Posted on Oct 21, 2014
"Muslims Demand Army Change Its Dress Code To Include Turbans And Beards"
131K
1.31K
804
18
1
17
Clothing
Religion
Responses: 276
1
1
0
SFC(P) (Join to see)
I know that when I went through BCT, there was a Sikh there with us, in another company, but he was able to complete all of the tasks that were required of us while in BCT. To include donning the pro mask properly while in the Gas Chamber.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Christopher Mogle
Army uses Banana Oil then a weak CS correct? I like having a beard myself but if I was entering an active nerve agent chamber I would choose to shave rather than risk the seal.
(0)
(0)
SGM Robin Johnson
The Sikh Soldiers pictured in the article have been in several years and have had no issues, including with protective gear.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Christopher Mogle
Again have any of them entered an active chamber? Not CS, no Banana Oil, actual active Nerve agent?
Straight from the CDC "Anything that prevents the face mask from fitting tightly against your face, such as a beard or long sideburns, may cause leakage. "
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/topics/respirators/factsheets/respfact.html
Straight from the CDC "Anything that prevents the face mask from fitting tightly against your face, such as a beard or long sideburns, may cause leakage. "
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/topics/respirators/factsheets/respfact.html
CDC - NIOSH - Respirator Fact Sheet - What You Should Know in Deciding Whether to Buy Escape...
NPPTL Respirator Fact Sheet, What You Should Know in Deciding Whether to Buy Escape Hoods, Gas Masks, or Other Respirators for Preparedness at Home and Work
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I'm cool with beards because Operator.
I disagree with allowing it for religious reasons. The military is not a religious organisation. There's a fine line between being all-inclusive, and including only certain politically correct exceptions. You want to allow beards? Allow them for everyone regardless of religious or ethnic persuasion. Enforce regs just like you do with mustaches. You want to allow turbans? Make them match the uniforms and allow them. As a Jewish soldier, I don't ever know if I was allowed to wear my kippah (yarmulke for the non-hablars). I never considered it. I was a soldier first, American second, and everything else was irrelevant.
I disagree with allowing it for religious reasons. The military is not a religious organisation. There's a fine line between being all-inclusive, and including only certain politically correct exceptions. You want to allow beards? Allow them for everyone regardless of religious or ethnic persuasion. Enforce regs just like you do with mustaches. You want to allow turbans? Make them match the uniforms and allow them. As a Jewish soldier, I don't ever know if I was allowed to wear my kippah (yarmulke for the non-hablars). I never considered it. I was a soldier first, American second, and everything else was irrelevant.
(1)
(0)
SSG Tim Everett
Uh... all due respect, Sergeant Major, first thank you for the response but secondly I'm a civilian and have been for ten years. I got out in 2004 after ten years of service. When I got out, none of this was an issue because this wasn't a "thing". When I was in, I knew regs backwards and forwards for myself and my soldiers, and if I didn't know the reg, I knew where the answer was. Again, thanks for the response -- I'm sure there's an active duty or Reserve/Guard NCO out there in Rallypoint internet-land that needs this information.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
i've been in the army since 1997. it always been a reg. that you can wear religious head gear. as I have been wearing my.
(0)
(0)
SSG Tim Everett
Thanks for your response. I get that there are regs, and have been regs for it. It never crossed my mind to ask, because it wasn't a factor for me. My identity was not made or broken by wearing or not wearing it. I never felt like any less, or more, of a soldier. That was merely my personal preference, mind you -- not a belief that everyone should adhere to that standard.
(0)
(0)
SPC(P) (Join to see)
The issue though is that, while the Army is based around a group of individuals fighting together for the accomplishment of a single mission, we cannot forget that we are still individuals. While your identity might not be a "Make or break" sort of deal when it comes to your religious affiliation (or non-affiliation), for others it can be, and often is. We mustn't forget that pivotal fact, that our service unites people of many backgrounds and faiths. To deny that denies our ultimately strongest advantage over so many other forces in the world today. While I admit that I don't even know every reg, front to back, it is our place as NCOs (both current and former) to be able to make the realization that there are many exemptions allowed for many people, and for many reasons.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Although the picture is of a Sikh and a minor military change, and if you look at their history of Sikh fighters, they are a great ally to have, and good people. You did hit on an issue that is taking the world by storm. In the name of Equality, and acceptance, followers of the Muslim religion have been doing all they can to skirt the rules. Whenever something doesn't agree with their religion, they sue, or if it's deemed big enough, they protest. Now, several restaurants have silently switched out meat that doesn't agree with the Muslim religion, without telling the public.
In America, they have been achieving their successes through litigation. In other countries, they have done so by violent protest (IE: France, Norway,Sweden, England,etc).
I believe that a lot of what is going on is to weaken the American spirit. Because Muslims can't march in America through violent protest, they will only be matched with an equal and over powering violent force. But, it's a matter of time until we fall.
Do we want America to fall to the Muslim religion like Sweden, where they turned it into the Rape Capital of the World? Or France, where if they protest, the officials hide in fear, or England where they steal children off the street, drug them, and sell them a under-aged prostitutes?? Hell, they even attacked Buddhists so much that even the Buddhists are fighting them in the Asias.
The religion allows all this, and specifically speaks about it, that it's good as long as it's infidels.....and most of the world is asking "What do we do about our Muslim problem"
In America, they have been achieving their successes through litigation. In other countries, they have done so by violent protest (IE: France, Norway,Sweden, England,etc).
I believe that a lot of what is going on is to weaken the American spirit. Because Muslims can't march in America through violent protest, they will only be matched with an equal and over powering violent force. But, it's a matter of time until we fall.
Do we want America to fall to the Muslim religion like Sweden, where they turned it into the Rape Capital of the World? Or France, where if they protest, the officials hide in fear, or England where they steal children off the street, drug them, and sell them a under-aged prostitutes?? Hell, they even attacked Buddhists so much that even the Buddhists are fighting them in the Asias.
The religion allows all this, and specifically speaks about it, that it's good as long as it's infidels.....and most of the world is asking "What do we do about our Muslim problem"
(1)
(0)
CPT Steven Harder
Cpl Masi . . . you need to work on your slapping the knowledge into them a bit . . . maybe add in a "with all due respect" to make 1LT Doyle and others of higher rank happy. Remember, knowledge is power and ignorance/uninformed is bliss.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Robert Masi
Steven,
I understand your point. But I'm out now. And that makes me an equal. No man or woman can ever again flagrantly disregard me because I'm a lesser rank.
One of the few perks of the civilian life. Success comes from the group prepared to take input from anyone, for the best ideas and path forward.
And although that may be contrary in war (and that's why I never insulted my superiors while I was in), business runs by innovation. And innovation comes from everyone.
I understand your point. But I'm out now. And that makes me an equal. No man or woman can ever again flagrantly disregard me because I'm a lesser rank.
One of the few perks of the civilian life. Success comes from the group prepared to take input from anyone, for the best ideas and path forward.
And although that may be contrary in war (and that's why I never insulted my superiors while I was in), business runs by innovation. And innovation comes from everyone.
(0)
(0)
CPT Steven Harder
Very true Cpl Masi . . . but, we are still a brotherhood/family and usually show class/respect. That doesn't mean I can't speak my peace or even watch my words . . . I just need to know the person, time, and place. I've sat and ate with PVT's through Generals and even MOH awardee's . . . we are still brothers, regardless of rank, but at the same time, we all have class. Personally, I agree with you concerning rank, but, at the same time, I have the class to show respect and honor earned by my fellow brother.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Robert Masi
Steven,
I agree to an extent. And I'm happy we can have this discussion. And look at us not calling each other names. We both have points to convey, and it doesn't have to get nasty if we both treat each other as equals.
I recruit for a living. I prefer to find military candidates over people who never served. I show much preference to military on the day to day.
But, there is one thing I can not abide by. And that is when an agenda driven individual, of any form of leadership role, puts their comments out and expects people to sit by as if their word has merit because of their rank. She clearly doesn't know what the hell she is talking about. She tried to debase my argument because of a technicality that I addressed, and then she decided to call me a B.S. nonsensical word.
Obama is a fine example of this in the large scale, and Robin is a fine example of this on the small scale. And if she is going to call me an Islamaphobe after I actually did the research and analysis, while she sits back and accuses me on her bs unimportant emotion-based logic, then I have no problem knocking her off her horse and sticking her face in the mud.
I'm sure she can be a nice person. But she should equally learn how to handle people as I should be expected to, and she should learn the facts before putting her hat in the ring.
I agree to an extent. And I'm happy we can have this discussion. And look at us not calling each other names. We both have points to convey, and it doesn't have to get nasty if we both treat each other as equals.
I recruit for a living. I prefer to find military candidates over people who never served. I show much preference to military on the day to day.
But, there is one thing I can not abide by. And that is when an agenda driven individual, of any form of leadership role, puts their comments out and expects people to sit by as if their word has merit because of their rank. She clearly doesn't know what the hell she is talking about. She tried to debase my argument because of a technicality that I addressed, and then she decided to call me a B.S. nonsensical word.
Obama is a fine example of this in the large scale, and Robin is a fine example of this on the small scale. And if she is going to call me an Islamaphobe after I actually did the research and analysis, while she sits back and accuses me on her bs unimportant emotion-based logic, then I have no problem knocking her off her horse and sticking her face in the mud.
I'm sure she can be a nice person. But she should equally learn how to handle people as I should be expected to, and she should learn the facts before putting her hat in the ring.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
The armed service is about conformity for the better good. Whether you like it or not you are a number not an individual. Changing the dress code for one religious believe is telling everyone our country is kissing ass so the Muslims will like us. They haven't figured out its just not going to work. You cant change the minds of people who believe their way of life is the only way of life.
(1)
(0)
SGT Michael Glenn
SGM Johnson, I have a question for you and you alone.when the time comes (hummor me please,as we have been humoring your notions) and Obama does call martial law and does proclaim his intention to stay in command of this country indefinitely and rewrite all laws as we know them to the benefit of him and his muslim people and requires that all military turn on civilians to incorporate his martial law, where will you stand??? where will you stand when your relatives and friends are being placed into the so called concentration camps that are popping up across the country??? Where will you stand when Muslims that you are so feverishly trying to defend turn on fellow soldiers??? where will you stand when you finally realize that Obama's plans to restructure the military with illegal aliens was just an attempt to rid the armed forces of people who would oppose him??? I havent got a clue about what Im talking about??? time will tell wont it??
(0)
(1)
CPT Steven Harder
While that may be a legitimate question of the SGM . . . what she has said, has given no hint of her not being an Oath Keeper . . . SGM Johnson has been very clear in her trying to educate the ignorant, but clearly stating that the people in question ARE NOT Muslim and were authorized to wear the turban and beard in accordance with Regulations. For your information Glenn, the Sikh's have been sworn enemies of the Muslim's for century's and have fought the Muslim armies many times.
The Sikh's in question are AMERICAN citizens and in most likelihood, are 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation AMERICAN's.
Finally, this thread is not the place to discuss, nor argue the conspiracy theories you are questioning the SGM about. (Do NOT take that as a blanket statement on my standings on those theories.) Personally, if I was the SGM, I wouldn't waste my time responding to your above comment in this thread/story.
The Sikh's in question are AMERICAN citizens and in most likelihood, are 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation AMERICAN's.
Finally, this thread is not the place to discuss, nor argue the conspiracy theories you are questioning the SGM about. (Do NOT take that as a blanket statement on my standings on those theories.) Personally, if I was the SGM, I wouldn't waste my time responding to your above comment in this thread/story.
(1)
(1)
SGT Michael Glenn
Thats the nature of this forum my friend is it not??? I could care less if the pic was of mickey mouse, thats not the topic, the topic was about muslims and what muslims want to do within the military ranks, and yes this is the place to discuss these issues as it has everything to do with the topic, I do not trust muslims and by allowing them a foot hold to open doors within the military is also opening the door in other areas as well, johnson is insisting that people should not think of muslims as a threat and makes it seemingly obvious that she backs and supports them in their movement to be allowed to overthrow the current Uniform code, The individual in the picture was just one man, from India and it was said that the decision to revoke his privilege, could be done at any time if it appeared to be an issue or cause problems with in the ranks of service, this action has brought others forward who want the same special treatment as he did and therefore should constitute a problem or issue and his beard and rag be done away with. Finally I dont care if she answers or not, I feel I made my point and thats what I was after. She comes across as a bleeding liberal to me who thinks she is being patriotic when its her way of thinking that has ruined this country and placed a muslim loving jackass in office.
(0)
(0)
CPT Steven Harder
Glenn, your ignorance is continuing to grow! The STORY is filled with FALSE information as well. The STORY is about SIKH's . . . NOT MUSLIM's! The only thing that is about MUSLIM's is the title of the story! The story and the pictures are all about SIKH's . . . not MUSLIM's.
And even in the story, it states that the SIKH's demanded, when in fact, the applied, individually, IAW AR 670-1 for an exception for their turbans and beards. It isn't special treatment, there are no special accommodations, the whole story is to dupe ignorant people, LIKE YOU, into a frenzy about things that aren't true. Wake up and smell the coffee, as you've been lied to and duped into showing your ignorance!
And even in the story, it states that the SIKH's demanded, when in fact, the applied, individually, IAW AR 670-1 for an exception for their turbans and beards. It isn't special treatment, there are no special accommodations, the whole story is to dupe ignorant people, LIKE YOU, into a frenzy about things that aren't true. Wake up and smell the coffee, as you've been lied to and duped into showing your ignorance!
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
If this is truly the case, they should be required, as a fire safety issue, to wear Nomex balaclavas at all times. (see picture at left) It Is, after all, a personal protection issue for those operating around flammables and explosives.
(1)
(0)
Pvt Dennis Nagel
We need a new law moritorium. Every idea to hit the ground in the last 20 years has been the worst idea I have ever heard, even worse than the last. This idea is supremely bad. If you're with muslims, you're against us. Its that simple.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
this is a fake article. as the military always allowed reglious head gear as long as it fits under your military head gear. the are did a exemption and allows shik (spelled that wrong) to wear turbans. not muslims. also after some Jewish, and chrisitans groups lobby hard. the military will allow religious head gear that doesn't fit under the head gear, if it doesn't hurt the unit readiness, and is neat and clean in appearance. Unit commanders will either approve or not.
also wearing religious gear in the military been around for more then 40 years. oh and their are about 10,000 muslims in the military, and members of congress. enjoy veterans day.
SGT Abdul-Aziz
SGT AA
also wearing religious gear in the military been around for more then 40 years. oh and their are about 10,000 muslims in the military, and members of congress. enjoy veterans day.
SGT Abdul-Aziz
SGT AA
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Its time for the testicular challenged, trans-wannabe's, social equality-seeking recruits/cadets/soldiers and officers to understand that this is not a corporate negotation for a job application. I would PT their respective asses until they loved me or get with the program. My money is on the 'program'.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
AR 600-20 Chapter 5 section 6
(g) Religious headgear may be worn while in uniform if the headgear meets the following criteria:
1. The religious headgear is subdued in color (generally black, brown, green, dark or Navy blue, or a combination of
these colors).
2. The religious headgear is of a style and size that can be completely covered by standard military headgear.
3. The religious headgear bears no writing, symbols, or pictures.
4. Wear of the religious headgear does not interfere with the wear or proper functioning of protective clothing or
equipment.
5. Religious headgear that meets these criteria is authorized irrespective of the faith group from which it originates.
6. Religious headgear will not be worn in place of military headgear under circumstances when the wear of military
headgear is required (for example, when the Soldier is outside or required to wear headgear indoors for a special
purpose).
As long as their religious headgear meets all these criteria then there should be no issues. The big issue is probably number 6 though. Formations would still require them to wear the Army patrol cap or beret.
Facial hair can also be found in the same section:
i. Requests for accommodation.
(1) Requests for religious accommodation of wear and appearance of the uniform, personal appearance, and personal grooming practices of AR 670–1 may only be approved or disapproved by the SecArmy or the designee. All other command levels will neither approve or deny the religious accommodation request but will make recommendations as to whether the request should be approved or denied and forward through command levels to the DCS, G-1. Soldiers requesting an accommodation must continue to comply with AR 670–1 until the religious accommodation request is approved.
So with that being said, the Army does not need to change anything. Everything is already in place for all religions to practice their faith. They just need to read up a little and go through the appropriate channels first.
(g) Religious headgear may be worn while in uniform if the headgear meets the following criteria:
1. The religious headgear is subdued in color (generally black, brown, green, dark or Navy blue, or a combination of
these colors).
2. The religious headgear is of a style and size that can be completely covered by standard military headgear.
3. The religious headgear bears no writing, symbols, or pictures.
4. Wear of the religious headgear does not interfere with the wear or proper functioning of protective clothing or
equipment.
5. Religious headgear that meets these criteria is authorized irrespective of the faith group from which it originates.
6. Religious headgear will not be worn in place of military headgear under circumstances when the wear of military
headgear is required (for example, when the Soldier is outside or required to wear headgear indoors for a special
purpose).
As long as their religious headgear meets all these criteria then there should be no issues. The big issue is probably number 6 though. Formations would still require them to wear the Army patrol cap or beret.
Facial hair can also be found in the same section:
i. Requests for accommodation.
(1) Requests for religious accommodation of wear and appearance of the uniform, personal appearance, and personal grooming practices of AR 670–1 may only be approved or disapproved by the SecArmy or the designee. All other command levels will neither approve or deny the religious accommodation request but will make recommendations as to whether the request should be approved or denied and forward through command levels to the DCS, G-1. Soldiers requesting an accommodation must continue to comply with AR 670–1 until the religious accommodation request is approved.
So with that being said, the Army does not need to change anything. Everything is already in place for all religions to practice their faith. They just need to read up a little and go through the appropriate channels first.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
If they truly wanted to serve their country why not conform to the rules and regulations of the respective service they joined? If the military cannot enforce a religion how can an individual for their religion on a branch of service? This doesn't make sense to me, why can't their religion make the same exceptions they expect from the military?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
When one joins the military, they don't stop being an Atheist, Muslim, Catholic, Baptist, etc. To modify the uniform seems to be a concession on the "kinder / gentler" nation. One can certainly continue to practice their faith without any need to modify the uniforms. We raise our right hand and take an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States --the worlds biggest melting pot. So, to modify any uniform seems unnecessary --and would only lead to more administrative & logistical overhead. Wear your uniform with pride ...and practice your faith appropriately. Otherwise, this seems like an uncomfortable mix of church & state. The uniform is designed among other things to promote a sense of identity --no need to introduce individual expression, to include religion, to the suit.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google