Is Being Against Tatoos the Law?

[farouk]

PS:

I'm glad he did not get a 'faith based' tattoo. That's the important thing.

A faith based tattoo would 'mark' you as a slave for the rest of your life. Everyone that saw it would know. Rather like the Hebrew slaves with a hole in their ear. You couldn't get away with anything, even when out of town. One would certainly have to be on their best behavior all the time or they would definitely be a stumbling stone.

[MENTION=93058]Deborah13[/MENTION]:

...

In this case, then I guess 1 John 3.3 does come to mind...

Maybe it can even have a challenging and purifying effect on the wearer?

(If this makes sense?)

Blessings.

 

[Deborah13]

Maybe it can even have a challenging and purifying effect on the wearer?

(If this makes sense?)

I understand what you are saying. But unlike sanctification where one continues to repent and grows in holiness, this one better be ready to live up to what they advertise to the world. It's rough out there.....
I don't worry so much about other Christians (of coarse except the babies) but the unsaved, they are watching and some are ready to eat you alive. I think one would need to be walking consistently in faith and grace to pull it off well.
But then two of my daughters wear their cross necklaces everyday wherever they go.

@jethro mentioned bumper stickers. Now from what I heard that could be a problem for men, they have the tendency to become rather upset in traffic situations.

 

[jasoncran]

farouk. the army is considering going back to banning piercings for men and also tats. yeah I hope they do. the freaks I saw of duty makes me think that we have bunch of kids on a block that have no respect rather then a bunch of soldiers off duty.

it has gotten bad that some of the pics of what the women wear on post and in front of kids I couldn't post here. they are sport bras, and aslo booty shorts. not to mention the lack of sense with the offensive t-shirts.

 

[farouk]

farouk. the army is considering going back to banning piercings for men and also tats. yeah I hope they do. the freaks I saw of duty makes me think that we have bunch of kids on a block that have no respect rather then a bunch of soldiers off duty.

it has gotten bad that some of the pics of what the women wear on post and in front of kids I couldn't post here. they are sport bras, and aslo booty shorts. not to mention the lack of sense with the offensive t-shirts.

@jasoncran : Well, I don't adovocate that people 'should' get tats. And certainly the designs that you mention are bad.

Not all designs are bad, though; and some are even obtained for faith related reasons.
@Deborah13 is right when she says that people need to be aware of their behavior especially, when they have faith related tattoos, etc. Maybe this is even a good thing if it has a steadying, and moderating effect. (One would hope it would be true already.)

@jasoncran : I think you referred to tats that your sister-in-law had recently gotten; were they faith related, maybe?

Blessings.

 

[farouk]

[MENTION=93058]Deborah13[/MENTION]: So do you, or does any one else, find your daughters' cross necklaces that they always wear, to be particularly problematic?

(I'm assuming your daughters don't have tats, faith based or otherwise.)

Blessings.

 

[jasoncran]

yes but I will also be posted the gangs tats and often the symbols we like are used in that.

ie a cross and the star of david. that doesn't make one a gang banger but its interesting to see it. the army would ban all tats whether offensive or not. it cant make a distinction on what is good or bad tats as that would be time consuming for the chain of command. ie well sarge I want a cross and the other sinner wants a nude female and puts out of sight. that means the army would become in the art business. doable but its easier to make em all miserable. its bad trust me. I have seen some that look like hoodlums and others like some kid that wasn't in the service.

 

[farouk]

yes but I will also be posted the gangs tats and often the symbols we like are used in that.

ie a cross and the star of david. that doesn't make one a gang banger but its interesting to see it. the army would ban all tats whether offensive or not. it cant make a distinction on what is good or bad tats as that would be time consuming for the chain of command. ie well sarge I want a cross and the other sinner wants a nude female and puts out of sight. that means the army would become in the art business. doable but its easier to make em all miserable. its bad trust me. I have seen some that look like hoodlums and others like some kid that wasn't in the service.

[MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION]:

I guess this if applied to the navy would make all the sailors in San Diego and visitors to Tijuana, who over the years have gotten tattoos, ineligible for the navy.

Mind you, tattoos in North America are very much a woman thing (59% of parlor clients are women, with some areas reporting 70%), even though it used to be noted mainly among male sailors and bikers. Nowadays parlors can be more like salons.

Blessings.

 

[jasoncran]

yes but I will also be posted the gangs tats and often the symbols we like are used in that.

ie a cross and the star of david. that doesn't make one a gang banger but its interesting to see it. the army would ban all tats whether offensive or not. it cant make a distinction on what is good or bad tats as that would be time consuming for the chain of command. ie well sarge I want a cross and the other sinner wants a nude female and puts out of sight. that means the army would become in the art business. doable but its easier to make em all miserable. its bad trust me. I have seen some that look like hoodlums and others like some kid that wasn't in the service.

[MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION]:

I guess this if applied to the navy would make all the sailors in San Diego and visitors to Tijuana, who over the years have gotten tattoos, ineligible for the navy.

Mind you, tattoos in North America are very much a woman thing (59% of parlor clients are women, with some areas reporting 70%), even though it used to be noted mainly among male sailors and bikers. Nowadays parlors can be more like salons.

Blessings.

the navy and all of dod will go back to this.would you vote for Obama if he was right leaning and wore and dress like a gangster and flashed gangsta symbols. I go that extreme as well some of the dress and gold teeth give such appearance. remember we represent the nation where we go?

the army does allow for tats prior to service enlistement under the old rules but not after. meaning they document the tats and where and if its too many you wouldn't be allowed in.

 

[farouk]

yes but I will also be posted the gangs tats and often the symbols we like are used in that.

ie a cross and the star of david. that doesn't make one a gang banger but its interesting to see it. the army would ban all tats whether offensive or not. it cant make a distinction on what is good or bad tats as that would be time consuming for the chain of command. ie well sarge I want a cross and the other sinner wants a nude female and puts out of sight. that means the army would become in the art business. doable but its easier to make em all miserable. its bad trust me. I have seen some that look like hoodlums and others like some kid that wasn't in the service.

@jasoncran :

I guess this if applied to the navy would make all the sailors in San Diego and visitors to Tijuana, who over the years have gotten tattoos, ineligible for the navy.

Mind you, tattoos in North America are very much a woman thing (59% of parlor clients are women, with some areas reporting 70%), even though it used to be noted mainly among male sailors and bikers. Nowadays parlors can be more like salons.

Blessings.

the navy and all of dod will go back to this.would you vote for Obama if he was right leaning and wore and dress like a gangster and flashed gangsta symbols. I go that extreme as well some of the dress and gold teeth give such appearance. remember we represent the nation where we go?

the army does allow for tats prior to service enlistement under the old rules but not after. meaning they document the tats and where and if its too many you wouldn't be allowed in.

@jasoncran : Well, this is significant, I guess.

Does this mean that today army nurses, etc have to declare all their tattoos that they may have before being given a uniform?

At 18, lots of young people get their rite of passage tattoo at 18. I guess does this mean the DoD wants 18 year olds to choose between their rite of passage and the military?

Blessings.

PS: I think [MENTION=89910]questdriven[/MENTION] said her mom was previously in the navy.

 

[jasoncran]

farouk its bad. here
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20111024/NEWS/110240316/Chandler-considers-tighter-grooming-regs

farouk imagine that your neighbor is a thug and joins the army and has no change made in his walk and talk. would really like to believe that is ok for the service that he has no discipline? no respect? that is what this is all about.

It is about dang time. I am so sick of seeing guys with neck and hand tattoos. We used to have some standards and look professional but now every time I take my soldiers out for PT it looks like a biker gang is running with me. If we are going to size back the force, we should raise are standards back to what they used to be before the wars.

this article didn't have the pics I saw on the printable version its also mentions the bras and booty shorts. that its really not good. remember what that projects.

but army times doesn't have the article I saw online.

 

[Deborah13]

[MENTION=93058]Deborah13[/MENTION]: So do you, or does any one else, find your daughters' cross necklaces that they always wear, to be particularly problematic?

(I'm assuming your daughters don't have tats, faith based or otherwise.)

Blessings.

No not at all and no, no tats. My son doesn't have tats or piercings, either.

 

[farouk]

farouk its bad. here
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20111024/NEWS/110240316/Chandler-considers-tighter-grooming-regs

farouk imagine that your neighbor is a thug and joins the army and has no change made in his walk and talk. would really like to believe that is ok for the service that he has no discipline? no respect? that is what this is all about.

It is about dang time. I am so sick of seeing guys with neck and hand tattoos. We used to have some standards and look professional but now every time I take my soldiers out for PT it looks like a biker gang is running with me. If we are going to size back the force, we should raise are standards back to what they used to be before the wars.

this article didn't have the pics I saw on the printable version its also mentions the bras and booty shorts. that its really not good. remember what that projects.

but army times doesn't have the article I saw online.

[MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION]:

Well, I see.

Anyway, so I guess now the DoD wants recruits to look like [MENTION=93058]Deborah13[/MENTION]'s family (see previous post). (I'm sure they look really great, btw! )

Blessings.

 

[farouk]

@Deborah13 : So do you, or does any one else, find your daughters' cross necklaces that they always wear, to be particularly problematic?

(I'm assuming your daughters don't have tats, faith based or otherwise.)

Blessings.

No not at all and no, no tats. My son doesn't have tats or piercings, either.

@Deborah13 : Well, okay! And there's no need for them to get any either, is there, if they don't want any.

I guess these days it might be a bit of an exception for a North American family with son & daughters all to be without any ink. But this is just fine!

Blessings.

PS: Faith based jewelry is very popular, of course.

 

[jasoncran]

farouk its bad. here
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20111024/NEWS/110240316/Chandler-considers-tighter-grooming-regs

farouk imagine that your neighbor is a thug and joins the army and has no change made in his walk and talk. would really like to believe that is ok for the service that he has no discipline? no respect? that is what this is all about.

It is about dang time. I am so sick of seeing guys with neck and hand tattoos. We used to have some standards and look professional but now every time I take my soldiers out for PT it looks like a biker gang is running with me. If we are going to size back the force, we should raise are standards back to what they used to be before the wars.

this article didn't have the pics I saw on the printable version its also mentions the bras and booty shorts. that its really not good. remember what that projects.

but army times doesn't have the article I saw online.

[MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION]:

Well, I see.

Anyway, so I guess now the DoD wants recruits to look like [MENTION=93058]Deborah13[/MENTION]'s family (see previous post). (I'm sure they look really great, btw! )

Blessings.

its called being of a higher standard. case in point I as an mp cant have any felonies and also cant have any reckless driving tickets. yet any other soldier can have the later and yet be called to do what I do as an mp overseas. but that lunacy is another topic. an mp trainee wanted to show his hate associated tattoo on his calve. the army won that one. he was investigated for any crimes and was cleared and told to remove the tattoo and also cover it if not. he did the later.

 

[farouk]

its called being of a higher standard. case in point I as an mp cant have any felonies and also cant have any reckless driving tickets. yet any other soldier can have the later and yet be called to do what I do as an mp overseas. but that lunacy is another topic. an mp trainee wanted to show his hate associated tattoo on his calve. the army won that one. he was investigated for any crimes and was cleared and told to remove the tattoo and also cover it if not. he did the later.

[MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION]:

Well, interesting!

I guess there are tattoos and tattoos: hate stuff verses quality designs that are faith related.

Blessings.

 

[farouk]

[MENTION=93058]Deborah13[/MENTION]:

Seems to me, in the light of your comments about wine drinking and smoking on the other thread, that for some very conservative people getting a tattoo is a kind of taboo, the reason for which they can't necessarily explain, but they have to try to spiritualize and 'theologize' the reason why they 'must not' have it done.

(If you see the analogy with your other comments?)

Blessings.

 

[farouk]

I think one would need to be walking consistently in faith and grace to pull it off well.
But then two of my daughters wear their cross necklaces everyday wherever they go.

@Deborah13 : To refer to your other point in the previous post, I realize you think your daughters manage successfully to pull off their daily wearing of their crosses.

Interesting that you establish the analogy between this and the wearing of faith based tattoos.

It might be something that you yourself would hesitate to do. (Especially since none of your family has faith based tattoos, either, and often mom doesn't want to be the first one; not that I'm assuming even that you would want to have it done.) But I guess what you're implying is that pulling off having faith based tattoos is in principle doable for some people, anyway?

Blessings.

 

[Sparkey]

the reason for which they can't necessarily explain

... the reason for which they can't necessarily explain to your complete and utter satisfaction maybe? Just a shrugestion.

 

[farouk]

the reason for which they can't necessarily explain

... the reason for which they can't necessarily explain to your complete and utter satisfaction maybe? Just a shrugestion.

Sparrowhawke: Oh it certainly does not revolve around what I might or might not think or understand.

What I guess I meant was, if getting a tattoo is essentially a taboo with some people, on a par with certain other things discussed on other threads, then rationally explaining the taboo in a convincing and clear way is sometimes secondary to maintaining the cultural taboo. As if culture (as opposed to Biblical doctrine) never changes.

(If this makes sense?)

Blessings.

[I deleted the @ sign...)

 

[Sparkey]

(If this makes sense?)

Blessings.

[I deleted the @ sign...)

Strangely it does indeed make perfect sense. And it's not that strange after all because you and I have the benefit of the history of our very specific conversations shared in recent past. Still, it is also strange because those guests who may stumble in and browse (no harm in that) would not have that benefit. As a moderator, I am constantly trying to keep in mind that this site attracts many, many, unregistered guests who just stop in, check out the place, and then go back to their many interests on the thing we call the internet.

lol - [MENTION=41474]farouk[/MENTION], thanks for deleting that mention, it really does get redundant for me, but only for me, as a moderator. Not as a friend. Not at all.