Family considers suit as Citadel rejects hijab

That choice shouldn't have to be made. The Hijab isn't a choice. It's a religious requirement. And there is zero reason why the rules cannot be altered to make an exception.

 

Sikhs can wear their turbans and beards, and Muslims can wear the hijab, but the Vietnam soldiers couldn't wear their hair long? It was buzz cuts for everyone. All the exceptions that we seem to be making for a multicultural society. It is the clinging to their own cultures and refusing to assimilate that will bring this country down.

As far as I am concerned, wearing the turbans, beards, hijabs--religious symbols, while an employee of the federal government goes against the grain of separation of church and state. America can't say Merry Christmas anymore, but they let these people promote their version of religion--in the military--for gods sake.

 

The choice should have to be made. You know why the Amish don't enlist to be riflemen? It conflicts with their religious beliefs. Wearing a uniform is part of the gig, if one can't do so then don't enlist and don't go to the Citadel.

 

Why should they have to rethink? It's a simple accommodation to make that doesn't get in the way of anything.

- - - Updated - - -

The military already makes uniform exceptions. Give a reason why this one cannot be allowed as well.

 

Name some. They didn't when I was in.

 

it's not required, and there is zero reason why an acceptance needs to be made.

Spaghetti collanders and Galeros come next.

 

So you can't the tell the difference between a personal article of faith and the government endorsing a religion?

 

A cadet can wear a cross or star of David, but they can't display it.

 

Males who get shaving bumps aren't required to be clean shaven.

 

They need to rethink because it is not mandatory to wear the Hijab, only to dress modestly. So if they choose to wear a Hijab, then they must weigh this against their choice to be at Citadel and choose which is more important.

"its a simple accomodation" is a dangerous slippery slope. best to stick with uniformity now, then be mired in countless additional "accomodation " requests.

 

Didn't we already deal with this? If a black guy gets the bumps he receives a shaving profile. This isn't something he has a choice over.

 

For future reference, are you going to concede to "Islamic-myths.com" on matters of Islam?

- - - Updated - - -

Religion is not a choice either.

 

Maybe not for children but for people old enough to enlist or go to college it most certainly is a choice.

 

But uniformity for the sake of uniformity is already not the case. There are already exceptions. Why should this exception not be included as well?

Don't give me slippery slope bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Name a reason why hijabs specifically should not be allowed.

 

Until you can show anything stating the hijab is a mandatory requirement, as you have been (incorrectly) stating....yes, I will. There were other links I could have chosen, however the picture on this one of two Islamic Women clearly telling us it's their choice not a compulsion seemed a good example.


So please, show me the mandate from a link you consider legitimate.

 

Who are you to deem what is or is not my opinion?

The Citadel is within the U.S.A.

Precedents have already been set where being Jewish or Christian will not be accommodated.

Precedents have been set where accommodations are granted for Muslims

This is simply keeping consistent with the precedents.

 

Not it isn't. Belief is not a choice. You either belief in something or you don't.

 

Already told you a couple times Questerr. Let me tell you again.

Islam is no more special than other religions. If you choose to make an accomodation for religious headgear, it would be discriminatory to only make it for one religion. As such Galeros and Collanders come next....and likely many more I havent heard about.

Really think thats a good idea to appease one complaint? Sorry, minorties like this dont get to have the world bend ot their every whim, sometimes you simply have to weigh out your choices and follow the ones you feel more strongly about.


You may not like that answer, but unfortunately it is the answer. You dont get to ask someone what 2+2 equals, and tell them dont give me that that "4" bull(*)(*)(*)(*)

 

OK fine. If you believe in wearing a hijab then you shouldn't believe you have a future in the military.

 

Being mandatory or not is irrelevant. We are not discussing Christians or Jews. It's about accommodating Muslims and that must always be done.

 

Having long hair in the late 60's was a 'personal article of faith' also, but that didn't stop them from giving all the guys crew cuts. Uniformity. Everyone working in lockstep. Everyone on the same page. You haven't done much research on war battles have you?

 

No. I've actually fought in them instead.

The military already makes exceptions to uniformity.

 

The Citadel is not the US military.

Wearing the hijab (hair covering) doesn't meet the requirements of Islamic dress code.. For instance a woman can't meet the criteria by wearing pants or jeans and covering her hair.. So on the liberal side.. the mandate can be construed as overall "modesty"... like "hijab of the eyes" (to divert your eyes from a man or woman not your spouse).. to wearing a headscarf that conceals the bosom, ears and neck of a female... and a robe that conceals the curves of the body.

She knew the Citadel had a dress code.. I suspect that she's got cold feet and is looking for an excuse not to attend... or a cash settlement.

 

Well another poster, (flasely), claimed the Hijab WAS mandatory and was using it to try and present this as Citadel being the problem for not allowing it. You are correct about what this is about though, certain segments do feel they have to appease Islam always, and above everyone else. Case in point, noones going to argue for the Collander or Galero at Citadel.

 

Because you are trying to make the establishment you want to join conform to your way of life. Life don't work that way.