"Muslims Demand Army Change Its Dress Code To Include Turbans And Beards"

You are replying to a post that is so misleading as to be false. No religious group 'demanded' anything. No regulations were changed. The DOD published a clarification of expectations about religious accommodations in January 2014. The Army already met those standard. The Soldiers pictured are not Muslim, they are Sikh and have been serving for several years without any issues, including wearing protective gear. The fact that so many senior NCOs and officers didn't know the regulations, policies, and procedures regarding uniforms and religious accommodations well enough to notice this, even though they have been basically unchanged for years, is troubling. You can check this out on Snopes.

You did sign an oath to protect and defend the constitution, and to obey the orders of officers appointed over you (Regulations and Instructions fall under that.) Freedom of religion is guaranteed under both the constitution and those regulations/instructions. Religious accommodations are granted in accordance with those regulations/instructions and have been for many years (as long as I was in, and I joined in 1980 and retired in 2012). In any case, you are replying to a post that is so misleading as to be false. No religious group 'demanded' anything. No regulations were changed. The DOD published a clarification of expectations about religious accommodations in January 2014. The Army already met those standard. The Soldiers pictured are not Muslim, they are Sikh and have been serving for several years without any issues, including wearing protective gear. The fact that so many senior NCOs and officers didn't know the regulations, policies, and procedures regarding uniforms and religious accommodations well enough to notice this, even though they have been basically unchanged for years, is troubling. Even the most junior Soldier could have checked this out on Snopes. http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/armyturban.asp

You are replying to a post that is so misleading as to be false. No religious group 'demanded' anything. No regulations were changed. The DOD published a clarification of expectations about religious accommodations in January 2014. The Army already met those standard. The Soldiers pictured are not Muslim, they are Sikh and have been serving for several years without any issues, including wearing protective gear. The fact that you didn't know the regulations, policies, and procedures regarding uniforms and religious accommodations well enough to notice this, even though they have been basically unchanged for years, is troubling. Even the most junior Soldier could have checked this out on Snopes. http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/armyturban.asp

This isn't a matter of giving up jeans. The Nation's military should reflect the Nation we serve. Summarily precluding an entire segment of the nation from serving for reasons that do not affect mission readiness not only discriminates against that segment of society, but denies the military access to the many talented men and women within that segment. Also, you are replying to a post that is so misleading as to be false. No religious group 'demanded' anything. No regulations were changed. The DOD published a clarification of expectations about religious accommodations in January 2014. The Army already met those standard. The Soldiers pictured are not Muslim, they are Sikh and have been serving for several years without any issues, including wearing protective gear. The fact that you didn't know the regulations, policies, and procedures regarding uniforms and religious accommodations well enough to notice this, even though they have been basically unchanged for years, is troubling. Even the most junior Soldier could have checked this out on Snopes. http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/armyturban.asp

Robin, you are so off the mark, it isn't even funny. What you are saying is that America should always change the rules for everyone some people can't figure out how to conform to the rules. Or live up to the standards.
Not only is this a dangerous belief, but it's proven not to work....additionally, it's offensive to older generations that played by the rules in order to be Americans, or in this case be in the Military.
That's like saying we should give illegals citizenship because they were to stupid to figure out how to come here legally, or what's worse is that they don't care about the rules.
The ladder is offensive to my family because they escaped from the Nazis, traveled across Europe with nothing, and still managed to come to America LEGALLY. Where do you draw the line? A rule is a RULE.
By your logic, why even have rules if you can say "But these people don't have to follow them"? That's not a rule, and that's no way to be a leader.

When it comes down to it, if you can't live up to the Standards as everyone else, then you don't belong. You are a wannabe. And even if they change the rules, you (and everyone that matters) will always know that you couldn't hack it unless you cheated and had the standards lowered, or changed completely.

I swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution and to obey the orders of the officers appointed over me (which covers regulations). Both the constitution and military regulation guarantee freedom of religion and military regulations allow for religious accommodation and provide the policies and procedures for them. Those who obstruct them or fail to follow those guidelines not only violate their service's core values, they also violate various Instructions/Regulations (in the Army it is AR 600-20, Army Command Policy). Having spent 32 years in the Army, I am well aware of how to live a disciplined life adhering to rules and regulations, CPL Masi. And being mixed Cherokee/European(German/Scot-Irish/English) ancestry I understand about the mixed blessings of immigration. However, in this case it is simple. The military DOES have regulations, the Soldiers pictured followed them to the letter. They have served with distinction and the post is FALSE. No group demanded anything. No change was made to regulation. The Soldiers are not Muslim. The Soldiers followed the regulation. The Sikh soldiers pictured have been in the Army for years, have a valid accommodation and therefore ARE in compliance with AR 670-1, have served with distinction doing EVERYTHING with NO ISSUE (including wearing protective gear.) If you wouldn't want them saving your life, it is a good thing you are no longer serving - they are putting their lives on the line to save other Soldiers and that is good enough for me.

Cpl Masi - Your ignorance is astounding . . . Having a German/Russian Mennonite heritage . . . since you want to go there, my family in the old country died at the hands of the Germans and Russians . . . they didn't flee . . . they stood their ground and died for their beliefs. Mennonites are recognized as CO and nobody questions that . . . But, I enlisted in the Infantry and served 13 years in the Infantry. You read it right, obviously not all Mennonites are CO. When I took my commission, I was still Infantry. Did I ask for any special accommodations? NO! Then again, there wasn't any I wanted and so no exceptions were requested and none given.

These Sikh's requested an exception and it was given . . . end of story!

Were you a Hairy or a Pickle when you went to the tute in '96? Did you graduate from the Hill?

Sikh's were serving in the US Army during WWI and learned to get a good seal on their mask's . . . they still know how to get the seal. They've proven that in the US Army, Indian Army, British Army, Canadian Army, and Australian Army. Sikh's were serving in the US Army when I entered in the 70's . . . with beards and turbans, but were forced out due to changes in the regulations. BIG loss for us.

NMMI - JMC grad '77

I am sorry did not have that jargon when I was there LOL! I am guessing that is in reference to either Highschool or JC? I was a JC, the derogatory term for us was JAFY, Just Another Fcking Yearling! I was one semester short of graduating. I went to the tute with the intent of going to the AF Academy. Had a change of heart and wanted the traditional college experience. All my friends were bragging about all the parties that I was missing out on.

When I applied I made the decision late and could not get in until the spring semester. I ended up doing a year and a half. Because I was out sink with the semesters I opted just to leave at the end of 97 and start at the beginning fall at UNM in 1997.

I guess I am a 1998 JCX is my Alumni status.

I think it is a shame they could not serve. My understanding is that you don't want to be on the wrong side of a warrior Seihk's Ghurka.

Sikh's and Gurkha's are 2 separate groups/beliefs, but both are from a Warrior caste. You are correct, in that you don't want to be on the wrong side of either.

You are replying to a post that is so misleading as to be false. No religious group 'demanded' anything. No regulations were changed. The DOD published a clarification of expectations about religious accommodations in January 2014. The Army already met those standard. The Soldiers pictured are not Muslim, they are Sikh and have been serving for several years without any issues, including wearing protective gear. Time to start learning the regulations, policies, and procedures regarding uniforms and religious accommodations. You can check this out on Snopes. http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/armyturban.asp

SGT Barnes, yes, the CPT was one of the Sikh Soldiers, and as you mentioned has been in for years (with no issues, including wearing protective gear.) One of the important steps in obtaining a religious accommodations is the Chaplain assisting the commander in determining that the requested accommodation is indeed a requirement of a sincere religious belief. Just so you know, though, you are replying to a post that is so misleading as to be false. No religious group 'demanded' anything. No regulations were changed. The DOD published a clarification of expectations about religious accommodations in January 2014. The Army already met those standard. The Soldiers pictured are not Muslim, they are Sikh and have been serving for several years without any issues, including wearing protective gear. As an NCO you need to learn the regulations, policies, and procedures regarding uniforms and religious accommodations well enough to know when an article is mistaken, especially when they have been basically unchanged for years. You can check this out on Snopes. http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/armyturban.asp

The Growth of the Tactical Beard

There is little argument that humans instinctively relate a man’s beard to power, masculinity and other general bad-assery. From lumberjacks to world leaders to cutting-edge artists, the beard has floated between the realms of necessity and style, all the while reflecting a wide range of social characteristics including savagery, nobility, poverty, ruggedness, sophistication and panache.


Within military history, traditions and regulations relating to facial follicles have varied from the more standard trimmed mustache permitted by the majority of nations today, to the allowance of full beards for cultural or religious purposes. Some units such as the sappers in the French Army of the Napoleonic era and 19th century were even required to maintain full beards as a part of their official uniform. Across the board in modern military organizations, however, a strict adherence to order, discipline and professionalism requires that all growth be well-groomed. In special cases where even a beard is allowed, the beard must be full as opposed to goatees, long sideburns or beards without a mustache and there are measurements for all the dimensions imaginable.

tacbeard 180 180 The Growth of the Tactical Beard

The reasons for restrictions on facial hair are generally straight-forward. Aside from visual presentation and cultural traditions, the truly practical reason for restrictions on facial hair in today’s modern military is usually attributed to interference in the use of military equipment such as masks and other tactical or medical gear. As a matter of discipline and structure, modern militaries unanimously require their soldiers to present themselves in an orderly and well-groomed manner and a clean-shaven face is typically seen as a sign of refinement in western culture. This is of course in contrast to East Indian and Middle-Eastern cultures where a full beard is a respectable sign of maturity and often represents religious devotion, a traditional sentiment reflected in the allowance and even encouragement of beard use in those militaries.

As with all social trends and fashions, the beard has ebbed and flowed in popularity and today it seems to be making a comeback across the board. But for military and tactical operators and enthusiasts, the full beard has become a powerful symbol of the toughness and endurance as exemplified by special operators in today’s conflict zones. Across the regions of the Middle East, Northern Africa and Eastern Europe, forward operators have come to live, work and fight in direct contact with communities in which beards are highly respected. Adopting full beards has proven a key component to establishing trusting relationships with local populations and their leaders, and in some cases it is a critical component to blending in with the locals and maintaining a low profile. Special operators and combat troops have long enjoyed a bit more flexibility in facial hair maintenance when actively in the field and engaged in operations, but there is now a growing military and civilian subculture that reveres the beard and acknowledges the prowess of those who display it with pride, and who have the experience to back it.

Not to be confused with the “hipster” scene where sideburns, handle-bar mustaches, pseudo-rugged goatees and stylish 5 o’clock shadows have become increasingly popular, the tactical beard community has grown rapidly and has spawned community groups like the private Facebook group, the Tactical Beard Owners Club, which now boasts almost 11,000 fans on its Facebook fan page as well as over 1,600 verified members with chapters in various locations around the world. Originally established as a community to provide networking and support for current military operators as well as veterans, this group provides a powerful resource in maintaining morale and connectivity for soldiers and tactical professionals, both in fields abroad and at home. This brotherhood of the tactically-bearded reflects the camaraderie and respect that both military and civilian operators develop in their communities, and the proud display of a fully nurtured beard has become a badge of honor among those who truly deserve that honor as well as a sign of respect and recognition among those who value the commitment of those operators.

Those people need to decide if they're joining the military or a social club. If they're coming into the Army - it's a package deal. Lose the hair and be like the rest of us. Otherwise, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Sir, thank you for taking time to think about this. Our military does need to reflect the Nation we serve, and discriminating against a group not only harms that group, it also denies the military the skills and talents of the men and women within that group. Just so you know, however, you are replying to a post that is so misleading as to be false. No religious group 'demanded' anything. No regulations were changed. The DOD published a clarification of expectations about religious accommodations in January 2014. The Army already met those standard. The Soldiers pictured are not Muslim, they are Sikh and have been serving for several years without any issues, including wearing protective gear. Time to learn the regulations, policies, and procedures regarding uniforms and religious accommodations well enough to notice this, especially since they have been basically unchanged for years. You don't want to be caught unprepared when one of your Soldiers asks you for an accommodation. You can check out this story on Snopes. http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/armyturban.asp

CPT Brooks:

As a fellow Officer you know that policies drive decision making. I came in 1984, and this would have definitely been a no go. Thirty years latter all of the no go's are a go. The new norms create the culture, and the culture drives the votes, and the votes drive the leadership which drives the policies.