will be allowed to wear spaghetti strainers on their heads (except during MOPP 4).

CYBERFX1024
01-23-2014, 12:52 AM
I thought this was already the case for the ARMY anyway... At least it was when I was working in Afghanistan and I saw people wearing yamakes and turbans for sikhs. The only service I knew that didn't allow anything was of course the Marine Corps. That's because we discriminate across the spectrum. It really doesn't matter what Religion, Sex, or even orientation you are.

technomage1
01-23-2014, 01:43 AM
I don't care one way or another, but I can't figure out why the burden isn't on the chain to revoke an exemption for a member once it's been approved. For example, say a member wants to wear headgear of some sort. They should put together a package affirming their faith and then it could be approved depending on job and specific duty requirements. Under this system, the member must do this every PCS or TDY, which seems like a lot of paperwork for the member and the chain. Once should be enough unless the member changes jobs or the duty requirements change (new equipment or process, for example). Then the onus should be the chain to revoke the approval per the guidelines. This would save the government time and money.

sandsjames
01-23-2014, 11:14 AM
Sweet!!!! Hopefully they will be allowed to roll out the prayer rug at work 5 times a day, too.

Measure Man
01-23-2014, 04:15 PM
Sweet!!!! Hopefully they will be allowed to roll out the prayer rug at work 5 times a day, too.

Was this ever prohibited?

sandsjames
01-23-2014, 04:20 PM
Was this ever prohibited?

I believe so...at least in open view. I believe in the past that people have generally went into a private area, as should be for anything religious at work. The same should go for clothing/hats/etc, unless the persons job is in religion.

Measure Man
01-23-2014, 05:30 PM
I believe so...at least in open view.

Nonsense.


I believe in the past that people have generally went into a private area, as should be for anything religious at work.

I believe people may have generally done that...I don't believe there has ever been a prohibition or rule against praying out in the open.


The same should go for clothing/hats/etc, unless the persons job is in religion.

I have no problem with Sikhs being allowed to serve wearing turbans and beards.

SomeRandomGuy
01-23-2014, 05:56 PM
Time to start a new religion. The Modern Day Church of People who think they look cool with facial hair. Now accepting all people who hate shaving. As a religion our belief is the few minutes each morning spent shaving would be better used meditating.

Juggs
01-23-2014, 06:03 PM
Sweet!!!! Hopefully they will be allowed to roll out the prayer rug at work 5 times a day, too.

They already could unless it directly interfered with mission safety and requirements.

Rusty Jones
01-23-2014, 06:14 PM
They may as well just let everybody do what they want. If someone wants to wear a beard or a different hat bad enough, they could always claim some bullshit religion. And who would anyone be to argue with that?

I could see it... pretty soon, you're gonna have alot of people who worship the New York Yankees.

Measure Man
01-23-2014, 09:17 PM
Can he join?

http://www.americanspecialops.com/photos/view.php?i=/images/photos/special-forces/sf-beard-hr.jpg&r=/photos/special-forces/sf-afghanistan.php

Measure Man
01-23-2014, 09:19 PM
They may as well just let everybody do what they want. If someone wants to wear a beard or a different hat bad enough, they could always claim some bullshit religion. And who would anyone be to argue with that?

I could see it... pretty soon, you're gonna have alot of people who worship the New York Yankees.

Still has to be a DOD-recognized religion

Measure Man
01-23-2014, 09:20 PM
They already could unless it directly interfered with mission safety and requirements.

I don't understand...you mean "them foreigners" praying weird hasn't already resulted in mass chaos and the breakdown of good order and discipline?

sandsjames
01-23-2014, 10:08 PM
I don't understand...you mean "them foreigners" praying weird hasn't already resulted in mass chaos and the breakdown of good order and discipline?

Has nothing to do with foreigners, or any specific religion. The Air Force has certain requirements (which, obviously can be changed). When one joins they know the requirements. To voluntarily join, then saying you aren't allowed to practice your religion, is like getting hired at the post office, then saying that you don't like driving in the snow.

Religion shouldn't be a part of the work place at all. If you'd like me to take a few days and, if they haven't been removed, I will search through your old posts and link you to statements saying the same thing.

SomeRandomGuy
01-23-2014, 10:08 PM
Still has to be a DOD-recognized religion

Shouldn't be a problem. Just talk to Mikey Weinstein. The AF will recognize the NY Yankees worshipers faster than you can say lawsuit.

Juggs
01-23-2014, 10:42 PM
Has nothing to do with foreigners, or any specific religion. The Air Force has certain requirements (which, obviously can be changed). When one joins they know the requirements. To voluntarily join, then saying you aren't allowed to practice your religion, is like getting hired at the post office, then saying that you don't like driving in the snow.

Religion shouldn't be a part of the work place at all. If you'd like me to take a few days and, if they haven't been removed, I will search through your old posts and link you to statements saying the same thing.

Please the AF caters to almost everybody.

sandsjames
01-24-2014, 12:03 AM
Please the AF caters to almost everybody.

And they SHOULD cater to nobody. It's a privilege to serve in the US Military. The military should not conform to the troops. The troops should conform to the military.

Now, if we had a draft and people didn't have the choice then it's a different story.

Juggs
01-24-2014, 12:06 AM
Be careful what you wish for. All those no deplorable folks gone. If you can't meet the standards you're gone. None of this no deployable stuff.

Measure Man
01-24-2014, 03:11 AM
Has nothing to do with foreigners, or any specific religion. The Air Force has certain requirements (which, obviously can be changed). When one joins they know the requirements. To voluntarily join, then saying you aren't allowed to practice your religion, is like getting hired at the post office, then saying that you don't like driving in the snow.

When you have a chance look up he story of Capt (Dr.) Kalsi...who is the guy that got all this rolling. He was actively recruited while in medical school an assured that the Army did not have a problem with Turbans and beards...finished medical school, did some training/internship or whatever at two military hosp. with no issues...then was called to active duty and was told he'd have to shave.


Religion shouldn't be a part of the work place at all.

Not as an official part. But, generally, people should not be required to violate their religion to perform their duties.


If you'd like me to take a few days and, if they haven't been removed, I will search through your old posts and link you to statements saying the same thing.

I removed a lot of old posts...but, game on. I've never had a problem with an individual practicing their own religion.

I do have a problem with them using their official positions to espouse their religion...or using official functions to mandate prayer...or maybe even, especially supervisors, saying they don't approve of other members lifestyles etc. on the basis of religion.

siligurl
01-24-2014, 03:37 AM
It's discriminatory. Can you wear your cross openly? What if you are Buddhist or atheist and want to sport a beard? This is not about religious accommodation. It's about being pro-Islam.

garhkal
01-24-2014, 03:42 AM
What of Sihks? they also wear turbans and have beards.

Bunch
01-24-2014, 04:25 AM
What of Sihks? they also wear turbans and have beards.

3712

Dont worry about them... I think they are good to go already...

Bunch
01-24-2014, 04:27 AM
It's discriminatory. Can you wear your cross openly? What if you are Buddhist or atheist and want to sport a beard? This is not about religious accommodation. It's about being pro-Islam.

Damn right!!It absolutely is!!

Measure Man
01-24-2014, 04:27 AM
Actually, this case was started and pushed by Sikhs...and is kind of aimed toward them.

sandsjames
01-24-2014, 11:25 AM
I removed a lot of old posts...but, game on. I've never had a problem with an individual practicing their own religion.

I do have a problem with them using their official positions to espouse their religion...or using official functions to mandate prayer...or maybe even, especially supervisors, saying they don't approve of other members lifestyles etc. on the basis of religion.

Ok...here's one that pretty much covers it all...


Yep...but, I'm betting on an uproar from people who wanted this bill, when some other religion decides to use it.

I just don't get the need to use government institutions to support your faith...

There can be no freedom of religion without freedom from religion

So which do you go with? The military supporting the faith of those who want to wear certain attire? Or having the work place be free from all religious symbols/discussion so that we have freedom FROM religion?

Measure Man
01-24-2014, 02:49 PM
Ok...here's one that pretty much covers it all...



So which do you go with? The military supporting the faith of those who want to wear certain attire? Or having the work place be free from all religious symbols/discussion so that we have freedom FROM religion?

You really can't see the "use government institutions" written in there?

To reiterate...I have ZERO problem with any individual practicing their own religion. I have a problem with them using their official capacity, official functions, etc.

What is it about "being a Christian" that says "it is an attack on me that the government does not let me use their property to put up a display advocating my religion"

I'm not saying the military should support, advance or preach the Sikh religion...just allow them to serve while being one.

sandsjames
01-24-2014, 03:11 PM
You really can't see the "use government institutions" written in there?

To reiterate...I have ZERO problem with any individual practicing their own religion. I have a problem with them using their official capacity, official functions, etc.

What is it about "being a Christian" that says "it is an attack on me that the government does not let me use their property to put up a display advocating my religion"

I'm not saying the military should support, advance or preach the Sikh religion...just allow them to serve while being one.

I don't want to put up a Christian display. Shouldn't happen at work. For anybody.

Measure Man
01-24-2014, 03:23 PM
I don't want to put up a Christian display. Shouldn't happen at work. For anybody.

Agree.

But, I am 100% in favor of you being able to BE a Christian a work....you know....I mean, yourself...to be one yourself.

If you want to break out your pocket New Testament at lunch hour and read it yourself...bow your head and say a silent prayer for you eat...I'll support that.

Rusty Jones
01-24-2014, 09:25 PM
And they SHOULD cater to nobody. It's a privilege to serve in the US Military. The military should not conform to the troops. The troops should conform to the military.

Now, if we had a draft and people didn't have the choice then it's a different story.

Or... if the military is in a position where it needs people who speak a particular language and are familiar with a certain culture... FAR more than those people need to be in the military. I'll go out on a limb, and say that that's the case. You don't see too many Indian Americans who are down on their luck in this country. Not saying that everyone in the military is down on their luck, but very few people in the military can truthfully say that they walked away from something more lucrative in order to serve. Though I'd be more likely to believe it if it came from an Indian American.

Measure Man
01-24-2014, 10:02 PM
And they SHOULD cater to nobody. It's a privilege to serve in the US Military. The military should not conform to the troops. The troops should conform to the military.

There is certainly a balance there...surely it would inappropriate for the military to require all it's members to bow on one knee to to a golden CAF.

It just so happens, that most of our traditions, dress and appearance standards and rules....were written and designed by people of a certain culture, so they inherently cater to people of that culture. Some of those directly violate the religion of other Americans.


Now, if we had a draft and people didn't have the choice then it's a different story.

I completely resist that idea that since doing something is a voluntary activity that it is perfectly okay to discriminate against people doing that activity. This is total BS.

It is not mandatory for anyone to work a Lockheed Martin...therefore, Lockheed Martin may require all employees to drink Tequila at the company party.
It is not mandatory for anyone to purchase a home, or live in a town...therefore it is okay for a town to say only married couple may own property.
No one is forced to eat breakfast at Johnny's Cafe...so he reserves the right to refuse to serve Jews.
It is not mandatory for anyone to serve in the military...therefore it is fine for the military to make rules that exclude certain people from serving.

Utter and complete nonsense.

snowman
01-24-2014, 10:04 PM
There is certainly a balance there...surely it would inappropriate for the military to require all it's members to bow on one knee to to a golden CAF.

It just so happens, that most of our traditions, dress and appearance standards and rules....were written and designed by people of a certain culture, so they inherently cater to people of that culture. Some of those directly violate the religion of other Americans.



I completely resist that idea that since doing something is a voluntary activity that it is perfectly okay to discriminate against people doing that activity. This is total BS.

It is not mandatory for anyone to work a Lockheed Martin...therefore, Lockheed Martin may require all employees to drink Tequila at the company party.
It is not mandatory for anyone to purchase a home, or live in a town...therefore it is okay for a town to say only married couple may own property.
No one is forced to eat breakfast at Johnny's Cafe...so he reserves the right to refuse to serve Jews.
It is not mandatory for anyone to serve in the military...therefore it is fine for the military to make rules that exclude certain people from serving.

Utter and complete nonsense.

Actually, everything you just said is wrong and illegal in the United States.

Rusty Jones
01-24-2014, 10:09 PM
There is certainly a balance there...surely it would inappropriate for the military to require all it's members to bow on one knee to to a golden CAF.

It just so happens, that most of our traditions, dress and appearance standards and rules....were written and designed by people of a certain culture, so they inherently cater to people of that culture. Some of those directly violate the religion of other Americans.



I completely resist that idea that since doing something is a voluntary activity that it is perfectly okay to discriminate against people doing that activity. This is total BS.

It is not mandatory for anyone to work a Lockheed Martin...therefore, Lockheed Martin may require all employees to drink Tequila at the company party.
It is not mandatory for anyone to purchase a home, or live in a town...therefore it is okay for a town to say only married couple may own property.
No one is forced to eat breakfast at Johnny's Cafe...so he reserves the right to refuse to serve Jews.
It is not mandatory for anyone to serve in the military...therefore it is fine for the military to make rules that exclude certain people from serving.

Utter and complete nonsense.

However... you're not really refuting sandsjames' point by saying this. The opposite of your scenarios is not accomodation, which is what sandsjames is speaking out against. The opposite of your scenarios is granting everyone equal rights.

That being said, either everyone should be allowed to have beards, or no one should. If they want to let Sikhs have beards, fine. But it needs to be because EVERYONE can have them.

sandsjames
01-24-2014, 10:16 PM
There is certainly a balance there...surely it would inappropriate for the military to require all it's members to bow on one knee to to a golden CAF.

It just so happens, that most of our traditions, dress and appearance standards and rules....were written and designed by people of a certain culture, so they inherently cater to people of that culture. Some of those directly violate the religion of other Americans.



I completely resist that idea that since doing something is a voluntary activity that it is perfectly okay to discriminate against people doing that activity. This is total BS.

It is not mandatory for anyone to work a Lockheed Martin...therefore, Lockheed Martin may require all employees to drink Tequila at the company party.
It is not mandatory for anyone to purchase a home, or live in a town...therefore it is okay for a town to say only married couple may own property.
No one is forced to eat breakfast at Johnny's Cafe...so he reserves the right to refuse to serve Jews.
It is not mandatory for anyone to serve in the military...therefore it is fine for the military to make rules that exclude certain people from serving.

Utter and complete nonsense.

It doesn't EXLUDE anyone from serving. No more than rules against smoking pot (even for medicinal purposes) excludes anyone from serving.

Do Jews get the Sabbath off? No chance, unless the supervisor says it's ok.

People know the rules when they join. To change the rules for anyone, especially for religious reasons, is sad.

I've seen many people walking around on ash Wednesday with an ash cross on their forehead. It shouldn't happen.

People in uniform are not allowed to do many things. The reason for this is that it may be viewed as an endorsement by the government of that particular thing. Hell, people can't even throw a pink ribbon or bracelet on for cancer awareness stuff, yet religion is going to be a basis for non-uniformity?

sandsjames
01-24-2014, 10:20 PM
Does one have to prove they are Sikh? Or can anyone show up with a turban? Will there be a restriction on colors?

Measure Man
01-24-2014, 10:25 PM
Actually, everything you just said is wrong and illegal in the United States.

Why are they illegal? Because they are WRONG!

Measure Man
01-24-2014, 10:27 PM
However... you're not really refuting sandsjames' point by saying this. The opposite of your scenarios is not accomodation, which is what sandsjames is speaking out against. The opposite of your scenarios is granting everyone equal rights.

What he said was since serving in the military is not a right...the military is free to make up any rules it wishes, even if those rules exclude certain people. I reject that philosophy.


That being said, either everyone should be allowed to have beards, or no one should.

I could support that. Makes beards and turbans uniform options.


If they want to let Sikhs have beards, fine. But it needs to be because EVERYONE can have them.

I have no problem with that.

Measure Man
01-24-2014, 10:30 PM
It doesn't EXLUDE anyone from serving. No more than rules against smoking pot (even for medicinal purposes) excludes anyone from serving.[/quote[

Okay, I'm not an expert on Sikhism. From what I've read the last few days...as Sikh cutting his hair in on par with committing adultery.

[quote]Do Jews get the Sabbath off? No chance, unless the supervisor says it's ok.

People know the rules when they join. To change the rules for anyone, especially for religious reasons, is sad.

I disagree. I think it's sad that the rules are arbitrarily set and institutionally exclude people.


I've seen many people walking around on ash Wednesday with an ash cross on their forehead. It shouldn't happen.

I disagree.


People in uniform are not allowed to do many things. The reason for this is that it may be viewed as an endorsement by the government of that particular thing. Hell, people can't even throw a pink ribbon or bracelet on for cancer awareness stuff, yet religion is going to be a basis for non-uniformity?

Freedom of Religion is a pretty important fundamental right our country was founded on.

sandsjames
01-24-2014, 10:32 PM
What he said was since serving in the military is not a right...the military is free to make up any rules it wishes, even if those rules exclude certain people. I reject that philosophy. It doesn't exclude anybody. There have been Sikhs serving for years without being able to wear them. Now, if this was the first Sikh ever in the military, then there should be some question. But Sikhs (and every other religion) has already showed that they are perfectly willing to give up certain aspects of their religion in order to serve.

sandsjames
01-24-2014, 10:32 PM
Oh, and we might as well get rid of the term "uniform" because it no longer is.

Measure Man
01-24-2014, 10:42 PM
It doesn't exclude anybody. There have been Sikhs serving for years without being able to wear them.

Apparently they weren't very good Sikhs. That's a bit like saying, I know christians who drink and go to strip bars, so they all should be able to go.

Read up on the Sikh pages...as mentioned...they say cutting their hair is an equivalent offense as committing adultery. maybe it depends on their level of devotion.


Now, if this was the first Sikh ever in the military, then there should be some question. But Sikhs (and every other religion) has already showed that they are perfectly willing to give up certain aspects of their religion in order to serve.

Sikhs were permitted to serve WITH turbans and beards until 1974. Those in were grandfathered. Rules in the 1980s set in place a bureacratic-laden process for them to get approval on a case-by-case basis to wear the Turban and beard. Since that time there are 3 that have been approved.

Do you have examples of others who have served but cut their hair and shaved their beards? I dunno...but apparently that is a very huge deal for many of them.

sandsjames
01-24-2014, 10:58 PM
Apparently they weren't very good Sikhs. That's a bit like saying, I know christians who drink and go to strip bars, so they all should be able to go.

Read up on the Sikh pages...as mentioned...they say cutting their hair is an equivalent offense as committing adultery. maybe it depends on their level of devotion.



Sikhs were permitted to serve WITH turbans and beards until 1974. Those in were grandfathered. Rules in the 1980s set in place a bureacratic-laden process for them to get approval on a case-by-case basis to wear the Turban and beard. Since that time there are 3 that have been approved.

Do you have examples of others who have served but cut their hair and shaved their beards? I dunno...but apparently that is a very huge deal for many of them.You just crack me up with this stuff. At any other time you would be railing against ANYTHING religious in the workplace.

So then will we allow Muslim airmen to dress as Muslims are supposed to? Will women cover their heads at all times?

According to Muslim law, Muslim are supposed to "dress as Muslims" (which is pretty vague) at all times. So, when not in a combat situation, can they ditch the uniform altogether, as long as it doesn't affect safety or the mission?

What about Tallits and sheitel for Jews?

How about Christian women? The bible says that women are supposed to dress in clothing that "preserves gender distinctions in dress because these are fundamental to our understanding of who we are..." So can Christian women ditch the ABUs and start wearing feminine clothing at all times, as long as it doesn't affect the mission?

Pretty soon the military is going to resemble nothing but religious garb...that'll be great.

Measure Man
01-25-2014, 12:00 AM
You just crack me up with this stuff. At any other time you would be railing against ANYTHING religious in the workplace.

You are incorrect...I only rail against people using their official position to do so.


So then will we allow Muslim airmen to dress as Muslims are supposed to? Will women cover their heads at all times?

According to Muslim law, Muslim are supposed to "dress as Muslims" (which is pretty vague) at all times. So, when not in a combat situation, can they ditch the uniform altogether, as long as it doesn't affect safety or the mission?

What about Tallits and sheitel for Jews?

How about Christian women? The bible says that women are supposed to dress in clothing that "preserves gender distinctions in dress because these are fundamental to our understanding of who we are..." So can Christian women ditch the ABUs and start wearing feminine clothing at all times, as long as it doesn't affect the mission?

Pretty soon the military is going to resemble nothing but religious garb...that'll be great.

Whatever....I know, Major (Dr.) Kalsi has been serving since 2009 and has earned a Bronze Star...they only difference this new policy brings is he might get his approval in a week rather than 2 years of bureaucratic bullshit.

Yep...pretty soon dogs and cats will be sleeping together.

sandsjames
01-25-2014, 12:08 AM
Whatever....I know, Major (Dr.) Kalsi has been serving since 2009 and has earned a Bronze Star...Oh, a Bronze Star, ok...why didn't you say that. He should be able to dress however he wants.

It's a serious question. There are many "officially recognized" religions that all have "dress codes". How far does it go? Can you allow the turban/beard and turn down the other stuff? Can you not see a spiral that causes more problems than solutions?

Measure Man
01-25-2014, 12:11 AM
Oh, a Bronze Star, ok...why didn't you say that. He should be able to dress however he wants.

He didn't wear anything the Army didn't say he could.


It's a serious question. There are many "officially recognized" religions that all have "dress codes". How far does it go? Can you allow the turban/beard and turn down the other stuff? Can you not see a spiral that causes more problems than solutions?

No, I think the Slippery Slope Fallacy is called a Fallacy for a reason. It's poor logic.

Wow...this so reminds me of the glory days of DADT debate here...."what's next, we gotta let in the pedophiles and polygamist...do we have to let them wear the female uniforms...??"... irrational fears, all of it.

Muslims, Jews...sure, I have no problem with them wearing beards and headgear as well. After much discussion, I'm more inclined to go one step further and just make them authorized uniform options.

sandsjames
01-25-2014, 12:16 AM
No, I think the Slippery Slope Fallacy is called a Fallacy for the reasons.

Wow...this so reminds me of the glory days of DADT debate here...."what's next, we gotta let in the pedophiles and polygamist...do we have to let them wear the female uniforms...??"... irrational fears, all of it. Two totally separate things. Pedophiles and polygamy are illegal. Dressing in the garb of ones religion is not.


Muslims, Jews...sure, I have no problem with them wearing beards and headgear as well. After much discussion, I'm more inclined to go one step further and just make them authorized uniform options.

Can female Christians wear feminine clothing?

Worked with a Mennonite once. Females have to dress very conservatively.

If you honestly think that this is anything like the DADT argument you are way off base.

Measure Man
01-25-2014, 12:25 AM
Two totally separate things. Pedophiles and polygamy are illegal. Dressing in the garb of ones religion is not.

I know...but the logic fail is he same.


Can female Christians wear feminine clothing?

Worked with a Mennonite once. Females have to dress very conservatively.

Well, at least finding out will only take her a short time instead of an extended bureaucratic process.


If you honestly think that this is anything like the DADT argument you are way off base.

So you think a policy barring homosexuals and nothing at all in common with a policy effectively barring certain religions.

They are not exactly alike, of course...but, there are some overlapping points. But, really, I only brought that up to illustrate what a slippery slope fallacy is...and that it is a fallacy in the DADT argument and remains a fallacy here.

sandsjames
01-25-2014, 12:31 AM
So you think a policy barring homosexuals and nothing at all in common with a policy effectively barring certain religions.

They are not exactly alike, of course...but, there are some overlapping points. But, really, I only brought that up to illustrate what a slippery slope fallacy is...and that it is a fallacy in the DADT argument and remains a fallacy here.

Agree to disagree. I'm just glad I won't be around to see it. I wish we could sticky this thread and look back at it 2 years from now when people from other religions are getting kicked out for attempting to wear religious garb to work and sticking to their guns about it.

Measure Man
01-25-2014, 03:30 AM
Agree to disagree. I'm just glad I won't be around to see it. I wish we could sticky this thread and look back at it 2 years from now when people from other religions are getting kicked out for attempting to wear religious garb to work and sticking to their guns about it.

Well, it's already been going on since 2009...so we're already there.

imported_LOAL-D
01-26-2014, 03:06 PM
Slippery Slope Fallacy, sounds like what happens when the boy finds his pop's old Playboy stash in the garage

Juggs
01-26-2014, 09:20 PM
BSMs have become a joke.

imported_WILDJOKER5
01-27-2014, 06:46 PM
Time to become rastafarian.

MikeKerriii
09-17-2014, 04:47 PM
Still has to be a DOD-recognized religion

Does DOD really have the right to say which religious it authorized,

Do they have some kind of "religious test':cool:

sandsjames
09-17-2014, 07:39 PM
Perfect. Now they'll be able to recognize the terrorists before their next act of workplace violence.

Dude...don't jump on to this necrothread...

Rainmaker
09-17-2014, 07:39 PM
Perfect. Now they'll be able to recognize the terrorists before their next act of workplace violence.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-17-2014, 08:16 PM
Dude...don't jump on to this necrothread...

God must have wanted this thread to be resurrected, or else it wouldn't have happened.

You even posted your reply to rainmaker's post before he made it, and it still didn't stop it from happening.

Don't resist the will of god, he has everything covered in his mysterious plan.

sandsjames
09-17-2014, 08:19 PM
God must have wanted this thread to be resurrected, or else it wouldn't have happened.

You even posted your reply to rainmaker's post before he made it, and it still didn't stop it from happening.

Don't resist the will of god, he has everything covered in his mysterious plan.

He posted his first...not sure why it showed up that way...


Oh...and in response to your response... :yawn

Absinthe Anecdote
09-17-2014, 08:50 PM
He posted his first...not sure why it showed up that way...


Oh...and in response to your response... :yawn

Yawn all you want, but god keeps track of all things, and everything serves his plan.

Even necro-posting trolls serve god's mighty plan, just as satan serves at the pleasure of god.

In the book of Matthew we are taught that god numbers the hairs on your head, and keeps track of each sparrow that falls. Surely, he keeps track of Internet posts.

A true Christian would not be screwing around with time travel and trying to upstage god like that.

Unless, that also happened to be part of god's plan.

Hmmm, this is just as confusing as that commercial for Christian Mingle, that says, "sometimes god wants you to make the next move, but then urges you to find "god's match" on their website.

You just have to have blind faith that god has it all mapped out.

It's up to you, but it isn't.

Just cloak yourself in the unquestioning ignorance of a gullible child and all things remain possible.

Stalwart
09-18-2014, 12:05 PM
Does DOD really have the right to say which religious it authorized,

Do they have some kind of "religious test':cool:

Can DoD designate approved religions for service members? Absolutely not.

Does DoD and the various service departments have the authority to determine which religious accoutrements are authorized in uniform? Yes.