Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...Some atheist organizations have tried to get the wrd "God" removed from our currency, pledge, etc. The constitution however does not protect us FROM religion, so that one was tossed...
Well, seeing as it wasn't added TO the pledge until the Cold War '50s, I'm all for it going back to how it was originally written - before Big Brother used religion as a way to further separate us from the Red Menace.
Now you're conflating free speech with freedom of religion.
Does being a communist require you to wear a certain hat? What about being a Liberal? No? Case closed.
Please keep flailing about though, it is thoroughly entertaining.
They are essentially the same thing and, in fact, in the very same amendment. Wearing anti-war arm bands, for example, has been determined to fall under free speech (all of that case law you were talking about earlier). Bottom line is that people wear these hats because they want to wear them. In fact, the only thing these guys are required to wear is their uniform! Who requires them to wear a turban?
They are essentially the same thing and, in fact, in the very same amendment. Wearing anti-war arm bands, for example, has been determined to fall under free speech (all of that case law you were talking about earlier)...
No, they aren't, or they wouldn't need to be addressed as separate items in the 1st Amendment. Yes, some clothing items have been determined to be a free speech issue in certain situations, just like some religiously significant clothing items have been found to be pertinent to freedom of religion. What's your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey
...Bottom line is that people wear these hats because they want to wear them. In fact, the only thing these guys are required to wear is their uniform! Who requires them to wear a turban?
Uh, their religion requires them to wear the turban and have beards, as well as other things. Have you seriously not read any of the information linked in this thread?
What I don't understand is one of the reasons that in the past beards were not permitted, it was said to be because they (the beards) prevented the officers ability to wear gas masks. Now that they are allowed beards, how will they be able to wear those gas masks?
No, they aren't, or they wouldn't need to be addressed as separate items in the 1st Amendment. Yes, some clothing items have been determined to be a free speech issue in certain situations, just like some religiously significant clothing items have been found to be pertinent to freedom of religion. What's your point?
Uh, their religion requires them to wear the turban and have beards, as well as other things. Have you seriously not read any of the information linked in this thread?
An abstarct fantastical belief in a supernatural being can't require you to do anything. Only actual things like people or governments who have real authority can require a person to do something. So, who requires people to wear a turban?
What I don't understand is one of the reasons that in the past beards were not permitted, it was said to be because they (the beards) prevented the officers ability to wear gas masks. Now that they are allowed beards, how will they be able to wear those gas masks?
This is very interesting indeed.
If I remember this correctly,
Generally speaking, Marine Force Reconnaissance troops are not expected to lead locals in combat and thus any grooming regulations would still apply with obvious concessions given based on the fact that these individuals are expected to perform long range reconnaissance and thus might spend significant time away from any sort of base. US Army Rangers are absolutely expected to follow grooming standards closely. Air Force Search and Rescue also would be expected to conform to military standard given their operational role does not require, as a matter of course, significant contact with foreign nationals. SEALs would also, generally, be expected to follow grooming standards so long as it was reasonable to do so during an operation. SEAL operations tend to be relatively short and thus, in general, you could assume a SEAL would be groomed to standard.
All grooming standards can be relaxed in the face of operational need. You would not expect a soldier actively engaged in a firefight to stop and shave because he had a visible beard growing nor would you interrupt a patrol to do the same. US Special Forces soldiers operate under the same restriction and thus when in garrison would generally be expected to adhere to US Army grooming standards.
While deployed to places like Afghanistan, where there are no threats of chemical weapons, beards are one's judgement of one's manhood, there is absolutely no reason to have to wear a gas mask so a seal (where the mask is secured to your face) is not necessary. Look at the average American Soldier. You can tell he's an American Soldier by the way he carries himself, his haircut, and his nice clean shaven face. Special Forces don't need to be picked out like that when working out behind enemy lines.
All these being said, A gas mask needs to be able to create a suctioned seal on your face to lock out gas. A gas mask will not seal for a person with hair all in their face. It just won't. The hair standard is kept under very strict standards for this one reason, above all others.
SO NO ONE IS DISRESPECTING THESE WARRIORS WHO WANT TO BE COPS. But I guess gas mask concern is not a major concern. LOL
"Equality" was the exact justification used to raise up communism and overthrow the Russian Czar; acts which led to 66 million dead Russians. You may as well cite "racial purity", if we are citing 20th century political anachronisms.
That being said, I'm okay with this type of allowance for any religion that has been deemed to be bereft of any type of scripturally based supremacy or imperial violent tendencies.
For religions that are not lacking these type of supremacist scriptures, such as Islam, the police uniform and police responsibilities are entirely too sensitive and carry entirely too much legal weight to have the job tainted with symbols that denote any type of sociopolitical supremacist belief. Simply, you can't do a job that demands sociopolitical impartialness while doing it in garb that denotes sociopolitical partialness. Such a situation would be untenable in both a legal and a practical sense.
Are the Sikh's socio-politically impartial on a religious level? Yes? Fine, I have only the same issue with their Turbans that exists when any one group is tasked with policing other groups. Are they not socio-politically impartial on a religious level? Then they should not be allowed to display symbols of that prejudice and, moreover, they should be under greater scrutiny before being hired in the first place if they are going to be policing anyone other than Sikhs.
All subjective belief is equal, so no type of belief should be treated as more equal.
The problem with this logic is that it illustrates the flaw in the concept of freedom of religion, or rather how the concept of religious freedom has been distorted and manipulated well beyond its intended scope and purpose; similar to the distortion of the "all men are created equal" phrase that is currently being distorted to mean equal outcomes instead of the equality in law that originally was intended.
The flaw in the current interpretation of the freedom of religion concept is that all "free speech" need only cite a god (invented / imagined ghost man) in order to gain much greater range of protections than it otherwise would.
Originally, the freedom of religion concept was designed to offer the rough equivalent protections of freedom of speech. In other words, it assured that you could practice your religion while living in this nation. Full stop. And keep in mind that this is when this freedom was intended to apply to sects of Christianity that differed from other sects. In other words, a known and relatively socially safe quantity. It never accounted for the myriad of foreign religions that we now harbor and that have a myriad of foreign, and often sociopolitically hostile and violent, belief systems. I digress.
The current flaw in how "freedom of religion" is currently being applied to skirt restrictions that would otherwise occur for atheistic free speech is illustrated with the following example: would one still stand up for "freedom of religion", in terms of not being able to restrict individuals from workplace expressed symbols and even in being hired based on their belief system, if racial supremacists invented a god and made their racial beliefs into a religion? Can you infer the issues that this would cause in a role as a police officer, and for how the concept of "freedom of religion" is currently being applied?
The truth is that "religions" should not be let off of the hook for sociopolitical analysis as a deciding factor as to whether individuals who practice these religions should be hired for certain jobs, let alone be allowed to wear religious and cultural symbols.
There is exactly zero difference between a sociopolitical ideology without a god and a sociopolitical ideology with a god.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, some clothing items have been determined to be a free speech issue in certain situations, just like some religiously significant clothing items have been found to be pertinent to freedom of religion. What's your point?
