# US Army Officer Allowed to Wear Sikh Turban and Beard



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 24, 2010)

http://www.military.com/news/article/sikh-graduates-army-officer-school.html?ESRC=topstories.RSS



> Sikh Graduates From Army Officer School
> March 23, 2010
> Associated Press
> 
> ...



Interesting.  The US Army's policy regarding religious articles worn in place of uniform items (such as the head covering) has previously been rather firm; it was not permitted.  When I first joined the Marine Corps, the US Navy was permitted to wear beards, but it was banned again in the 1980's before I got out.  I understand that the armed services of other countries have permitted beards and turbans, but not the USA to the best of my knowledge.


----------



## Omar B (Mar 24, 2010)

Good for him, if he wants to serve let him.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 24, 2010)

I don't know what the policy is here for military; although, I suspect they permit turbans and beards. There was a watershed case involving the RCMP about twenty years ago. If I recall correctly, PM Brian Mulroney changed the policy, paving the way for Sikh constables to wear their beards and turbans. 



> Sergeant Baltej Dhillon
> In his 15 years with the force, Baltej Dhillon has worked on two notorious investigations  Air India and Willy Picton  but being at the centre of the turban controversy before he even got on the streets is perhaps his biggest claim to fame. After being accepted into the RCMP in 1989, he was given a choice: lose the turban or lose the job. His subsequent legal battle was victorious, of course, and in 1990, Dhillon became the first RCMP officer to wear a turban on the job.
> http://www.mehfilmagazine.com/coverstory02.cfm


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 24, 2010)

The idea has always been that of uniformity. Either we all wear beards or none of us wear beards.

I agree with that philosophy, but I also think some flexibility in certain circumstances is OK. Some soldiers are given shaving exemption when they have the ingrown facial hair issue. If them then why not a Sikh. 

If someone from the Warrior tradition of the Sikh wants to fight in my Army the more the merrier I say.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 24, 2010)

I concur.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 24, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> http://www.military.com/news/article/sikh-graduates-army-officer-school.html?ESRC=topstories.RSS
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. The US Army's policy regarding religious articles worn in place of uniform items (such as the head covering) has previously been rather firm; it was not permitted. When I first joined the Marine Corps, the US Navy was permitted to wear beards, but it was banned again in the 1980's before I got out. I understand that the armed services of other countries have permitted beards and turbans, but not the USA to the best of my knowledge.


 
When I was in the former MA State Guard we followed general Army( and probably current general service-wide) grooming standards: No beards, Mustaches cannot extend below the upper lip, sideburns cannot extend beyond the ear.

The Navy tradition as I understood it was that you could grow your beard after you'd completed a round-the-world sailing rotation but only then. Seems to be gone now.


----------



## Carol (Mar 24, 2010)

Very happy to see this


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 24, 2010)

Sikhs here have been allowed to wear turbans and beards since they joined the British army in the 19th century. During the two world wars over 80,000 Sikhs gave their lives for the Allied cause.







_French woman pinning a flower to honour Sikh soldiers arriving in France 1914-courtesy:In Flanders Fields Museum_


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 24, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Sikhs here have been allowed to wear turbans and beards since they joined the British army in the 19th century. During the two world wars over 80,000 Sikhs gave their lives for the Allied cause.



Sidebar to that wonderful story. The first Sikh immigration to Canada consisted of some five hundred males around 1905. Although British Subjects by birth, the Provincial government of British Columbia revoked their voting rights, fear they would vote for more human rights minded parties. Fast forward to WWII -- it was successfully argued that the Sikhs could not be conscripted because they could not vote. Having won that moral victory, large numbers volunteered for service. Alas, in the early nineties, the Royal Canadian Legion voted against allowing Sikhs to wear their turbans in Legion Halls, including Sikh veterans, arguing they have a no hat rule. Ironically, the no hat rule is suspended in Calgary during the Calgary Stampede, when folks can wear ten-gallon hats in the Legion.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 24, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Good for him, if he wants to serve let him.



What if a woman wants to serve in a head-to-toe burka?  I personally would have a problem with that.  Nothing against Muslims or their faith, more about not having any idea who was in there; a person carrying a weapon in defense of my nation should have a face.

And that's kind of where I have a problem with this Turban thing.  If you allow one on religious grounds, why not all?  Shall we halt basic training five times a day so recruits can pray?  What of those who practice voudon or voodoo or such?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 24, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> The idea has always been that of uniformity. Either we all wear beards or none of us wear beards.
> 
> I agree with that philosophy, but I also think some flexibility in certain circumstances is OK. Some soldiers are given shaving exemption when they have the ingrown facial hair issue. If them then why not a Sikh.
> 
> If someone from the Warrior tradition of the Sikh wants to fight in my Army the more the merrier I say.



Shaving profile isn't permanent, even for people with curly ingrown facial hair.  They are generally given a chit good for a short period of time, and then they have to shave again.  If they continue to have problems, they're given a discharge.  At least that's how it was when I was in.

Again, how do you argue against allowing a woman to serve in a head-to-toe burka if you're going to allow a Turban?  What about Hasidic Jews, with the sideburns and the black hats and clothes?  How about your basic yarmulke?  Cloaks for the Wiccans?

I don't see how you can have a case-by-case solution that doesn't result in a lawsuit.  I Googled and found a bunch of Sikhs who were not allowed to wear their turbans and beards; one back in the 1990's and one in 2001.  What about them now?  And they're saying this is a rare exception, so what about some Sikh tomorrow who gets turned down?

I'm thinking either it's everybody or nobody.  Either we all wear the same uniform and adhere to the same grooming standards, or everybody can whatever the hell they want.  I don't see how you can draw lines without being unfair and/or attracting lawsuits.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 24, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Shall we halt basic training five times a day so recruits can pray?  What of those who practice voudon or voodoo or such?



It would be interesting to know what Islamic law says about this. I know that Muslim soldiers are excused from fasting, for instance.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 24, 2010)

Gordon Nore said:


> It would be interesting to know what Islamic law says about this. I know that Muslim soldiers are excused from fasting, for instance.



From what I've been told by Muslims I know (there are a lot of them in Detroit, by the way), they are excused if they cannot do it reasonably.  However, there are different sects, just like in Christianity or Judaism.  Some insist that they have to pray.  I've had guys drop the prayer rug in a hotel lobby and block an elevator entrance because that's where they happened to be standing when their blackberry gave the call to prayer.  How's that going to work for recruits who belong to a more conservative sect of Islam?

And you know, many Muslims wear various types of headgear as religious articles too.  So will that be OK now?  Guys wearing our uniform and serving our country and all you can see of their faces is their eyes?  How do you check his ID?  Samir, is that you in there, or is that Mohammed?  Your military ID photo looks identical!


----------



## Omar B (Mar 24, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What if a woman wants to serve in a head-to-toe burka?  I personally would have a problem with that.  Nothing against Muslims or their faith, more about not having any idea who was in there; a person carrying a weapon in defense of my nation should have a face.
> 
> And that's kind of where I have a problem with this Turban thing.  If you allow one on religious grounds, why not all?  Shall we halt basic training five times a day so recruits can pray?  What of those who practice voudon or voodoo or such?



Well the Burka Bunch isn't exactly bursting down the doors to get into the military so it's not an issue.

They guy is in uniform after all.  So what if he's got something on his head.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 24, 2010)

The thing about beards in current police and fire services is all about gas/air mask seals, as I understand it.  Or at least that's the justification given.  I wonder how that worked out for this guy?


----------



## blink13 (Mar 24, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> The thing about beards in current police and fire services is all about gas/air mask seals, as I understand it.  Or at least that's the justification given.  I wonder how that worked out for this guy?



The article said it worked just fine.


----------



## Carol (Mar 24, 2010)

Gordon Nore said:


> It would be interesting to know what Islamic law says about this. I know that Muslim soldiers are excused from fasting, for instance.



Islamic law says nothing about turbans, which are cultural. There are certain stipulations to hair/beard length that are gender based.

As far as US law is concerned, much has to do bona-fide occupational qualifications, how reasonable the accommodation and whether the accommodation was asked for to begin with.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 24, 2010)

Carol said:


> Islamic law says nothing about turbans, which are cultural. There are certain stipulations to hair/beard length that are gender based.
> 
> As far as US law is concerned, much has to do bona-fide occupational qualifications, how reasonable the accommodation and whether the accommodation was asked for to begin with.



Understood. I was responding to Bill's comment about Muslims having to pray five times each day.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 25, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Well the Burka Bunch isn't exactly bursting down the doors to get into the military so it's not an issue.
> 
> They guy is in uniform after all.  So what if he's got something on his head.



You're sidestepping the question I asked. What if a woman did ask to enlist, but insisted on wearing a burka? As to the turban; in my Marine Corps, the uniform includes a uniform cover (hat). Not any old cover, but a specific one. So if you're not wearing it, no, you're not in uniform.


----------



## Carol (Mar 25, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You're sidestepping the question I asked. What if a woman did ask to enlist, but insisted on wearing a burka? As to the turban; in my Marine Corps, the uniform includes a uniform cover (hat). Not any old cover, but a specific one. So if you're not wearing it, no, you're not in uniform.



As far as US law is concerned, much has to do bona-fide occupational  qualifications, how reasonable the accommodation and whether the  accommodation was asked for to begin with.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 25, 2010)

If it's good enough for the Queen....
http://www.army.mod.uk/news/16176.aspx


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 25, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> The thing about beards in current police and fire services is all about gas/air mask seals, as I understand it. Or at least that's the justification given. I wonder how that worked out for this guy?


 
And JKS has it....Now, philosophically I agree that he should be allowed to serve and be allowed to observe any religious tradition he may have.  BUT, the policy doesn't exist to keep people from doing these things.  You can have a beard and you can't wear head gear because you can't get a seal on the Gas Mask.  My current job is the Civil Engineer Readiness and Emergency Management Flight Commander - some Army guys may know this as Chemical Company Commander.  I'm the guy who is responsible for gas mask and CBRNE Defense and training issues.  I can tell you for a 100% FACT that you WILL NOT get a seal nor be able to wear either the MCU2A/P or the M50 JSGPM with a beard or with a turban on.  If you go to a place that has any kind of chemical threat - no mask = death in the case of an attack.  

Personally - I never understood why beards were so prevalent in the middle east when they consistenly launch chemical weapons at each other!  I know that they do have a few masks that still work with a beard, but their effectiveness is greatly reduced.  We have a few also, but they require a completely different set of gear, much more expensive and we don't issue or train it to the general population.  

So to me...how does this guy complete his yearly training requirement?  How do we deploy him to areas with a CBRNE threat?  How can we protect him?  What about if something DOES happen to him?  What are the political implications if he wasn't wearing a mask due to his religious beliefs?  

In my opinion - let him wear it, but if he deploys, or goes to any of the myriad locations that DO have a threat, he needs to shave, take off the turban and be mission ready just like everyone else.


----------



## harlan (Mar 25, 2010)

'Uniform code.' *snicker*

I recall my hubby's days in the guard/army, and the whole 'uniform' thing was always contextual. Soldiers always found ways to push the envelope to express their individuality, or conversely to identify as a group within a group, through the uniform. And the Army has always been more intelligent on this anyway. 

And if woman can shoot and run and drive in a burka...I'm sure it might be taken into consideration. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> You're sidestepping the question I asked. What if a woman did ask to enlist, but insisted on wearing a burka? As to the turban; in my Marine Corps, the uniform includes a uniform cover (hat). Not any old cover, but a specific one. So if you're not wearing it, no, you're not in uniform.


 
As for the Sikh headgear, religious or otherwise, they've earned it as a group. Their reputation precedes them.


----------



## MBuzzy (Mar 25, 2010)

Oh by the way, a shaving waiver, depending on the severity (they can dictate a length) can make you "non world-wide deployable."


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 25, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> If it's good enough for the Queen....
> http://www.army.mod.uk/news/16176.aspx



Cool, Tez.

Looking at this photo and the one I posted above of the Sikh RCMP officer, I find that the turban does not detract from the uniform. It looks perfectly dignified.


----------



## blink13 (Mar 25, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You're sidestepping the question I asked. What if a woman did ask to enlist, but insisted on wearing a burka? As to the turban; in my Marine Corps, the uniform includes a uniform cover (hat). Not any old cover, but a specific one. So if you're not wearing it, no, you're not in uniform.



This is just MY OPINION, but as a long-time Marine I can get past it if he's a capable guy.  Hard to tell at time of enlistment/commissioning, of course.

Also, note that he's a dentist.  The Marine Corps doesn't have medical personnel or Chaplains.  We leave the non-warrior stuff to the Navy, who provides us such people.  I think most warriors would say that we don't really expect the same mentality out of dentists.  I've never seen one in a truly forward area.  Granted, in this current irregular threat, there isn't a "safe rear area," but, well... he's a dentist.  Got promoted straight to Captain.  You military folks... you know how these guys are, generally.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 25, 2010)

Dave699 said:


> This is just MY OPINION, but as a long-time Marine I can get past it if he's a capable guy.  Hard to tell at time of enlistment/commissioning, of course.
> 
> Also, note that he's a dentist.  The Marine Corps doesn't have medical personnel or Chaplains.  We leave the non-warrior stuff to the Navy, who provides us such people.  I think most warriors would say that we don't really expect the same mentality out of dentists.  I've never seen one in a truly forward area.  Granted, in this current irregular threat, there isn't a "safe rear area," but, well... he's a dentist.  Got promoted straight to Captain.  You military folks... you know how these guys are, generally.



I can get past it too - this is not a personal issue for me.  I have nothing against Sikhs, and as others have said, I respect them as people and as warriors.

But here's my points, which I think some folks on this thread are ignoring:

First, the Army has not granted blanket approval of Sikh headgear and beards to all Sikhs.  It's on a case-by-case basis, which means some Sikhs will continue to be denied the right to wear their beards and turbans if they join the Army.  This is going to raise questions about discrimination and fairness.  Why this guy and not that guy?  Why him and not me?  Are you saying he's more religious than I am?  Are you saying he's proven something that I haven't?  I can just smell the lawsuits coming.

Second, the US military has had Jews in the ranks for a lot longer than Sikhs, and more of them.  Some Jews have stricter rules than others.  Go to NYC, many of them wear a yarmulke at all times; they've never been allowed to wear it in place of a uniform cover (hat).  So why Sikhs and not Jews?  And please - those of you who said _"the Sikhs earned it,"_ OMG!  As a conservative, I get accused of being a religious bigot or a racist all the time by liberals; that's one of the most bigoted statements I can imagine!  Fairness dictates that a nebulous term like _"this group has earned the right and that group has not"_ is incredibly bigoted.  And Jews are just one group; there are certainly others who have various religious requirements regarding how they dress and what they carry on their persons; the military has never been any respecter of a person's desire to follow religious beliefs if it made a service member unable to wear the same uniform as his or her fellow service members.  Why are Sikhs different?

Third, I happen to work with Sikhs who wear the turban; and some who do not.  If you want to claim that Jewish yarmulke and Muslim headdress are more cultural than religious, I have to tell you, not all Sikhs wear a turban and some that I work with cut their hair too.  So they can do it if they want to.  Some are more observant than others, just like any religion.

Fourth, for those of you who are not aware of it, the five religious articles of faith include a dagger.  Now, do you think that Sikhs get on civilian planes with their daggers on their person?  They do not.  So it is clear that they can give up their articles of faith when they need to.  Some fulfill the requirement by having a keychain or necklace symbol of a dagger that they wear.  Fair enough.  If they can symbolize a dagger, they can symbolize a turban.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan

Fifth, so what if he's a dentist?  In the Marine Corps, at least, every Marine is first and foremost a rifleman.  No matter what their job, if the crap hits the fan, grab a rifle and start putting lead downrange.  Dentist, baker, candle-stick mater, it doesn't matter.  I'd wager the Army sees things the same way.  No reason dentists should be treated differently than other soldiers.

We have a military that wears a common uniform for a reason.  Many of those reasons have to do with things that are easily understandable, like hygiene and the ability to wear protective gear.  But even in situations where an individual military person can demonstrate that they can maintain hygiene and wear the required protective gear even with their special requirements respected, it's not the job of the military to cater to every single request that comes their way.  Once they start granting exemptions, there's no end to it.  Everybody wants an exemption, everybody wants their particular beliefs respected.

I see it as essentially unfair that one group (or in this case, a few individual soldiers) get their religious beliefs protected and the rules are bent for them, but everybody else is out of luck.  All or nothing, or it's unfair.  And 'all' is not a very good idea, IMHO.  So I vote 'nothing'.


----------



## blink13 (Mar 25, 2010)

Bill, I completely agree with you, but - 

He's a DENTIST in the ARMY.

That's two counts of "weak sauce" right there. 

Really, though, I do agree.  I (as a non-practicing Jew) once jokingly asked my boss if I could stop working Saturdays since he was very adamant that the Marines NOT work on Sundays (recruiting duty can be a 24/7/365 kind of job).  Fair is fair, right?  He told me that he'd let me observe my Sabbath on Saturdays if I stopped eating bacon.  Ah, good point, sir!

I subjugated my personal desires to the needs of the Corps a long time ago.  When I decided it was "me time" again, I resigned my Active Duty commission so that I could pursue other goals.  I NEVER assumed that the Corps would change based on my whims.

I joined the Corps... the Corps didn't join me.  Not everyone recognizes that the military doesn't have to accept EVERYONE.  There's no "right to serve."


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 25, 2010)

Dave699 said:


> Bill, I completely agree with you, but -
> 
> He's a DENTIST in the ARMY.
> 
> ...



Semper Fi and Mazel Tov.  If any group has 'earned the right' to wear religious articles in the US military, it's Jews.  I knew Jews who went to Mass with me when we were in Boot Camp.  It was a choice of Protestant or Catholic services, or doing pushups until either one was over.  Mass lasted longer.  And in the chow halls, you ate what they served.  Kosher?  Gluten-free?  Halal?  Not happening.  It's beans and baby dicks or go hungry.


----------



## blink13 (Mar 25, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And in the chow halls, you ate what they served.  Kosher?  Gluten-free?  Halal?  Not happening.  It's beans and baby dicks or go hungry.



Funny story.  I know you've been to the Stumps - ever go to the America Mine training area?  Far east side, near Amboy.  I was out there with LAR doing some combined arms stuff during CAX (not FINEX) in 2002.  The resupply bird came in at the normal time, but out hopped the Regimental Chaplain, which was unusual.  He was a Southern Baptist.

He came in to the Company COC asking for me, so I was summoned to the XO's vehicle to see him.  Turns out that it was Friday night (I hadn't paid attention) and the Chaps thought it would be nice if the Jewish guy had a kosher meal at the beginning of the Sabbath - so he brought me a case of kosher MREs!  Really good guy, and the kind of Chaps you like to see - yes, he's a Southern Baptist, but he'd look out for everyone.

BTW, the humrats (humanitarian rations) we distributed in 2003 were halal.  Pretty much MREs, really.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 25, 2010)

Bill mentioned somewhere above that the ruling is still case by case. One assumes that specific duties might not lend themselves to this accommodation, and for the safety of any Sikh marine involved that of and his comrades, he will have to choose between the turban and beard or the job.

When the discussion was going on here about police with turbans, there was some outlandish speculation that an evil doer might unwrap the turban and attempt to strangle the constable with it.


----------



## blink13 (Mar 25, 2010)

Gordon Nore said:


> When the discussion was going on here about police with turbans, there was some outlandish speculation that an evil doer might unwrap the turban and attempt to strangle the constable with it.



Seriously?  Wow.  Yeah, why go after all that stuff on his belt when you could instead choose to manhandle a symbol of the most important thing in the man's life?  Probably a poor tactical decision.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 25, 2010)

MBuzzy said:


> Oh by the way, a shaving waiver, depending on the severity (they can dictate a length) can make you "non world-wide deployable."


I work with a guy who was in the reserves; he had a waiver because he worked UC and therefore needed to grow his hair longer and occasionally wear a beard.  He had limits on deployability, though I suppose they could have lifted his waiver if they really wanted to send him somewhere.


----------



## blink13 (Mar 25, 2010)

Different situation.  The waivers are generally for PseudoFolliculitis Barbae, and only last so long.  If the situation doesn't heal, the service can administratively separate the individual for medical reasons (it's not disciplinary).


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 25, 2010)

Dave699 said:


> This is just MY OPINION, but as a long-time Marine I can get past it if he's a capable guy.  Hard to tell at time of enlistment/commissioning, of course.
> 
> Also, note that he's a dentist.  The Marine Corps doesn't have medical personnel or Chaplains.  We leave the non-warrior stuff to the Navy, who provides us such people.  I think most warriors would say that we don't really expect the same mentality out of dentists.  I've never seen one in a truly forward area.  Granted, in this current irregular threat, there isn't a "safe rear area," but, well... he's a dentist.  Got promoted straight to Captain.  You military folks... you know how these guys are, generally.


Actually... I know a guy who was a reservist.  And a dentist.

And (if I recall the rank correctly) a lieutenant colonel in the US Army Special Forces.

(Personally, I think that's one of the scariest things that could exist... Dentists that can be dropped behind enemy lines...  Go to sleep all happy, and wake up to a root canal!)


----------



## harlan (Mar 25, 2010)

Now...there's ignorance for you. Not to know the difference between Sikh and Thuggee. :soapbox:



Gordon Nore said:


> When the discussion was going on here about police with turbans, there was some outlandish speculation that an evil doer might unwrap the turban and attempt to strangle the constable with it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 25, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> I work with a guy who was in the reserves; he had a waiver because he worked UC and therefore needed to grow his hair longer and occasionally wear a beard.  He had limits on deployability, though I suppose they could have lifted his waiver if they really wanted to send him somewhere.



As an MP, I worked with plenty of guys who were assigned to the NIS (before the NCIS).  Some worked UC and yes, they wore long hair, beards, and dressed in civilian attire; there were also civilian NIS employees who wore uniforms and ranks of other services and were deployed inside organizations as if they were sailors, Marines, soldiers, airmen, etc.  That's the needs of the service, fully understandable; but also the UC guys did not stand formation with us, did not deploy with us to the field (unless they got in compliance first) and if/when their assignment ended, they came back to the unit looking like a Marine and dressing like one.

I don't really see this turban thing the same way.


----------



## blink13 (Mar 25, 2010)

My point was that the Sikh in the OP was immediately promoted to Captain and didn't spend time as a Lieutenant.  This is typical of medical folks, lawyers, and Chaplains - to be effective, they need to have some rank.  It wasn't a bash.

SF does need medical types, as their mission involves improving the lives of the "locals" in order to sway opinion in our favor.


----------



## blink13 (Mar 25, 2010)

After 10 years Active Duty commissioned service, I switched over to Inactive Reserve (IRR).  I stopped shaving.  I wear a beard or muttonchops.

However, when my promotion came through, I wanted to "do it up right," so I shaved, cut my hair to USMC standards, put my Service "Chuck" uniform on, and did the right thing.  I promptly stopped shaving after that.

When I go back on any sort of uniform-wearing status, hell yes, I'll shave.  That's what we do!


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 25, 2010)

Again like women in subs and gays in the forces it's really a non argument, we have Sikhs fighting on the frontline in Afghan as they were in Iraq, they are in the Navy and the RAF all with their turbans. They manage perfectly well and are as effiecient and as dedicated as all the other service personnel. In fact their dedication when fighting in Afghan certainly goes back a long way and is deserving of more notice and certainly more respect.


*The Battle of Saragarhi *



_12th September marks the Battle of Saragarhi that took place in 1897. It is the incredible story of 21 Sikh soldiers against the ferocious Pathan (Afghan) tribesmen, numbering close to 10,000. The staggering ratio of 1: 416 stacked against the Sikhs was both unmatched and unprecedented, making their "last stand" at Saragarhi as the greatest odds faced by any troops in the history of modern warfare. The Battle at Saragarhi is one of eight stories of collective bravery published by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). It has been mentioned as one of the five most significant events of its kind in the world which includes the Saga of Thermoplyae associated with the heroic stand of a small Greek force against the mighty Persian Army of Xerxes in 480 B.C._



_http://manvirsingh.blogspot.com/2009/09/battle-of-saragarhi.html_


----------



## harlan (Mar 25, 2010)

Thank you.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 25, 2010)

http://www.sikhfoundation.org/2009/...ilots-over-europe-and-merlins-in-afghanistan/





 
http://pluralism.org/news/view/22976

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal...t-for-uk-troops-in-afghanistan_100151973.html


Sikhs have served honourably in our forces for well over a century now all wearing their turbans. Parade ground spit and polish is no indication of fighting spirit, it only shows that the service person is familier with using an iron and polish. The true fighting spirit is in inside a person, bravery isn't shown by regulation haircuts and shiny boots, it's not the be all and end of a soldier. Don't mistake perceived scruffiness for a bad soldier, too many officers have assumed that smartly turned out soldiers mean a disciplined and efficient fighting force, they were very, very wrong.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 25, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Again like women in subs and gays in the forces it's really a non argument, we have Sikhs fighting on the frontline in Afghan as they were in Iraq, they are in the Navy and the RAF all with their turbans. They manage perfectly well and are as effiecient and as dedicated as all the other service personnel. In fact their dedication when fighting in Afghan certainly goes back a long way and is deserving of more notice and certainly more respect.



I beg your pardon but this is the US Army, not the UK.  And it's an 'argument' if two people want to argue about it, so dismissing it with that statement won't work.  I'm not going to shut up just because you announce it isn't an argument; it is indeed an argument.

Now as to their bravery and skill and ability and courage and so on - I absolutely agree.

Now please address my points, perhaps the one vis-a-vis Jews or Muslims in full mufti.  How can the US Army allow Sikhs to sport beards and turbans and not allow Jews to wear Kippah and sidelocks, or Muslims to wear Hijab or Amama?

Nobody is dissing Sikhs here.  Just questioning how they can be allowed to wear religious kit in place of uniform apparel when nobody else is allowed to do so (in the US Army)?


----------



## yorkshirelad (Mar 25, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What if a woman wants to serve in a head-to-toe burka? I personally would have a problem with that. Nothing against Muslims or their faith, more about not having any idea who was in there; a person carrying a weapon in defense of my nation should have a face.
> 
> And that's kind of where I have a problem with this Turban thing. If you allow one on religious grounds, why not all? Shall we halt basic training five times a day so recruits can pray? What of those who practice voudon or voodoo or such?


Women are given privelege. Women are allowed to wear their hair to shoulder level as long as it is tied back. This is not the case for men. To save any bollixology I usually buzz my head before drill. If women are afforded this 'hair' privelege, than there is no reason to deny beard and turban priveleges to Sikhs.
I'm happy to see this. Sikhs have a proud warrior heritage and have an illustrious hertitage in the British armed forces.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 25, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> Women are given privelege. Women are allowed to wear their hair to shoulder level as long as it is tied back. This is not the case for men. To save any bollixology I usually buzz my head before drill. If women are afforded this 'hair' privelege, than there is no reason to deny beard and turban priveleges to Sikhs.
> I'm happy to see this. Sikhs have a proud warrior heritage and have an illustrious hertitage in the British armed forces.



Uniform regulations for women are covered in US Army regulations, so there is no need to make exceptions.  Note that women must still wear the designated uniform, to include the cover.

The officer in question was granted a special dispensation based on his religion, not just to wear the beard and long hair, but to wear a turban in place of the prescribed uniform.  That's a bit different; women are not given leave to wear their hair longer than men based on religious scruples.

And again, I ask what about Muslims and Jews and others who may wish to wear special religious articles in place of uniform apparel?  If a Sikh may do it, why may a Jew not do it?  I'd like someone to answer that, please.

And finally - again - I am not dissing Sikhs.  Of course they have a long and honorable history.  And there is nothing stopping them from serving honorably in the US military - exactly as members of other religions do - within military regulations regarding appearance and uniform wearing.


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 25, 2010)

I'll explain the Jewish part. We wear a kippa because it's convinient. Any head covering will satisfy the requirement. The only tricky part would be indoors, but in the IDF, religious Jews wear a kippa under the regulation head gear as long as it does not interfere with the head gear. We also have specific instructions in regards to the beard and sidelocks. Both can be eliminated, or at least severely curtailed if need be.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 25, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> I'll explain the Jewish part. We wear a kippa because it's convinient. Any head covering will satisfy the requirement. The only tricky part would be indoors, but in the IDF, religious Jews wear a kippa under the regulation head gear as long as it does not interfere with the head gear. We also have specific instructions in regards to the beard and sidelocks. Both can be eliminated, or at least severely curtailed if need be.



Not all Jewish sects have the same observances, as I've said.  Same for Sikhs; some are quite willing to set aside certain practices if they choose to.  If Jews can conform to US military regs, so can Sikhs.  And Muslims, Catholics, and anyone else who feels that their religion requires them to dress or wear their head/facial hair.  The military in the USA is entirely voluntary, the draft ended in 1975.  No one who feels they honestly cannot comply with military regulations is under any obligation to join.  So why should a Sikh not be required to follow the same rules as a Jew or a Muslim?


----------



## Carol (Mar 25, 2010)

Bill, you're giving lip service to not dissing Sikhs.  You have a consistent pattern.  You speak negatively against a particular minority group, and then to strengthen your argument you mention things that other minority groups do that seem odd to you.   I'm hearing Tez and Yorkshire countering on your same grounds, they are mentioning minority groups doing things that may not seem odd to you, such as laying down life and limb to serve with our staunchest ally.

Some countries grant rights to folks of a particular religion. We do not. The structure we have permits for making a decision on a case-by-case basis, therefore that this particular dentist followed that methodology.  

Accommodations are largely based on three criteria:  bona fide occupational qualifications, how reasonable the accommodation is, and whether the affected person has asked for accommodation.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 25, 2010)

Carol said:


> Bill, you're giving lip service to not dissing Sikhs.  You have a consistent pattern.  You speak negatively against a particular minority group, and then to strengthen your argument you mention things that other minority groups do that seem odd to you.



It sounds like you're calling me a racist.  I hope you do not believe that of me.  I would be saddened to think anyone thought I was a racist or a religious bigot.



> I'm hearing Tez and Yorkshire countering on your same grounds, they are mentioning minority groups doing things that may not seem odd to you, such as laying down life and limb to serve with our staunchest ally.



I do not see any argument presented that explains why those who serve our nation must be permitted to do so wearing the clothes and hair style their religion requires, instead of conforming to US military regulations.  They're presumably just as brave with short hair and no beard, are they not?



> Some countries grant rights to folks of a particular religion. We do not.



We grant all kinds of dispensation based on religion, including providing military chaplains versed in many religions and the opportunity to practice their religion free of stricture or prohibition.

As far as granting 'rights', I disagree.  The US does not grant rights.  Rights are given by the Creator.  The US chooses to impose restrictions on the federal (and through them the states) to keep them from trampling our rights.  We grant no rights to anyone for anything.



> The structure we have permits for making a decision on a case-by-case basis, therefore that this particular dentist followed that methodology.



Yes.  And I have asked a very basic question.  While the US Army seems to have allowed this man to do as he requested, they have likewise barred other Sikhs from doing the same thing.  This strikes me as arbitrary and unfair, and I'd bet it would strike those who were forbidden from wearing their beards and turbans the same way.  Likewise, as I've stated, Jews and other religious sects have NOT been given this dispensation either - none of them, as far as I can tell.  In what way does this demonstrate fairness or devotion to the principles of equality of religion?  It would appear to me that the US Army is saying that some Sikhs are deserving of special privileges that others Sikhs (and all other religions are not). In what way does this demonstrate fairness or support of civil liberties?  Some people get them and some do not, on a case-by-case basis?

Back in the 1950's, the US military was integrated racially.  It was a difficult time, but we got through it.  Now imagine if blacks were allowed to petition for the right to integrate with white units, on a case-by-case basis.  That's what you're arguing for here.



> Accommodations are largely based on three criteria:  bona fide occupational qualifications, how reasonable the accommodation is, and whether the affected person has asked for accommodation.



The military has basic regulations concerning uniforms and grooming standards.  A Sikh can comply with those and still perform his duties as well as if he were granted such dispensation.  Any Sikh who does not wish to conform does not have to join the military, it's entirely his choice.

And since I am on friendly terms with a number of Sikh co-workers who do not wear the turban or the beard (and some who do), I am also quite aware that they're capable of choosing not to wear their articles of faith if they do not choose to do so.

I'm not at all happy with the way this is being implemented.  It's essentially unfair and arbitrary.  If your statement above is correct (qualification, reasonable and whether the person has asked), then why have no other religions been granted this boon?  And why only some Sikhs and not all Sikhs?

To my way of thinking, this is an all or nothing kind of thing.  Either you allow religious expression in the form of grooming and uniform regulation deviations, or you do not. Anything else is unfair at its heart.


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 25, 2010)

Religious Sikhs are required to grow their hair and wear a turban. That is a tennet of their faith. 

Religious Jews cover their head when praying or reciting a blessing. And head covering will do. We are also required to not cut the 'corners' of our hair. That is interpreted in many ways. We are not allowed to use a blade to shave our beard. There are some electric razors that are allowed. I'm Orthodox. I don't wear _payos_. I keep my beard neatly trimmed and my hair pretty short. There are times when I'll wear a baseball cap instead og a kippa. You can't quite compare the two.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 25, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> Religious Sikhs are required to grow their hair and wear a turban. That is a tennet of their faith.



And some do and some don't.  Just like Jews and Muslims, where you have all varieties of belief about what is required.



> Religious Jews cover their head when praying or reciting a blessing. And head covering will do. We are also required to not cut the 'corners' of our hair. That is interpreted in many ways. We are not allowed to use a blade to shave our beard. There are some electric razors that are allowed. I'm Orthodox. I don't wear _payos_. I keep my beard neatly trimmed and my hair pretty short. There are times when I'll wear a baseball cap instead og a kippa. You can't quite compare the two.



Sure I can.  You know for a fact, just like I do, that there are Orthodox, Hasidic, and other sects of Judaism that impose different religious restrictions on members of their faith.  It's exactly the same thing.

What you're saying is that your branch of Judaism permits you to make some compromises and that Sikhs are not allowed to do so.  But I tell you that I work with Sikhs who do where the Five K's and Sikhs who do not.  So it is clear that not all Sikhs follow the Five K's just as not all Jews wear Payos.  It's the same thing.


----------



## Carol (Mar 25, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It sounds like you're calling me a racist.  I hope you do not believe that of me.  I would be saddened to think anyone thought I was a racist or a religious bigot.



Not in the least.  I don't believe you are a racist, bigot or any such thing, and I think very highly of you.  However, I don't think your style and the strength of your points have been reflecting that. 



> I do not see any argument presented that explains why those who serve our nation must be permitted to do so wearing the clothes and hair style their religion requires, instead of conforming to US military regulations.  They're presumably just as brave with short hair and no beard, are they not?



There is no equivalent in the west.  There is really no comparison to draw a neat paralell.  For a keshdari (devout unshorn) Sikh, their articles are part and parcel to what they are.  To a less devout person, they are less important.



> Yes.  And I have asked a very basic question.  While the US Army seems to have allowed this man to do as he requested, they have likewise barred other Sikhs from doing the same thing.  This strikes me as arbitrary and unfair, and I'd bet it would strike those who were forbidden from wearing their beards and turbans the same way.  Likewise, as I've stated, Jews and other religious sects have NOT been given this dispensation either - none of them, as far as I can tell.  In what way does this demonstrate fairness or devotion to the principles of equality of religion?  It would appear to me that the US Army is saying that some Sikhs are deserving of special privileges that others Sikhs (and all other religions are not). In what way does this demonstrate fairness or support of civil liberties?  Some people get them and some do not, on a case-by-case basis?



Jews and other religions have not been given dispensation as a whole.  Some Jewish folks have asked for, and been granted certain dispensations, such as wearing a yarmulke in a mess hall or under a helmet.  As far as why some and not others...I don't know why others were turned down.  

Much depends on the accommodation required, and the demands for the job.  The applicable  for a dentist is likely very different than what is workable for (say) an infantryman...including scarcity of talent.  If you don't have enough dentists, then that provides extra motivation to not lose the ones you have.  




> Back in the 1950's, the US military was integrated racially.  It was a difficult time, but we got through it.  Now imagine if blacks were allowed to petition for the right to integrate with white units, on a case-by-case basis.  That's what you're arguing for here.



That is not what I am arguing. 

One, people of all religions can join the military much like people from all religions.

Two, for a Sikh to succeed the way he did, he had to follow the current laws/procedures we have in place.  Not ones we don't have.  Not ones we should have, or want to have, but what we do have.

Three, religious accommodation is the accommodation of specific practices.  If a Sikh chooses to not be as orthodox with the practice of his faith, that is up to him, or between him and God.  The person requesting the accommodation has to first ask for it, then a decision must be made as to whether granting the accommodation is reasonable or not.  

The decisions are case by case because not everyone asks for the same accommodation, and not everyone's accommodation will have equal impact.



> The military has basic regulations concerning uniforms and grooming standards.  A Sikh can comply with those and still perform his duties as well as if he were granted such dispensation.  Any Sikh who does not wish to conform does not have to join the military, it's entirely his choice.
> 
> And since I am on friendly terms with a number of Sikh co-workers who do not wear the turban or the beard (and some who do), I am also quite aware that they're capable of choosing not to wear their articles of faith if they do not choose to do so.



What you think they are capable of doing, or what another Sikh says they are capable of doing does not come in to play with regards to the definition of a deeply and sincerely held belief.  



> I'm not at all happy with the way this is being implemented.  It's essentially unfair and arbitrary.  If your statement above is correct (qualification, reasonable and whether the person has asked), then why have no other religions been granted this boon?  And why only some Sikhs and not all Sikhs?



Perhaps it is, perhaps it can be improved, maybe it needs to be done away with.   I'm certainly willing to entertain that.  But there is not enough data here to ascertain what happened to the others.




> To my way of thinking, this is an all or nothing kind of thing.  Either you allow religious expression in the form of grooming and uniform regulation deviations, or you do not. Anything else is unfair at its heart.



Fair enough.  To my way of thinking, I think there are certain accommodations that may be practical to make, such as a dentist keeping a beard and turban, and others, such as an infantryman in a burqa that may not be practical to make.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 26, 2010)

Bill, your aggressive way of posting is one of the reasons I haven't posted on MT recently. You take offence far too easily and turn things into a battlefield where none need exist.
What your country does is your business which is why I wasn't commenting on it as such, just the fact that wearing turbans doesn't detract from a Sikhs ability to function well in the Armed forces as proven by the Sikh servicemen we have had in our forces for over a hundred years, our military of course having never been segregated. Jews in the Armed forces here are allowed to wear kipah, in fact our Armed Forces have a great many freedoms as befits a modern, intelligent fighting force comprised of adults. We have many centuries of traditions but aren't hidebound by them.


----------



## blink13 (Mar 26, 2010)

Tez, I'm not going to put words in Bill's mouth or yours, but the way I see it is something like this:

Bill - this goes against uniform regulations.
Tez - So what?  Sikhs have always been honorable fighters.
Bill - Not doubting that.  I'm sure they're great people.  It's still against uniform regulations, though.
Tez - it's not about spit and polish.
Bill - Never said it was.

So, that's the way I've read it, and frankly, it doesn't look like y'all are disagreeing on anything at all!  I don't see the conflict here.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 26, 2010)

Dave699 said:


> Tez, I'm not going to put words in Bill's mouth or yours, but the way I see it is something like this:
> 
> Bill - this goes against uniform regulations.
> Tez - So what? Sikhs have always been honorable fighters.
> ...


 
I don't disagree frankly but the tone of Bill's post was antagonistic as they have been recently.


As to the guy being a dentist I take it yours don't follow you out into combat zones? Our Dental Corps does, they are trained soldiers first and play a vital role in frontline services, remembering that many who are injured are in need of dental surgeons which ours are, it's not just about  fillings and pulling teeth, it's about reconstructive and often life saving surgery on shattered jawbones and faces. They also work with the local populations travelling in Afghanistan out to the villages where on the roads they face the same dangers as the rest of the troops.


----------



## blink13 (Mar 26, 2010)

It was more a good-natured bash on dentists and medical officers.

The Marine Corps has neither medical or dental personnel, nor chaplains.  The Navy provides those services for us.

We're not in the business of saving lives or souls.  We delegate those tasks to others. 

Off-topic, though.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 26, 2010)

Dave699 said:


> It was more a good-natured bash on dentists and medical officers.
> 
> The Marine Corps has neither medical or dental personnel, nor chaplains. The Navy provides those services for us.
> 
> ...


 
Too much testosterone and far too gungho. A professional soldier doesn't take life needlessly just for the fun of it.


----------



## blink13 (Mar 26, 2010)

Okay, easy there, tiger.  In the other thread you came very close to equating all Marines to war criminals, and now this.

Who said anything about "needlessly" or "fun?"  I didn't.

Please don't question my ethics or morals.  You don't know me.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 26, 2010)

Dave699 said:


> Okay, easy there, tiger. In the other thread you came very close to equating all Marines to war criminals, and now this.
> 
> Who said anything about "needlessly" or "fun?" I didn't.
> 
> Please don't question my ethics or morals. *You don't know me*.


 

and that is why posting remarks that appear to glorify killing doesn't give the best impression to people who don't know you.


----------



## blink13 (Mar 26, 2010)

I will bear that in mind in the future.

You have a PM.

I'm going to bed now.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 26, 2010)

Dave699 said:


> I will bear that in mind in the future.
> 
> You have a PM.
> 
> *I'm going to bed now*.


 
People will talk, I'm off to bed too, just off nights!


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 26, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And some do and some don't. Just like Jews and Muslims, where you have all varieties of belief about what is required.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

I'll go out on a limb here and say that I know a bit more about the rules of Judaism than you do. The looks and wear of Orthodox Jews are more tradition than religious requirement. I don't wear payos, but I do not violate any of the Mitzvot concerning shaving and cutting hair and beard. If a Hassid joined the armed forces, they could meet the requirements of dress with no issue. More inconvinience in grooming, but no issue. Religious Sikhs are obligated to not cut their hair and wear a turban. It's 2 different things. That you know Sikhs who do not is not proof that none of them have to. The majority of Jews don't wear a kippa. It does not mean it's optional for an observant Jew.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 26, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> I'll go out on a limb here and say that I know a bit more about the rules of Judaism than you do. The looks and wear of Orthodox Jews are more tradition than religious requirement. I don't wear payos, but I do not violate any of the Mitzvot concerning shaving and cutting hair and beard. If a Hassid joined the armed forces, they could meet the requirements of dress with no issue. More inconvinience in grooming, but no issue. Religious Sikhs are obligated to not cut their hair and wear a turban. It's 2 different things. That you know Sikhs who do not is not proof that none of them have to. The majority of Jews don't wear a kippa. It does not mean it's optional for an observant Jew.



If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.  You say the Orthodox Jews are only following a tradition, not a religious rule.  You say the Sikhs are following a religious law, not a tradition.  Both have members quite capable of choosing not to follow their (law/tradition) when they want to.  So some do and some don't.  It's a distinction without a difference.


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 26, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. You say the Orthodox Jews are only following a tradition, not a religious rule. You say the Sikhs are following a religious law, not a tradition. Both have members quite capable of choosing not to follow their (law/tradition) when they want to. So some do and some don't. It's a distinction without a difference.


 
It's completely different.

Jews are forbidden to shave the 'corners of their head'.  Until recently, the only way to follow that commendment was to not shave. Payos are just to highlight that. There are delapidants and electric shavers that can be used and not violate the commandment. We can also grow longer sideburns and tuck them around the ears. We wear a head covering when praying and reciting a blessing. Because an Orthodox Jew will recite a lot of blessings through the day, it's more convinient to wear a head cover all the time. A kippa is convenient because it is unobtrusive but any kind of hat will do.

Religious Sikhs must not cut their hair and wear a turban.


----------



## blink13 (Mar 26, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> People will talk, I'm off to bed too, just off nights!



Funny lady.


----------

