TEXAS Senate Passes Anti-Sharia Bill

[Jeff]

Got to love Texas !!!
Shut it down.


The Texas Senate last night passed and sent to Governor Greg Abbott a measure that would prevent any 'international/sharia law' from being used in Texas civil courts (http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/03/texas-mayor-beth-van-duyne-doubles-down-on-islamists-who-want-sharia-in-irving-im-not-going-to-be-bullied/), a bill that Muslim detractors and some of their far left allies (http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/03/texas-muslims-outraged-that-irving-city-council-backs-bill-that-will-ban-islamic-sharia-law-tribunals-there/) say is 'Islamophobic (http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/10/international-civil-liberties-alliance-blasts-use-term-islamophobia-illogical/).'
WOAI (http://www.woai.com/articles/woai-local-news-sponsored-by-five-119078/anti-sharia-law-measure-passed-texas-13614954/): State Sen. Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels) doesn't mention Islamic Koranic law (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00OPAFGL4/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00OPAFGL4&linkCode=as2&tag=freedomoutpos-20&linkId=OZ32WBUT7XGKKOXP), or 'Sharia Law' in her bill. She simply says it guarantees that no laws for 'foreign courts' will be adopted by Texas civil court judges.
"It's just to provide some belt and suspenders to make sure that, with judicial discretion, we don't trump Texas law, American law, with a foreign law regarding family law," Campbell said.




And yes it is happening.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6xFvg0Ikijo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/05/texas-senate-passes-anti-sharia-bill/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The sooner that Texas leaves this now corrupted Union the better. If thats done I move there with bells on..-Tyr

[fj1200]

In other news; TX mandates that oxygen is necessary for life. :poke:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

In other news; TX mandates that oxygen is necessary for life. :poke:

God forbid, that they be right both times!!!! :poke:--Tyr

[fj1200]

^And for all intents and purposes pointless. :dunno:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

^And for all intents and purposes pointless. :dunno:

A good point , that is well made is not pointless.
Were it pointless, the muzzies would not be complaining about it.
The fact that they complain clearly shows that they want exactly what it forbids!-Tyr

[fj1200]

^It is pointless, they'll complain about anything. Their complaining doesn't validate the law however.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

^It is pointless, they'll complain about anything. Their complaining doesn't validate the law however.
I disagree with that amigo. They are usually quite well organized in what they choose to issue complaints about. Thats because they get their commands from religious leaders(imams). Once issued by that level cult leader they obey and lodge complaints--play the system against itself, a clear cut strategy to divide and conquer the opposition.
One that has been working quite well for them these last two decades.
Texas addressed this organized agenda by state law, as is their right to do.
Do you disagree its their right or just disagree that its being done to the poor little defenseless murdering cultists?-Tyr

[fj1200]

I disagree with that amigo. They are usually quite well organized in what they choose to issue complaints about. Thats because they get their commands from religious leaders(imams). Once issued by that level cult leader they obey and lodge complaints--play the system against itself, a clear cut strategy to divide and conquer the opposition.
One that has been working quite well for them these last two decades.
Texas addressed this organized agenda by state law, as is their right to do.
Do you disagree its their right or just disagree that its being done to the poor little defenseless murdering cultists?-Tyr

Of course you do. Why do you try to ask questions I've already answered; the law is pointless.

[revelarts]

Got to love Texas !!!
Shut it down.

And yes it is happening.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/05/texas-senate-passes-anti-sharia-bill/

I think the law is a good idea but i wonder how this is going to play out.

And I don't think the Fox news clip is a good example.

the islamic people in the clip are only working with Islamic couples who voluntarily go to them. it's a "business" they said. I don't see this much differently than the Amish who handle a lot of there own social affairs outside of or BEFORE they take it to the city or state. Even typical Christians who may have a religious wedding then some time later get the city and state to "make it legal". Divorce laws are stricter for Islam so handling them outside of city or state law 1st then going through the state process should be no problem.

What I'd hope the law does is set a block on some specific Sharia not becoming civil law.
they should have made specific protections not just "foreign courts" it's to vague. No foreign courts laws could be read to that mean Texas can't make a laws that prohibit dog meat at restaurants.

And not just that it's a 2-edged sword. It's not a far stretch for others to claim they see some Christain Sharia/foreign laws. Because traditional marriage is anti-homosexuals, or abortions, or if taken logically to the end rape, murder, stealing, etc..

Muslims, Buddhist, Christians, Hindus and other religious groups all SHARE certain items concerning morals in common.
these morals ARE a part or U.S. law and various laws around the world already.

to Block "religious" laws from civil laws would eventually leave us no laws at all.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Of course you do. Why do you try to ask questions I've already answered; the law is pointless.

Send a letter to them explaining how foolish they are then.
And how pointless is their taking a strong stand against this our nation's enemy.
Be sure to let us know how that turns out, being Texans they'll tell you exactly where to go soon enough methinks! ;)--Tyr

[fj1200]

Send a letter to them explaining how foolish they are then.
And how pointless is their taking a strong stand against this our nation's enemy.
Be sure to let us know how that turns out, being Texans they'll tell you exactly where to go soon enough methinks! ;)--Tyr

I'll get right on that. Do you also think that Peacemakers Ministries and Beth Din organisations likewise be limited by Texas law?

[Perianne]

I'll get right on that. Do you also think that Peacemakers Ministries and Beth Din organisations likewise be limited by Texas law?

I think Texas can do whatever the heck it wants to do. States' rights.

[fj1200]

I think Texas can do whatever the heck it wants to do. States' rights.

Of course it can within Constitutional guidelines. It doesn't grant every law having a point or being well-thought out though.

Would you like to have a go at the question?

[Gunny]

In other news; TX mandates that oxygen is necessary for life. :poke:

That's just so you have a clear understanding of what it is when we deprive you of it. ;)

[Gunny]

^And for all intents and purposes pointless. :dunno:

Not really. Think about the big picture instead of focusing on Sharia Law. Texas just cut out the UN. And I'm in complete agreement with it.

[fj1200]

That's just so you have a clear understanding of what it is when we deprive you of it. ;)

:martian:


Not really. Think about the big picture instead of focusing on Sharia Law. Texas just cut out the UN. And I'm in complete agreement with it.

While I do like a good UN thumb-nosing...

[Gunny]

Of course it can within Constitutional guidelines. It doesn't grant every law having a point or being well-thought out though.

Would you like to have a go at the question?

You're missing the point. In case you have missed it, the PEOPLE, not the State, of Texas has basically said screw all this PC crap and these PC laws. You have NO idea how many people are Texans first, and citizens of the United Socialist Republic of the US second.

Sharia Law is religious law. Foreign laws do not dictate law in this nation. Where is the ACLU? Where are all the God-haters who erroneously like to argue our laws are not based on Judeo-Christian law?

So let me see if I get this hypocrisy right:

We can throw out any mention of the word 'God" in the Judeo-Christian sense of the word from our laws; but,

If we try to throw out Islamic Sharia Law were Islamaphobes?

And people wonder what's wrong with this country. It's like Bizzaro World here.

[revelarts]

Of course it can within Constitutional guidelines. ...
which for you are amazingly broad and vaporous to the point of intangibility sometimes FJ.

Sorry had to say it FJ.

[fj1200]

You're missing the point. In case you have missed it, the PEOPLE, not the State, of Texas has basically said screw all this PC crap and these PC laws. You have NO idea how many people are Texans first, and citizens of the United Socialist Republic of the US second.

Sharia Law is religious law. Foreign laws do not dictate law in this nation. Where is the ACLU? Where are all the God-haters who erroneously like to argue our laws are not based on Judeo-Christian law?

So let me see if I get this hypocrisy right:

We can throw out any mention of the word 'God" in the Judeo-Christian sense of the word from our laws; but,

If we try to throw out Islamic Sharia Law were Islamaphobes?

And people wonder what's wrong with this country. It's like Bizzaro World here.

I understand exactly what you are saying. Perhaps an example of where Texas civil courts are currently recognizing Sharia or foreign law would be in order.

[fj1200]

which for you are amazingly broad and vaporous to the point of intangibility sometimes FJ.

Sorry had to say it FJ.

Sometimes an amazingly broad and vaporous comment deserves an amazingly broad and vaporous response. I am surprised that you of all folks are bristling at my validation of the Constitution. :poke:

[Gunny]

I understand exactly what you are saying. Perhaps an example of where Texas civil courts are currently recognizing Sharia or foreign law would be in order.

Nah. It's preemptive. In case you haven't noticed with most of the latest "rebellious" legislative battle with the US, Texas leads the charge. Enough is enough. It's rather obvious the people and the State of Texas don't cotton to Obama's BS.

[Jeff]

Nah. It's preemptive. In case you haven't noticed with most of the latest "rebellious" legislative battle with the US, Texas leads the charge. Enough is enough. It's rather obvious the people and the State of Texas don't cotton to Obama's BS.

I love Texas, Heck GA is talking about putting a fence around it and having our own Mexico. :laugh:

Seriously, Texas stood up before anyone else and said let's make it clear we aren't having it here. I have to agree with Gunny, the people of TX don't fool around. I don't think there had to be examples of it happening already, although one was shown, what is great is the people said Hell No this is America !!

[Gunny]

I love Texas, Heck GA is talking about putting a fence around it and having our own Mexico. :laugh:

Seriously, Texas stood up before anyone else and said let's make it clear we aren't having it here. I have to agree with Gunny, the people of TX don't fool around. I don't think there had to be examples of it happening already, although one was shown, what is great is the people said Hell No this is America !!

Texas was born from a rag-tag army of hardasses. Tejanos, Americans leaving the US, and mostly just good ol' boys and they took on the largest standing army in the Western Hemisphere and kicked their asses.

The US never won in Texas during the Civil War, and their occupation "Davis Police" during Reconstruction got sent packing. Apparently, WE still read and can comprehend the Constitution 'round these parts.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'll get right on that. Do you also think that Peacemakers Ministries and Beth Din organisations likewise be limited by Texas law?

ARE THEY MURDERING PEOPLE WORLDWIDE AND ATTEMPTING TO FORCE THEIR RELIGIOUS LAW ON EVERYBODY?
Perhaps if show you give some proof and examples of the worldwide murdering spree they are on..
If you can not do so-why bring them up?-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You're missing the point. In case you have missed it, the PEOPLE, not the State, of Texas has basically said screw all this PC crap and these PC laws. You have NO idea how many people are Texans first, and citizens of the United Socialist Republic of the US second.

Sharia Law is religious law. Foreign laws do not dictate law in this nation. Where is the ACLU? Where are all the God-haters who erroneously like to argue our laws are not based on Judeo-Christian law?

So let me see if I get this hypocrisy right:

We can throw out any mention of the word 'God" in the Judeo-Christian sense of the word from our laws; but,

If we try to throw out Islamic Sharia Law were Islamaphobes?

And people wonder what's wrong with this country. It's like Bizzaro World here.

^^^^^ Deserves high praise for its insightful and accurate analysis of the reality of the problem all none muslim are having with the sneaky cult of murder and head lopping/bomb-play. :beer:

Texas leads the way in taking the only correct stand!!! --Tyr

[fj1200]

Nah. It's preemptive. In case you haven't noticed with most of the latest "rebellious" legislative battle with the US, Texas leads the charge. Enough is enough. It's rather obvious the people and the State of Texas don't cotton to Obama's BS.

Preemptive, i.e. unnecessary laws? Doesn't sound very conservative to me. I don't recall BO having pushed TX to adopt foreign laws in civil courts. :confused:


I love Texas, Heck GA is talking about putting a fence around it and having our own Mexico. :laugh:

Seriously, Texas stood up before anyone else and said let's make it clear we aren't having it here. I have to agree with Gunny, the people of TX don't fool around. I don't think there had to be examples of it happening already, although one was shown, what is great is the people said Hell No this is America !!

Not exactly. That was a tribunal and not affiliated with TX civil courts that I saw.


ARE THEY MURDERING PEOPLE WORLDWIDE AND ATTEMPTING TO FORCE THEIR RELIGIOUS LAW ON EVERYBODY?
Perhaps if show you give some proof and examples of the worldwide murdering spree they are on..
If you can not do so-why bring them up?-Tyr

You might notice that the law didn't reference Sharia so your rant is not really on point to the question. The question was raised because a law to preclude one also precludes others. But if was just another thread to go with another "muzzy" rant then please proceed.

[Gunny]

Preemptive, i.e. unnecessary laws? Doesn't sound very conservative to me. I don't recall BO having pushed TX to adopt foreign laws in civil courts. :confused:



Not exactly. That was a tribunal and not affiliated with TX civil courts that I saw.



You might notice that the law didn't reference Sharia so your rant is not really on point to the question. The question was raised because a law to preclude one also precludes others. But if was just another thread to go with another "muzzy" rant then please proceed.

Yet. He's to busy crying racism as the voice for inner city blacks.

I don't know the exact reason behind the law, BUT it is not directed at Sharia Law any more than it is Bunto. My whole point is this: What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I thought all these left wing nutjobs WANTED religion out of the law?

So I fail to see the issue except the left wing mutjobs want just Christianity out, not their favorite minority religion(s).

[fj1200]

Yet. He's to busy crying racism as the voice for inner city blacks.

I don't know the exact reason behind the law, BUT it is not directed at Sharia Law any more than it is Bunto. My whole point is this: What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I thought all these left wing nutjobs WANTED religion out of the law?

So I fail to see the issue except the left wing mutjobs want just Christianity out, not their favorite minority religion(s).

I guess I fail to see the issue as well unless there is something actually happening that would see the need for the law. Civil courts shouldn't be using foreign law anyway and I doubt that they are.

[Gunny]

I guess I fail to see the issue as well unless there is something actually happening that would see the need for the law. Civil courts shouldn't be using foreign law anyway and I doubt that they are.

Marine Corps Uniform regulations state that a woman may wear her hair in any manner that is not eccentric so long as her hair does not exceed the bottom edge of her collar while in uniform and does not interfere with the proper wear and fit of headgear.

The blacks decided their "tribal" do's superseded the regulation, cride discrimination to wear these wierd-ass hair-do's, and got their way.

That's just an analogy. People who refuse to admit there is a slippery slope are the very ones that enable it.

[Jeff]

Marine Corps Uniform regulations state that a woman may wear her hair in any manner that is not eccentric so long as her hair does not exceed the bottom edge of her collar while in uniform and does not interfere with the proper wear and fit of headgear.

The blacks decided their "tribal" do's superseded the regulation, cride discrimination to wear these wierd-ass hair-do's, and got their way.

That's just an analogy. People who refuse to admit there is a slippery slope are the very ones that enable it.

Not sure if you seen it but yesterday it was on Fox, the military has now made it OK to wear, do rags, turbans and other Religious things, you may also grow a beard now.

Looked this up real quick.

US Military to Allow Turbans, Other Religious Clothing, Observances


The Pentagon has approved a new policy that will allow troops to seek waivers to wear religious clothing, seek prayer time or engage in religious practices.

Defense officials say the waivers will be decided on a case-by-case basis and will depend on where the service member is stationed and whether the change would affect military readiness or the mission.
Until now there has been no consistent policy across the military to allow accommodations for religion. Now, for example, Jewish troops can seek a waiver to wear a yarmulke, or Sikhs can seek waivers to wear a turban and grow a beard.
Others can request specific prayer times or ask that they be allowed to carry prayer beads or other items


Just to give you a idea.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7258&stc=1


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Military-Religion/2014/01/22/id/548447/

[Perianne]

Not sure if you seen it but yesterday it was on Fox, the military has now made it OK to wear, do rags, turbans and other Religious things, you may also grow a beard now.

Looked this up real quick.

US Military to Allow Turbans, Other Religious Clothing, Observances
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Military-Religion/2014/01/22/id/548447/

It has been only a few years since 9-11, and, even shorter since we fought them in wars. How quickly our government folds. I simply do not understand it.

[Gunny]

Not sure if you seen it but yesterday it was on Fox, the military has now made it OK to wear, do rags, turbans and other Religious things, you may also grow a beard now.

Looked this up real quick.

US Military to Allow Turbans, Other Religious Clothing, Observances





Just to give you a idea.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7258&stc=1


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Military-Religion/2014/01/22/id/548447/

THAT's a bunch of unsat CRAP.

[fj1200]

Just to give you a idea.

Patriotism should not be limited to only those who can be crammed into a specific mold.


It has been only a few years since 9-11, and, even shorter since we fought them in wars. How quickly our government folds. I simply do not understand it.

You do know that the Sikhs didn't attack us don't you?

[Perianne]

You do know that the Sikhs didn't attack us don't you?

Towelheads attacked us. Sikhs are towelheads. Therefore, Sikhs attacked us! :dance:

[fj1200]

Towelheads attacked us. Sikhs are towelheads. Therefore, Sikhs attacked us! :dance:

That displays immense ignorance.

[Perianne]

That displays immense ignorance.

It displays a joke.

[fj1200]

Uh huh.

[Perianne]

Uh huh.

You are silly, fj. :)

[Jeff]

Patriotism should not be limited to only those who can be crammed into a specific mold.



You do know that the Sikhs didn't attack us don't you?

fj our Military has had rules as long as it has been in place, we are now going to allow our soldiers to dress differently, why didn't we just tell the troops come as you please ?

Now add the fact that the military is currently Court Marshaling a soldier for not removing a bible verse and this entire thing stinks.

[fj1200]

fj our Military has had rules as long as it has been in place, we are now going to allow our soldiers to dress differently, why didn't we just tell the troops come as you please ?

Now add the fact that the military is currently Court Marshaling a soldier for not removing a bible verse and this entire thing stinks.

Just because we have rules doesn't mean that those rules were good or served its intended purpose.

[Jeff]

Just because we have rules doesn't mean that those rules were good or served its intended purpose.

I agree but if we are going to allow religion to dictate how we can or can't dress why do we need to remove Bible verse's ?

[fj1200]

I agree but if we are going to allow religion to dictate how we can or can't dress why do we need to remove Bible verse's ?

I think it's a misnomer to say that religion is dictating because if we want many to be included in serving their country then sometimes outmoded rules need to be adjusted. I don't know what you're referring to about the bible verse.

[Jeff]

I think it's a misnomer to say that religion is dictating because if we want many to be included in serving their country then sometimes outmoded rules need to be adjusted. I don't know what you're referring to about the bible verse.

This has been in the news the last couple of days, and has been happening for a while, that is why I didn't feel it was worth posting. fj folks can now wear head gear because of ???? Folks can now wear a bear because of???? Of course it has to do with religion.



remove Bible verse http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/person/s/todd-starnes/_jcr_content/image.img.png/48/48/1432322803407.png (http://www.foxnews.com/archive/todd-starnes)

By Todd Starnes (http://www.foxnews.com/archive/todd-starnes)
<time itemprop="datePublished" pubdate="" datetime="2015-05-26T14:08:00.000-04:00">Published May 26, 2015</time> FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/)


Facebook (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/26/marine-court-martialed-for-refusing-to-remove-bible-verse.html#)19574 Twitter (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/26/marine-court-martialed-for-refusing-to-remove-bible-verse.html#)3076 livefyre (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/26/marine-court-martialed-for-refusing-to-remove-bible-verse.html#)14021 Email (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/26/marine-court-martialed-for-refusing-to-remove-bible-verse.html#) Print (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/26/marine-court-martialed-for-refusing-to-remove-bible-verse.html#)

http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/opinion/2015/05/26/marine-court-martialed-for-refusing-to-remove-bible-verse/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1432664632493.jpg?ve=1&tl=1 Monifa Sterling (Courtesy Liberty Institute)


A United States Marine was convicted at a court-martial for refusing to remove a Bible verse on her computer – a verse of Scripture the military determined “could easily be seen as contrary to good order and discipline.”
The plight of Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling seems unbelievable – a member of the Armed Forces criminally prosecuted for displaying a slightly altered passage of Scripture from the Old Testament: “No weapon formed against me shall prosper.”




http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/26/marine-court-martialed-for-refusing-to-remove-bible-verse.html

[fj1200]

This has been in the news the last couple of days, and has been happening for a while, that is why I didn't feel it was worth posting. fj folks can now wear head gear because of ???? Folks can now wear a bear because of???? Of course it has to do with religion.

I believe the actual problem was not following orders. And of course it involves religion but the issue is unnecessary rules that keep otherwise willing patriots from serving.

And I don't know anything about wearing bears.

[Gunny]

This has been in the news the last couple of days, and has been happening for a while, that is why I didn't feel it was worth posting. fj folks can now wear head gear because of ???? Folks can now wear a bear because of???? Of course it has to do with religion.




http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/26/marine-court-martialed-for-refusing-to-remove-bible-verse.html

SHe should have claimed it was from her African heritage and she'd have gotten away with it.

[Gunny]

I believe the actual problem was not following orders. And of course it involves religion but the issue is unnecessary rules that keep otherwise willing patriots from serving.

And I don't know anything about wearing bears.

That's ALWAYS the excuse in the military. If all else fails, Article 134; which, basically states we can bust you for anything we don't like not covered by the first 133 Articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

[Gunny]

I believe the actual problem was not following orders. And of course it involves religion but the issue is unnecessary rules that keep otherwise willing patriots from serving.

And I don't know anything about wearing bears.

That's ALWAYS the excuse in the military. If all else fails, Article 134; which, basically states we can bust you for anything we don't like not covered by the first 133 Articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Article 90 is refusing to obey a lawful order.

She is going to lose/lost(?) because the computer belongs to the Marine Corps. This is an area I HATE about the Corps. Once you're in the sights of some chair-polishing, zealot, they're going to get you. They close in like wolves.

Too bad a LCpl can't afford a good civilian attorney. I'd go after EVERY screen saver in the unit as evidence she was being singled out.

[fj1200]

^I hope she wins her appeal.

[Gunny]

^I hope she wins her appeal.

She won't. Technically, by the rules, she was wrong. You are technically not allowed to have anything personal on a computer issued by the government to conduct government business. And THAT is what they are nailing her on.

If this went to a court martial, there's more to this than just a screen saver. Unless she refused Non-judicial Punishment (NJP - Article 15) and requested trial by court martial.

But to even prosecute is just knucklehead with more stripes on a power trip. And like I said, I go after ALL the computers. They could court martial everyone in the unit including the CO for having personal stuff on a government computer.

Unfortunately, the defense attorney and the prosecutor work for the same JAG officer. Defense attorney's are usually wet-behind-the-ears 2nd LT's and prosecutors Majors with at least 10 years in.

[fj1200]

^Probably, unless maybe she has RFRA protection.

[Gunny]

^Probably, unless maybe she has RFRA protection.

Whatever RFRA, there's NO protection from the military and the UCMJ. There is no recourse outside the military. You can write your Congressman, that's about it. You can request mast (bring a grievance through the chain of command), but are guaranteed that right only as high as your commanding general. You can request mast higher, but are not guaranteed a right.

Hell, I WISH I was her Gunny. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not big on caring who I piss off. Unfortunately, it's probably a Gunny or SSgt making an issue of it.

[Gunny]

As a matter of fact, I think I'm going to send a letter to my Congressman, and the Commanding General and Command Sergeant Major of her command voicing my displeasure. The UCMJ does NOT supersede the Constitution, and freedom of religion is guaranteed.

[Jeff]

Well just as they should change the dress code for some because Maybe it wasn't the best way, Maybe they should change all the rules because Maybe they aren't the best way.

[Gunny]

Well just as they should change the dress code for some because Maybe it wasn't the best way, Maybe they should change all the rules because Maybe they aren't the best way.

Just maybe they might let me get my hands on the person who preferred the charges. There's an agenda here, and I'm willing to bet it's personal.

You're missing my point though. I can write a letter or letters. So can YOU. They don't care about one person. They might listen to more than one.

This Lance Corporal is being railroaded by the system. The Marine COrps used to MAKE us go to church. But you can't believe in it? And your screen saver is enough to get you burned?

Dear God,

Please put me back on active duty for a month or two. I want to play defense attorney and I guarantee you I can get these charges dropped and have half a command dipping and skipping and trying to cover their asses.

[Jeff]

I believe the actual problem was not following orders. And of course it involves religion but the issue is unnecessary rules that keep otherwise willing patriots from serving.

And I don't know anything about wearing bears.

When proven wrong resort to showing typo's, as you know fj there is no shortage of typo's with me. :laugh: But the fact still remains you say go ahead change the rules so folks can wear head gear and bears ( beards ) :laugh: because it may keep some from serving, well maybe all the Christians should leave the military because they can't get their way. See this attitude of being nice to everyone has to include everyone, personally I say it is the military, the military has made boys become what the military makes them since day one, keep up the good work. And yes I believe that woman with the scripture is wrong, she broke the rules now pay the piper, but of course if we are changing rules for one religion why not all ?

[namvet]

The sooner that Texas leaves this now corrupted Union the better. If thats done I move there with bells on..-Tyr

if it leaves others may follow suit. i hope all 57 :laugh2:

[Jeff]

I believe the actual problem was not following orders. And of course it involves religion but the issue is unnecessary rules that keep otherwise willing patriots from serving.

And I don't know anything about wearing bears.


Just maybe they might let me get my hands on the person who preferred the charges. There's an agenda here, and I'm willing to bet it's personal.

You're missing my point though. I can write a letter or letters. So can YOU. They don't care about one person. They might listen to more than one.

This Lance Corporal is being railroaded by the system. The Marine COrps used to MAKE us go to church. But you can't believe in it? And your screen saver is enough to get you burned?

Dear God,

Please put me back on active duty for a month or two. I want to play defense attorney and I guarantee you I can get these charges dropped and have half a command dipping and skipping and trying to cover their asses.

I agree with you Gunny my response was more so geared towards fj who says change in the uniforms maybe good, it may have kept some from serving, I say if we are going to change for religions than lets do so for all religions not just the ones we want to pick. I mean after all if we remove all the Christians ( who as this woman is finding out, have to live with the rules ) how much of a military is going to be left.

[Gunny]

I agree with you Gunny my response was more so geared towards fj who says change in the uniforms maybe good, it may have kept some from serving, I say if we are going to change for religions than lets do so for all religions not just the ones we want to pick. I mean after all if we remove all the Christians ( who as this woman is finding out, have to live with the rules ) how much of a military is going to be left.

I'm pissed about this right now so I will refrain from responding. Or maybe not.

I'll believe in whoever the fuck I want to and some staff NCO up the chain can single me out if they want. Lance Corporal's are young and dumb. She needs some help and she can beat this.

And YES, I made it only to Gunny because I represented my troops and didn't let assholes intimidate and steam roll them. If I'd have kissed some ass I had a fast track to SgtMaj.

[fj1200]

Well just as they should change the dress code for some because Maybe it wasn't the best way, Maybe they should change all the rules because Maybe they aren't the best way..

Maybe we shouldn't have mindless adherence to rules.


When proven wrong resort to showing typo's, as you know fj there is no shortage of typo's with me. :laugh: But the fact still remains you say go ahead change the rules so folks can wear head gear and bears ( beards ) :laugh: because it may keep some from serving, well maybe all the Christians should leave the military because they can't get their way. See this attitude of being nice to everyone has to include everyone, personally I say it is the military, the military has made boys become what the military makes them since day one, keep up the good work. And yes I believe that woman with the scripture is wrong, she broke the rules now pay the piper, but of course if we are changing rules for one religion why not all ?

Actually I wasn't wrong although I could have used better words, I concede to you good sir that this particular decision revolves around a religious argument. And I had no idea you meant to say 'beards,' I chalked it up to another new story I hadn't been following. FWIW I don't typically grouse about typos unless the poster gets all uppity which isn't you. :)


I agree with you Gunny my response was more so geared towards fj who says change in the uniforms maybe good, it may have kept some from serving, I say if we are going to change for religions than lets do so for all religions not just the ones we want to pick. I mean after all if we remove all the Christians ( who as this woman is finding out, have to live with the rules ) how much of a military is going to be left.

A link I found earlier (not sure if I posted it) about Sikhs also referenced changes for Jewish soldiers. We previously had rules that segregated the military. I just discovered that the Army is revising rules about tattoos (http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2015/04/01/army-tatoo-policy-change/70783186/). They've also revised promotion and retention rules (http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/03/30/secdef-promotion/70667178/). Which magical point in time would you prefer that the military choose and they institute no more changes because "maybe it wasn't the best way"?

[Jeff]

.

Maybe we shouldn't have mindless adherence to rules.



Actually I wasn't wrong although I could have used better words, I concede to you good sir that this particular decision revolves around a religious argument. And I had no idea you meant to say 'beards,' I chalked it up to another new story I hadn't been following. FWIW I don't typically grouse about typos unless the poster gets all uppity which isn't you. :)

just a quick word, I wasn't griping, heck I made the typo, I thought you had me good there, had to laugh myself. :laugh:

A link I found earlier (not sure if I posted it) about Sikhs also referenced changes for Jewish soldiers. We previously had rules that segregated the military. I just discovered that the Army is revising rules about tattoos (http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2015/04/01/army-tatoo-policy-change/70783186/). They've also revised promotion and retention rules (http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/03/30/secdef-promotion/70667178/). Which magical point in time would you prefer that the military choose and they institute no more changes because "maybe it wasn't the best way"?

I agree fj all must change with the times, I just think it has to be done systematically not a a case by case deal, if you are going to change rules to allow those religious rights than do it for all, as for the tattoo's I remember that article and think that is BS as well but that is another story. :laugh:

[fj1200]

^Who says that they didn't do it systematically nor for all?

[Jeff]

^Who says that they didn't do it systematically nor for all?

Seriously, OK I am not going to play this game, have fun.

[fj1200]

I didn't think it was a game. If you imply it was a willy-nilly decision then that must be shown. The great bureaucracy of the Army unlikely does things case by case.

[red state]

That's just so you have a clear understanding of what it is when we deprive you of it. ;)

EXACTLY! I'm glad you put it that way.....only a lib-tard would make such an ignorant comment (with not even a mention of the LEFT's stupidity regarding the cause of "so-called" global warming which is nothing but 'GORE-bal Warning'. Try looking to science (as the left always, FALSELY, claim to do and try ignoring that one of THEIR claims is that the ESSENTIAL component in the process of photosynthesis, is a threat to our military more than ISIS. That's how stupid jf is and his president!!!!

[red state]

if it leaves others may follow suit. i hope all 57 :laugh2:

Correction; that bee FIFTY EIGHT States.....or was B.O. merely talking about the additional states he is bringing to the Union (such as Mehico, and all the other diseased filled, corrupt, drug-drenched, islamic, or any other geographic location with strong anti-AMERICAN principles or goals to destroy or "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE OUR GREATNESS? Heck, it seems that he has done a pretty good job making this a 58 State nation without borders.

[red state]

"....ONE LEFT TO GO BUT MY STAFF DIDN'T JUSTIFY IT..."

This and so many STUPID, EVIL, ANT-AMERICAN offending statements YET the ignorant, evil voters put the son-of-a-whore, muSLUM scum in TWICE!!!! Yeah....he's got one more to go alright. One more major blow at a time to destroy this Christian Nation!!!!

[sundaydriver]

She won't. Technically, by the rules, she was wrong. You are technically not allowed to have anything personal on a computer issued by the government to conduct government business. And THAT is what they are nailing her on.

If this went to a court martial, there's more to this than just a screen saver. Unless she refused Non-judicial Punishment (NJP - Article 15) and requested trial by court martial.

But to even prosecute is just knucklehead with more stripes on a power trip. And like I said, I go after ALL the computers. They could court martial everyone in the unit including the CO for having personal stuff on a government computer.

Unfortunately, the defense attorney and the prosecutor work for the same JAG officer. Defense attorney's are usually wet-behind-the-ears 2nd LT's and prosecutors Majors with at least 10 years in.

Articles that I read when this first came to light stated that it was a paper printed rewritten verse posted in three areas of her desk for whatever that difference means.

[fj1200]

That's how stupid jf is and his president!!!!

:laugh: I can recognize a joke so I guess I'm one up on you. Make that two if you think you know for whom I voted. Or maybe you could stop ignoring like a punk and actually engage in a discussion.