CNN: Sikhs fight Army over bans on turbans, uncut hair

[Perd Hapley]

Stand_watie,

The comparison with race is a bit absurd.  If jamis was saying that everybody had to have brown hair, you might be on to something.  But we both know that's not the kind of conformity he's talking about. 

The comparison with sex differences is intriguing, though.

[agricola]

Maybe they only recently started dressing/grooming like Sikhs? 

Maybe, but I doubt it - surely we would have expected to see the Army say that already.

Our military isn't the same as the other militaries around the world.  They are them, ours are ours.  We shouldn't bend and capitulate our standards to fit in, be global, whatever.  I'm sorry the idea of conformity is lost on you.  It makes perfect sense to me in maintaining military discipline and morale.

Thats nonsense though, and as stand_watie states it (conformity) doesnt apply to other groups where the Army has changed regs to let people in.  The Sikhs arent setting lower standards or requiring you to "capitulate", and the objections that have been raised - around gas masks and helmets - do not stand up when confronted with actual evidence that Sikhs can wear both without problems.  As for "military discipline and morale", do you really think that would suffer if they allowed people in with beards?  

[Jamisjockey]

I'm not pulling the moderator card, you didn't say anything offensive, I'm just trying to understand your POV.  I wasn't sure how you made the jump from grooming and dress standards to race.  

As for skirts, ever since women have been in the military, skirts have been part of their uniform.  Typically only their dress uniforms.  Once we started allowing wome into more technical fields, they actually began to be requried to wear pants just like the men (think dungarees or BDU's).  Again, typically they only wear skirts as part of a dress uniform.

Maybe, but I doubt it - surely we would have expected to see the Army say that already.

Thats nonsense though, and as stand_watie states it (conformity) doesnt apply to other groups where the Army has changed regs to let people in.  The Sikhs arent setting lower standards or requiring you to "capitulate", and the objections that have been raised - around gas masks and helmets - do not stand up when confronted with actual evidence that Sikhs can wear both without problems.  As for "military discipline and morale", do you really think that would suffer if they allowed people in with beards?  

Yes, I do.  Because it is a religious exception, people of other religions or even without religion will begin demanding thier own exceptions. 

[MillCreek]

I have with my own two eyes seen US Army soldiers in a combat branch, at Fort Lewis, in uniform, wearing a yarmulke.  I am guessing that those soldiers were observant Jews.  So US Army uniform regulations must allow the wearing of some sort of religious apparel, at least in some circumstances.  I wonder if the uniform regulations are the same across the different services.  

[Jamisjockey]

I have with my own two eyes seen US Army soldiers in a combat branch, at Fort Lewis, in uniform, wearing a yarmulke.  I am guessing that those soldiers were observant Jews.  So US Army uniform regulations must allow the wearing of some sort of religious apparel, at least in some circumstances.  I wonder if the uniform regulations are the same across the different services.  

Well if the Army is allowing it for some and not others, that changes the game dramatically.

[MillCreek]

If you are an observant Mormon, and wear the 'temple garment' as underwear, I wonder if you are allowed to keep doing so in the military. 

[MillCreek]

I did some Googling, and here is a link to the uniform regulations permitting the use of religious headgear:

http://www.deomi.org/DiversityMgmt/RelHeadgear.cfm

Religious Headgear

Army
AR 600-20 (Army Command Policy), Section 5-6, paragraph g(4)(d), lays out the required criteria for the wearing of religious headgear.

Note that paragraph g(4)(d)5 states:

    "Religious headgear that meets these criteria is authorized irrespective of the faith group from which it originates."

The Jewish yarmulke is specifically approved for wear by military personnel, in accordance with DODD 1300.17; personnel of other faiths who wish to wear religious headgear should consult first with unit leaders and/or Army legal authorities.
    ARMY REGULATION 600-20
Navy
SECNAVINST 1730.8B (Accommodation of Religious Practices) provides very general guidelines regarding headgear (see paragraphs 10b-k), although the permissibility of the yarmulke is addressed specifically in paragraph 10.e.
    SECNAVINST 1730.8B
Marine Corps
MCO P1020.34G with changes 1-4 (Marine Corps Uniform Regulations). See Section 3005 (Caps/headgear), addressing the wearing of headgear during religious services.
    MCO P1020.34G
Air Force
AFI 36-2903 (Dress and Personal Appearance of Air Force Personnel)
Table 2.6 (Clothing/Accessory Standards), Item 15, provides guidance on who may approve religious headgear, as well as color and concealing requirements.
Table 2.9 (Religious Apparel Waivers) outlines the waiver submission and approval process.
    AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 36-2903
Coast Guard
On 9 Jan 2007, the Commandant of the Coast Guard issued an ALCOAST (Subject: Results of Uniform Board No. 41), in which the wearing of religious headgear by Coast Guard personnel is permitted. The type of headgear (i.e., pertinent faith group) is not specified. The Jewish yarmulke is specifically approved for wear by military personnel, in accordance with DODD 1300.17; personnel of other faiths who wish to wear religious headgear should consult first with unit leaders and/or Coast Guard legal authorities
    UNIFORM REGULATIONS, COMDTINST M1020.6 (SERIES)

[Stand_watie]

I have with my own two eyes seen US Army soldiers in a combat branch, at Fort Lewis, in uniform, wearing a yarmulke.  I am guessing that those soldiers were observant Jews.  So US Army uniform regulations must allow the wearing of some sort of religious apparel, at least in some circumstances.  I wonder if the uniform regulations are the same across the different services.  

I'll admit my observations of military protocol are dated to circa 1988- 1994, but I know for sure that, as of that time, some Christian religious apparel was exempted from regulations. For example, wearing a crucifix during basic training was absolutely forbidden.... unless you had a religious  restriction against not wearing a crucifix.

[agricola]

Yes, I do.  Because it is a religious exception, people of other religions or even without religion will begin demanding thier own exceptions. 

They already do though - the MREs example has already been mentioned, and Millcreek has just mentioned the yarmulke.  Besides, the exception sought in this case has precisely no effect on those soldiers performing their duties, would be unlikely to affect other soldiers (except that they too might want beards), and in short all that would result would that they would just wear a different hat and have a beard.  

[MillCreek]

I'll be darned.  There was a constitutional case on this very issue that was decided by the US Supreme Court back in 1985: Goldman v. Weinberger: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1097

The Court felt it was not a violation of the Constitution for the Air Force to restrict Dr. Goldman from wearing his yarmulke.  However, in 1987, Congress passed a law that reversed the Court's decision and allowed for the wearing of religious apparel in the military in a 'neat and conservative' fashion.

Interesting.

[Stand_watie]

     Here, just for fun, let's flip this argument around... IF - a genuine, unbiased  logistical evaluation of military issues determines that beards/turbans (etc) don't substantially hurt the military, but could impede it in some way (for example, safety of a small percentage of personell in combat zones, helmets/gas masks etc), I think it's also incumbent on religious leaders to do some real soul searching and to see if they can't find some accomodation for protection of human life in extreme circumstances. I'm not talking about major capitulation of religious tenets here, like for example expecting Jehovas Witnesses or Amish to reject pacifism, but rather finding exceptions to the rule like Jewish Rabbis did during Gulf war (IE "it's o.k. to shave enough to make your gas mask fit properly")

[Jamisjockey]

Well, there you go.  An exception for headgear has already been made.

     Here, just for fun, let's flip this argument around... IF - a genuine, unbiased  logistical evaluation of military issues determines that beards/turbans (etc) don't substantially hurt the military, but could impede it in some way (for example, safety of a small percentage of personell in combat zones, helmets/gas masks etc), I think it's also incumbent on religious leaders to do some real soul searching and to see if they can't find some accomodation for protection of human life in extreme circumstances. I'm not talking about major capitulation of religious tenets here, like for example expecting Jehovas Witnesses or Amish to reject pacifism, but rather finding exceptions to the rule like Jewish Rabbis did during Gulf war (IE "it's o.k. to shave enough to make your gas mask fit properly")

I don't think the Marines should make the exception.  There is a traditional  image the Marine Corps needs to maintain, its a big part of why we are respected and feared around the world. 

[Firethorn]

Well if the Army is allowing it for some and not others, that changes the game dramatically.

Oh I agree.  I should emphasize that the ONLY standing the army has is that people must comply with regulations; said regulations written more or less in disregard of religious issues.  

That means that regulations are written to neither support or restrict religion.  

Now, it's in the article that an exception has existed in the past, and individual commanders can sometimes authorize something not otherwise allowed Army wide.

Do I think it would cause huge amounts of damage to let them in, as is?  Not really, but to override the commanders, that would cause damage.

I think it's also incumbent on religious leaders to do some real soul searching and to see if they can't find some accomodation for protection of human life in extreme circumstances.

This I'll agree with as well.

Others have mentioned that such individuals can actually help ease tensions in the middle east - they're a familiar factor to those in the area.  This is also not bad.

Do I think that a compromise could be reached?  Certainly, but I don't believe that the military should just roll over for religion.

[Perd Hapley]

The yarmulke would be worn under the uniform headgear, correct?  Is this possible with a Sikh turban?  Mention has been made of it being worn under a helmet.  Can it be worn under a soft-cap, etc? 

Are we talking about this?
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0cgW8tF4Tn6as/340x.jpg

Or this?
http://www.sikhnet.com/files/news/2008/May/MizraAndSingh.jpg

[agricola]

They can wear the "casual turban" or patka - shown below worn by the "Sikh of Tweak", Monty Panesar:



Though it would probably look untidy if combined with the normal headgear of a regiment, especially when compared to the uniform headgear of some Sikh regiments in India:

[MillCreek]

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/legalinfo/sikh_poster.pdf

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

http://www.securemobileindia.com/patka.htm

I have to say that I have sure learned a lot from this thread.

[Perd Hapley]

They can wear the "casual turban" or patka - shown below worn by the "Sikh of Tweak", Monty Panesar:

I just like the term "casual turban." 

[Hawkmoon]

Today's military is an ALL VOLUNTEER force.

It has rules.

If you don't like the rules, don't volunteer.

Agreed.

There's a reason it's called a "uniform."

[MicroBalrog]

Agreed.

There's a reason it's called a "uniform."

And yet exceptions are made. Sometimes it is good policy to make them.

[Hawkmoon]

At the risk of derailing the thread, it should be pointed out that Sikh troops were amongst the best, and amongst the most highly-decorated, of the pre-independence Indian Army (and indeed there was a serious offer to raise a Sikh regiment as late as 2007).  Of course we had to beat them first.

But when they were fighting for/with you chaps, they had their own regiment(s). The turban WAS the uniform, just as the kilt is the uniform for the Black watch but not for the regular British Army. You lot didn't stick a couple of turbans into the Black Watch, or a couple of kilts into a Sikh regiment.

[doczinn]

It sounds like there was some serious miscommunication, or a complete lack thereof.  It looks like these 2 guys thought they would be allowed to keep the fuzz and the Army thought they knew they'd have to lose it and nobody bothered to clarify either way.

Or, two guys who figured out how to get a free education....

As for this, I wonder whether the Army is more afraid of the likely reaction of having visibly Sikh troops in the field (especially Afganistan), rather than convienient nonsense over beards and turbans being "against regulations"

"Convenient nonsense?" Not by a long stretch. Military regulations exist for good reason, especially these particular regulations.

I dont buy the gas mask / helmet objection either, since that isnt a problem in other armies in which Sikhs serve. 

Is there another army in which Sikhs serve that has a helmet that fits over the turban? Or a gas mask that fits over the full beard, and seals? Or are those troops at a serious disadvantage? Perhaps with a very small turban a helmet could still be worn, but not many Sikh turbans are very small. Perhaps with a very short beard a gas mask would still seal, but not many Sikh beards are very short. I don't buy that they can wear the same equipment everyone else does. And there's still the conformity that we demand of everyone.

Edit: I see there's a "mini" version. That ought to be allowed the same as a yarmulke is.

[Strings]

>Is there another army in which Sikhs serve that has a helmet that fits over the turban? Or a gas mask that fits over the full beard, and seals?<

Ummm... Doc? Reread the thread: appearently, there's a Canadian Sikh that wore the full beard & turban, with helmet & gasmask, and had no problems...

[doczinn]

Yeah, I read that. I don't buy it.

[Perd Hapley]

Do the CAF use the same gas mask we do?

I could see other types of gas masks working better with facial hair.  But our forces should NOT be replacing their vast supplies of gas masks with a new model just for a small minority of those who wish to serve. 

[MicroBalrog]

Yeah, I read that. I don't buy it.

Scroll up. You'll see some pictures I posted of foreign militaries with bearded troops.