quote:

Originally posted by geejaydee:

quote:

Methinks the CG and the Aux opened a Pandora's Box when they changed policy for Jack - and they are going to have a real hard time closing it.

Just like you to add Greek Mythology to the mix of the discussion. . .

All of the other Armed Services have allowed "religious headgear" since 1999. The modern day, and supposedly "PC" Coast Guard didn't change its regs until quite a bit later. The organization does have a tradition of not dealing well with alternative religions . . . but that's another story for another time.

...gjd

Hmm.. that's interesting, as there was a story about a Muslim woman who joined the Army who was told that she had to remove it, and this was after 1999. It was in the NYT, I believe. She didn't fight to keep it- she was in pretty desperate straits by that point in her life. So I assumed that it wasn't allowed, and would have hesitated about applying if I had thought about it. I'm so used to being able to participate freely in society that I have to be reminded that I'm part of religious and ethnic minorities. I pray that some day, none of us need be brought up short to consider whether who we are will limit the contributions one can make to one's country.

Not only does Jack's case provide precedent, there is one that may hit even closer to the mark.

Coast Guard Policy OKs Religious Headgear

Now before you think is related to the policy change to accomodate Jack, read the first 2 paragraphs:

quote:

The U.S. Coast Guard has abandoned a rule requiring anyone seeking a merchant marine license to submit photographs showing no religious head coverings, civil rights lawyers said Wednesday.

The lawyers, from the New York Civil Liberties Union, sued the Coast Guard in federal court in Manhattan on March 28 on behalf of Khalid Hakim, a devout Muslim who has served in the merchant marine while working for private shipping companies since 1973. Workers like Hakim are not members of the military but are required to obtain licenses to work on commercial ships that transport cargo in U.S. waters.

The PR Fiasco of Epic Proportions just got worse.

So the CG and Aux changed policy to accomodate a Jewish male. The CG changed policy to accomodate Muslim men. So is the CG not going to change policy, in ways not even as drastic as they have already done, to accomodate Muslim women? One of whom is a Navy wife with a government ID.

quote:

Hmm.. that's interesting, as there was a story about a Muslim woman who joined the Army who was told that she had to remove it, and this was after 1999

I was wrong about the date. It was not 1999. Rather, it was 1987 (according to the NYT)

quote:

. . . The Coast Guard is issuing new regulations allowing members to wear religious headgear, a spokesman for the guard, Chief Petty Officer Daniel Tremper, said yesterday. This brings the guard, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, into line with the armed forces under the Defense Department, which have permitted religious garb since 1987. . .

//Source//

...gjd

On page 280 of the Auxiliary manual, it says:

"Proper Auxiliary uniform wear parallels commonly accepted professional civilian dress standards. The word uniform implies consistency and conformance to certain standards.

Note: Ethnic, religious, other apparel or wearings, or personal display items shall not be considered standard uniform items."

Further down it says, "Those who choose not to set this example, or wish to express a degree of individuality, shall wear the Auxiliary Blue Blazer outfit in lieu of the uniform."

I think there's your answer. No to the scarf with the standard uniform, and yes if you wear the blue blazer.

FW:

That is what the manual said BEFORE they changed policy for a Jewish male. So are they going to accommodate a Muslim women (who is also a government id card carrying Navy wife)?

And as noted they only changed policy regarding Jack's religious headgear. They didn't change the beard and sideburn policy but apparently that will be overlooked.

As I wrote earlier - the CG and the Aux opened a Pandora's Box by making the accommdations they did for Jack. And citing the manual now, doesn't do them much good, particularly since there are sex and religious differences involved.

And then there is the policy change the CG also implemented for civilians (the Aux is civilian) merchant mariners based on religious differences.

I'm usually the first to cite the manual but the manual doesn't work when the CG has already shown it will bow to political pressure to accommodate certain religions and sexes. The only question is will it be so accommodating for all religions and sexes.

FL, why do you keep assuming that this is going to be a problem? The new CG policy doesn't seem to conflict with what she wants to do. At worse, the local flotilla probably won't be terribly familiar with it, but the applicable alcoast was provided here, she will have that to show them.

Seems to me that you're just hoping that somehow this becomes a "thing".

why do you keep assuming that this is going to be a problem?

So does everyone else in the thread, except for those who think the woman should just sit down, shut up and put up with whatever the CG and Aux want to throw at her.

The new CG policy doesn't seem to conflict with what she wants to do.

Unless the original poster contradicts this, the policy and the scarf are in conflict. My understanding is that Muslim headscarfs reach the eyebrows (or near them) in front and cover all of the hair. That means the head scarf does not meet this condition of the new policy (copied from preceding page of this thread):

quote:

IT MUST BE OF A STYLE AND SIZE THAT IT CAN BE COMPLETELY COVERED BY, AND NOT INTERFERE WITH, THE WEARING OR APPEARANCE OF ANY UNIFORM MILITARY HEADGEAR, WHETHER OR NOT THE UNIFORM HEADGEAR IS BEING WORN.

I don't think the scarf would interfere with wearing of headgear on top of it, but it would fail the completely covered test.

And the CG is stuck with its rationale for the 'completey covered' rule. Search the web and you will find the rationale is that the 'completely covered' rule exists so that the BGs (Bad Guys) cannot grab the hairgear. Well that rationale would probably cut it for the military and even police forces - but as we all know the Aux is civilian and volunteers. Its
members dont' get in tussles with BGs. So the major part of the rationale justifying the policy on the miltiary side doesn't hold up for the Aux.

Seems to me that you're just hoping that somehow this becomes a "thing".

The only 'thing' I hope this becomes is a new policy that shows tolerance for all religious headgear, regardless of religion or gender. Otherewise the CG and the Aux are put in the position of having to justify discriminating against Muslim women when they have already accommodated Jewish men. And the latter accommodation goes beyond the headgear to apparently a 'don't see, don't tell' 'look the other way' policy regarding wearing beards and sideburns in uniform. That is well beyond what is being asked for by the propective Muslim woman member.

quote:

I guess I sort of asked for this, but I'm so used to the way I dress that I hadn't thought of this. I've been considering joining the Auxiliary. I went to a class, loved the prospect of learning while contributing to public safety. But I'm a Muslim woman, and I wear hijab. So the uniform issue would pose certain problems for me. They are rather lax about uniforms where I attended class, and no one said ought about my scarf while I was there. Will this be a problem? Should I consider not joining?

How could it be a problem at this point? She said that they were rather lax and no one said anything about it. It sounds to me that if she wears a clean/neat uniform and her hijab nobody is going to say anything. Of course, a good attitude and a willingness to get along and work hard will probably be a factor.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dittysmitty,

quote:

Originally posted by Forewatch:

. . . No to the scarf with the standard uniform . . .

I don't want to think you believe in certain provisions of the Bill of Rights, but not others. . .


I would guess you would support a drive to abolish this Navy award because of its obvious religious symbolism:


...gjd

Religious tolerance in the military has been around a while.

I remember an Army member of Middle Eastern decent who wore a green turban and had a full beard, while in uniform. This was in West Germany in the late '70's.

I'd seen him around the kaserne when he was off duty; he wore different color turban's then.

But he always wore a green one while in uniform.

There's a photo of Colonel G. B. Singh at this site. I don't believe he's eligible to serve in combat deployments, but that shouldn't be a problem for us Auxiliarists.

quote:

I don't think the scarf would interfere with wearing of headgear on top of it, but it would fail the completely covered test.

And the CG is stuck with its rationale for the 'completey covered' rule. Search the web and you will find the rationale is that the 'completely covered' rule exists so that the BGs (Bad Guys) cannot grab the hairgear. Well that rationale would probably cut it for the military and even police forces - but as we all know the Aux is civilian and volunteers. Its
members dont' get in tussles with BGs. So the major part of the rationale justifying the policy on the miltiary side doesn't hold up for the Aux.

Not to mention the fact that if my hair were uncovered, any BG would be able to grab my hair. If a BG were to grab the back of my scarf, however, I could either yank it off, or, with some nifty sports scarves, they fasten in the front with velcro, so one pull, and the BG is left holding my scarf, not me. (In situations where following Islamic law would pose any danger to a Muslim, they are allowed to break the law to preserve themselves.) If the BG were to grab my hair, I'd be stuck until I could overpower him or her.
The rationale isn't rational- did they even consult people who wear or make scarves when creating the policy?

I don't think this is a "woman" thing, FL. If it was, then we would be discussing the "duo-forms"-- making women wear silly looking school girl cross ties and flower pot hats-- rather than creating a gender neutral UNIform... but I digress....

The question of the day is.. do you change the uniform and or rules to suit each individual culture and religion?

As I love to make judo analogies.. here is one:


A Shinto brother and sister in judo refused to bow in judo competitions. They said it was against their religion. They sued the International Judo bodies costing these groups (already hard hit for money to help sponsor athletes to the Olympics) millions of dollars in lawyer fees. The brother and sister, incidently.. lost the case. Everyone MUST bow before and after a judo match. Those are the rules.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/49699_judo07.shtml

There was also a case of a girl who was told to remove her hijab or she couldn't compete. Why? It was a safety issue. And.. if she was over aged 13, it would give her an unfair advantage because choking is allowed in judo and the hijab would get in the way of chokes.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/11/17/4664542-cp.html

But, as FL pointed out, the Pandora's Box is already open.

How about if a woman's religion doesn't allow her to wear pants and only skirts that are four inches below the knee, and where sleeves must fall below the elbow?


How about if a religion prohibits a woman's hair from being shown? Can she wear a burka or a chador?

Where do you draw the line?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Forewatch,

quote:

As I love to make judo analogies.. here is one:

Problem is your first of your "analogies" involves a private organization, not the government. There is a difference.

Your second one is a case in Canada. The last I heard Canada is not part of the United States. The cite is off point.

You ask, further, "Where do you draw the line?"

Well, definitely not where you want it drawn.

Ward2up says:

quote:

There's a photo of Colonel G. B. Singh at this site.

Yeah, but he's a Hindu. I wonder if the negative reaction from some people here is based on a recently acquired distaste for anything Muslim. . . .

...gjd

quote:

How about if a woman's religion doesn't allow her to wear pants and only skirts that are four inches below the knee, and where sleeves must fall below the elbow?
How about if a religion prohibits a woman's hair from being shown? Can she wear a burka or a chador?

There are no religions that I know of that prohibit pants for women; note that pants originated as women's clothing. Prohibitions on pants tend to be cultural. Long sleeves are generally available for both men and women, and it's not unusual to see both genders wear long sleeves year-round- look at your more conservative office wear.
Also, the burka and chador are not needed to cover the hair. They do cover the hair, but they are generally used as complete body covers, and are worn by cultures that deem it inappropriate for women of a certain class to appear on the street. There is no religion that requires either the burqa or chador.
If you'd like to go a hypothetical route, longer skirts pose no less restriction on movement than short skirts, and can actually provide for a greater range of movement, as with a short skirt, you're at greater risk of flashing someone if you do things like : ride horses, run, or climb trees. I've done all these things in ankle-length skirts, and I know a woman who plays basketball in a jilbab, a collarbone to anklebone- length garment, and several women who play tennis in full-length skirts.
Now, if you're talking about young girls, who are growing and have motor skills still in development, it does become a different issue. Likewise, long skirts do pose difficulties in water. Pants, or shorter skirts, in those situations do seem very much indicated.
About full-body concealment: if a woman hails from a culture that requires her to wear these types of garments, she's likely to be of a class where the men, or lower class women, do the work needed to keep the house and the country in working order. The Taliban's actions were an aberration, resulting in women quite literally starving to death for the government's conflation of upper-class custom with religion. If such a woman were to volunteer for the military, her desire to keep the trappings of her social class could not be justified under religious accommodation.
Covering of the hair, and at least parts of the body, is common to several religions. Covering of the face, and garments that conceal clothing worn among those of the same gender, or among family, are markers of class and culture. Don't confuse the two.

No, GeeJay. I'm against making any changes to accomodate ANY religion. If it's against your religion, then you will have to find something else to do. Sorry.

Risking an ethnic slur against a certain nationality, that's certainly a blockheaded type of remark. Perhaps the Norwegians were right. . .

...gjd

quote:

Originally posted by 16358498:

There are no religions that I know of that prohibit pants for women; note that pants originated as women's clothing.

Apparently then, you have never heard of Orthodox and Hasidic Jews. The Written Torah [Deuteronomy 22:5] rules that “a woman may not wear men’s clothing and a man may not wear the woman’s dress.” Pants are considered men's clothing and prohibited for women.

For the same reason, pants are prohibited in some fundamentalist Christian religions. Do a Google search and you'll find lots written on it. Here's one example:

http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/pantsuits.htm

And to GeeJay... regarding the pertinence of the Canadian girl who was not allowed to wear a scarf in judo.. the referee was upholding INTERNATIONAL Judo rules. Just because this happened in Canada, doesn't matter. It is prohibited in the INTERNATIONAL rules.

There was a problem with a Jewish man who wanted to wear a Yarmulka in judo competition. The rules prohibit the wearing of anything hard or metallic on a person's body. He was wearing metal bobby pins to keep it on. He was told to take the bobby pins out or withdraw from the tournament. He withdrew.

Sorry, those are the rules. Play by them or go do something else.

The OP has an option. She can wear her scarf with the Blue Blazer and still be a part of the Coast Guard Auxiliary.

quote:

Originally posted by geejaydee:
Risking an ethnic slur against a certain nationality, that's certainly a blockheaded type of remark. Perhaps the Norwegians were right. . .

...gjd

Actually, it's a personal attack because once again, you resort to that since you don't have anything rational to add to the argument.

quote:

And to GeeJay... regarding the pertinence of the Canadian girl who was not allowed to wear a scarf in judo.. the referee was upholding INTERNATIONAL Judo rules. Just because this happened in Canada, doesn't matter. It is prohibited in the INTERNATIONAL rules.

I don't know about Canada, but "International" judo rules are rules of a private organization, and do not trump the U. S. Constitution. If it happened in the United States, and if the Judo organization received Federal funding, then it would be unconstitutional.

...gjd