US Army Officer Allowed to Wear Sikh Turban and Beard

[harlan]

Thank you.

 

[Tez3]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[blink13]

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]

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]

I will bear that in mind in the future.

You have a PM.

I'm going to bed now.