If it's good enough for the Queen....
http://www.army.mod.uk/news/16176.aspx
http://www.army.mod.uk/news/16176.aspx
US Army Officer Allowed to Wear Sikh Turban and Beard
- Thread starter Bill Mattocks
- Start date
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.
'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.
As for the Sikh headgear, religious or otherwise, they've earned it as a group. Their reputation precedes them.
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.
As for the Sikh headgear, religious or otherwise, they've earned it as a group. Their reputation precedes them.
Gordon Nore
Senior Master
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.
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.
OP
OP
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'.
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."
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."
OP
OP
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."
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.
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
Senior Master
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.
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.
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.
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!)
Now...there's ignorance for you. Not to know the difference between Sikh and Thuggee. :soapbox:
OP
OP
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.
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.
SF does need medical types, as their mission involves improving the lives of the "locals" in order to sway opinion in our favor.
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!
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!
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
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
