Avatar feed
Responses: 9
SFC Casey O'Mally
19
19
0
(From the article) "To me, it was it was the same thing as if they had asked me to take my top off."

A) But she DIDN'T ask you to take your top off. You don't get to decide someone's action is the same as a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT action.

B) If she HAD asked you to take your top off (because, for instance, she believed you were wearing an unauthorized tan or coyote undershirt), under the conditions (step aside from everyone, only females present, witness present), it STILL would have been OK. We have undershirts!

C) Religious freedom does not grant regulatory immunity. You were wrong, you know you were wrong. You can't hide behind religious freedom in order to break rules.

D) Get over yourself.
(19)
Comment
(0)
1SG Civil Affairs Specialist
1SG (Join to see)
>1 y
My guess is she has already fired an EO nuke, and is trying to make this another case of harassment. She already has a lawyer and made a press release for this story.
Get the popcorn.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
2LT Maintenance Platoon Leader
12
12
0
I don't feel comfortable commenting here yet because I haven't left for training, however as someone who is Muslim and will be officer I would have do this slightly different.
First I would have her remove her head scarf in a room with only females present then have them tell if she was within regulations or not.
The part that makes me mad is her refusing to work with pork. This is Christian majority country and Christians eat pork. Wear gloves, in the Quran it's says God is wise and all knowing, God knows the difference between eating pork and cooking with it to serve others, also in the Qur'an it says that if Muslim comes in contact with anything that is considered unclean like pork to pour water on your hands 7 times in other words wash hands afterwards. Lastly you enlisted in a Christian majority military to cook you should have known better that you will eventually come in contact with pork.
(12)
Comment
(0)
SFC Christopher Taggart
SFC Christopher Taggart
>1 y
Like those commented above, I too want to say thank you sir, for your knowledge and wisdom.
(2)
Reply
(0)
1SG Civil Affairs Specialist
1SG (Join to see)
>1 y
2LT (Join to see) - She'd have been wearing gloves in the kitchen anyway, whether during preparation or on the serving line.
My guess is she is a recent convert to Islam and does not have a strong working knowledge of the Quran.
She is also clearly seeking attention with her lawyering up and making a press release about this fiasco.
(1)
Reply
(0)
CSM Richard StCyr
CSM Richard StCyr
>1 y
Common sense, thank you for your service and perspective. If I read the story correctly the CSM was also a female, so I don't get the whole breast correlation, but I do agree with you on the room or enclosure point. We had to have these areas for inspection of local national females at the ECPs in Iraq. However I don't recall that ever being discussed or taught elsewhere and had we not done that in combat I wouldn't have thought of that being a reasonable consideration. In my opinion the CSM did a pretty good job of being considerate of the Soldier while enforcing the standards.
They question the CSMs ability to determine the possible infraction in the Soldiers hair. I will tell you that a bun verses hair that is down is easily detected even under the head covering and again I point to our experience down range, so the whole ex-ray vision argument is BS.
Again thank you for your service.
(3)
Reply
(0)
LTC Hardware Test Engineer
LTC (Join to see)
>1 y
Enlisting in the US military as a cook and complaining about touching pork is like becoming a hooker and complaining about touching a penis.....
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Lt Col Jim Coe
10
10
0
The military wears uniforms for a reason, to appear "uniform." It helps instill values and behaviors necessary for military success. The CSM had every right to examine the Soldier's compliance with regulations. The whole incident, investigation, and law suit are BS. The junior enlisted person needs to understand that she is required to comply with regulations. NCOs are expected to ensure she does. The inspection was tactfully handled in my opinion. If she can't handle such low pressure examination of her behavior, then she needs to seek another line of work.
(10)
Comment
(0)
1SG Civil Affairs Specialist
1SG (Join to see)
>1 y
She is, she just wants to get paid and show that she's a martyr first.
Prediction: UHC discharge, Bar to Reenlistment.
Unless of course this nonsense continues. Then it will go poorly for her.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close