Posted on May 17, 2016
Should the Army make exceptions to uniform policy based on religious beliefs?
23.8K
180
92
6
6
0
Responses: 47
No and No. I do not wish to sound insensitive but I look at this objectively. This is an all volunteer military. You have the regulations, standards, and expectations before you CHOOSE to join. If they are not acceptable, you do not join.
Military is NOT an equal opportunity career and they explicit permission/reasons to discriminate. For example too old, too short, too young, otherwise physically incapable of accomplishing tasks or missions due to their disabilities. Those were just the physical sides.
A beard for example may interfere with the utilization of a gas mask for instance or are they expected to be provided a modified mask? Or, due to their unique needs, are they to be assigned rear detachment automatically due to the difficulties/challenges this may cause the command? How will this impact the perceptions and morale of the rest of the unit? This means more expenditures, logistical nightmares and more. I applaud that people from all walks of life and beliefs wish to serve their duty but they can wear as they choose off duty. They have vegetarian meals available, even in MRE's. Other choices should be out of pocket. Again, I apologize if I sound like a jerk but we don't assign religions, just missions.
Military is NOT an equal opportunity career and they explicit permission/reasons to discriminate. For example too old, too short, too young, otherwise physically incapable of accomplishing tasks or missions due to their disabilities. Those were just the physical sides.
A beard for example may interfere with the utilization of a gas mask for instance or are they expected to be provided a modified mask? Or, due to their unique needs, are they to be assigned rear detachment automatically due to the difficulties/challenges this may cause the command? How will this impact the perceptions and morale of the rest of the unit? This means more expenditures, logistical nightmares and more. I applaud that people from all walks of life and beliefs wish to serve their duty but they can wear as they choose off duty. They have vegetarian meals available, even in MRE's. Other choices should be out of pocket. Again, I apologize if I sound like a jerk but we don't assign religions, just missions.
(16)
(0)
Cpl John Mathews
I guess I am insensitive too. Look up the meaning of the word UNIFORM! It doesn't mean significantly varying from a standard. As others have said, we have a volunteer military, if you can't/won't live up to the regulations then you can find other ways to serve our country that don't require wearing a uniform---CIA, NSA, FBI, or any one of hundreds of federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial agencies.
(4)
(0)
Dakota Reed
I am A Christin man myself I admire peoples freedom of religion in this country and that they have the right to practice it to an extent. When you put the uniform on how I see it you represent the Military not you as an individual. Wear A neckless or get A tat if your so set on people physically seeing your religion. I wear A Celtic cross all the time its tight can be hidden not shiny does not get in the way. could be tucked away next to your identification tags. The Military is an origination that you represent you represent them not A church. we don't want people to think we are A religious army America was not founded on that sort of thing it broke away from that sort of thing. hey wear your head dress on your own time. when your A man/women in unformed wear your patrol cap you represent your country and Military nothing more nothing less. that is just my opinion. I am all for God and Country and the person to your left and right. That does not mean I'm going to dress up like the pope in battle rattle. Or on Military time.
(1)
(0)
nope. If your religious beliefs prohibit you from adhering to regulations, you should consider another career path.
(13)
(0)
I am in favor of making accommodations wherever possible. However, said accommodations should not be shouldered at taxpayer expense. Take for instance, the good Captain's headgear in the pic. He should pay for that himself and not be issued it (I know officers buy their own uniforms). Now this can open the door for some very "different" accommodation requests from smaller religious groups. So I think we need to apply some common sense. In the case of Sikhs, a blanket accommodation can be granted for the grooming and alternative headgear as it applies to all Sikhs. In other cases it should be considered on a case by case basis.
As far as the pro-mask goes, I am not sure if the beard will prevent a seal or not. I was always told that it would, but I was told many things during my time in the Army that weren't exactly true. I think if he is willing to accept that risk, then there is no issue. After all, no one is irreplaceable. If he dons a pro-mask during a chem attack, and he dies, the next in line steps up and takes charge. This may sound callous, but if he knows the risks, that's on him.
As far as the pro-mask goes, I am not sure if the beard will prevent a seal or not. I was always told that it would, but I was told many things during my time in the Army that weren't exactly true. I think if he is willing to accept that risk, then there is no issue. After all, no one is irreplaceable. If he dons a pro-mask during a chem attack, and he dies, the next in line steps up and takes charge. This may sound callous, but if he knows the risks, that's on him.
(12)
(0)
SGT David T.
TSgt James Emanuel - While I see your point, even the British Empire didn't attempt to make them conform. The military appearance isn't 100% uniform even without the Sikhs. Maternity uniforms, and shaving profiles come to mind.
(2)
(0)
SPC Joshua Heath
I've had the mask conversation with CBRN soldiers from multiple countries and civilians that have worn them. It is easy to get a seal with a beard. You have to know how your face will interact with the mask, but all that takes is a bit of training. Otherwise I spot on agree with your point of view.
(0)
(0)
TSgt James Emanuel
SGT David T. - Thank you for reminding me. A beard was once a sticking point as pertaining to blacks. Their facial hair caused serious problems with daily shaving. With medical approval, they could let the beard grow, but it had to be neat and trim. Uniforms for maternity are obviously valid medical exemptions. Allowing "religious" headgear is not.
(1)
(0)
SGT David T.
TSgt James Emanuel - I do see your point. I just don't think we should exclude 500K+ people from service because we ask them to violate one of the most basic tenants of their faith. They simply will not do it. Personally, I could care less if someone shaves as long as they can do the job and do it well. At the end of the day, it comes down to them being able to close with and destroy the enemy.
(2)
(0)
As times change, the military should change too. Remember this CPT conformed to the standard when he enrolled at West Point (4 years) and while he was deployed. It shouldn't matter but others will see he has his Sapper Tab and a GAFB badge. The man has served his country proud. He went about the proper channels and procedures to get the Army to recognize his religion and how he can properly represent it under Army standards. As long as other soldiers in uniform follow suit, then this shouldn't be a problem
(6)
(0)
The Pro Mask will actually fit fine with a beard. I went through Chemical Weapons Instructor School without any issues and had a beard. My mask sealed fine. The US Army has made an exception for Sikhs and their traditional headwear. As a matter of Fact, I enjoy how their attire irritates those we fight and how it enflames others. A lot of people call them, "Rag Heads" and other bigoted names. These are professionals and warfighters. If they have assimilated into our society and hold an allegiance to our country and society, let them have their head gear. It looks better and more professional than what most soldiers wear and how they wear it.
(5)
(0)
This man fought and won against the machine. Anyone actually seeing how he did it and not just bashing him. Congrats to him
(5)
(0)
Imo religion is bronze age gibberish and myth. I think our Republic (and services) would be far better served with disolution of the chaplaincy and the never ending he-she gets to do something different.
(4)
(0)
SGT Bryon Sergent
I disagree sir, Christianity or any other religion is not gibberish, and whether you would like to believe it or not our REPUBLIC was formed on Religion. The fact that they where looking for a place not to be persecuted for what they believed and how they wanted to pursue there own faith and didn't want to conform to Catholicism. Most that came over claimed protestant if I am not mistake( might be).
(0)
(0)
Why don't we just change our country, and our military to the beliefs of other nations. Why is it when people from other countries want to bend our rules to fit there own. Isn't the reason that people come from other countries to ours because they didn't like where they where at? So if that is the case why bring the things that you didn't like and pick and choose, then make that new country you have come to, conform to your beliefs? When in Rome do as the Romans! They joined OUR country's Military. They may be a bad asses or not, but you are in OUR military. Why do we have to conform to it. They knew the regs when they joined and now want regs to change.
(4)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Last time I checked, we have no official religion, language, or skin color to be a US citizen..... so "They joined OUR country's Military" is bullshit. We are talking about AMERICAN CITIZENS who want to serve OUR country, without violating the basic tenants of their religion.
(2)
(0)
SGT Bryon Sergent
SSG Carlos Madden - Roger I FULLY understand that. So Because I am (Place Religion here) the military should let the special case not shave a wear a turbine. If one can do it what is to say I claim to be whatever religion and not shave. Where does it stop! If they don't have to shave heck, lets just all not shave and leave it to fate. I'm not trying to bash there faith at all.
(1)
(0)
SSG Carlos Madden
SGT Bryon Sergent I don't think you're trying to bash anyone, its a fair point. But there's a difference in creating an exception to policy and the Army completely throwing the rule out. The way I see it is if you really want to go though that process, change your religion and paperwork, go through the proper channels and apply for an exception to policy than more power to you. My guess is only people who are truly committed and need these religious exceptions would jump through those kinds of hoops. Realistically, it's a small minority of people and I doubt it will have a great affect on unit moral and readiness. Where does it stop? I have no idea but I also don't think we're going to see a groundswell of service members suddenly convert to sheiks and go though this process just to grow their locks and beards out.
The reality is this process has been around for a while and the Army has only had a few people go though it. "From 1948 to 1984, men of the Sikh religion were permitted to serve while maintaining their articles of faith. In 1984, Gen. John A. Wickham Jr., then Chief of Staff of the Army, eliminated the exception for Sikhs and others who wore 'conspicuous' items of faith. Sikhs who were previously serving on active duty were grandfathered in by the Army. Two Sikhs in the medical field, Col. Arjinderpal Singh Sekhon, a doctor, and Col. G.B. Singh, a dentist, continued to serve until their retirements in 2009 and 2007, respectively..." ("Sikh Soldiers allowed to serve, retain their articles of faith" via Army Times; March 25, 2010).
We're a segment of the US population that constantly takes issue with the fact that we're 1% or less of that population and thus disproportionally affected by recent war. Shouldn't we be looking for more ways to represent the United States' religious diversity in the armed forces so one part of the population isn't shouldering all of the military burden? I think we should.
The reality is this process has been around for a while and the Army has only had a few people go though it. "From 1948 to 1984, men of the Sikh religion were permitted to serve while maintaining their articles of faith. In 1984, Gen. John A. Wickham Jr., then Chief of Staff of the Army, eliminated the exception for Sikhs and others who wore 'conspicuous' items of faith. Sikhs who were previously serving on active duty were grandfathered in by the Army. Two Sikhs in the medical field, Col. Arjinderpal Singh Sekhon, a doctor, and Col. G.B. Singh, a dentist, continued to serve until their retirements in 2009 and 2007, respectively..." ("Sikh Soldiers allowed to serve, retain their articles of faith" via Army Times; March 25, 2010).
We're a segment of the US population that constantly takes issue with the fact that we're 1% or less of that population and thus disproportionally affected by recent war. Shouldn't we be looking for more ways to represent the United States' religious diversity in the armed forces so one part of the population isn't shouldering all of the military burden? I think we should.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SSG Carlos Madden - That is true. And those people are STILL allowed to do so. Anyone can move here and practice their religion without fear of persecution of their religious beliefs. You can still join the military and practice whatever religion you wish with without fear of persecution. The only thing you can't do, currently, is change the standards of the military based on your specific beliefs. There is no persecution in that and they choose to join the military so they know that is the case going in. The only argument that could possibly be made is if they were drafted as it is then no longer a choice for them to join. However, as I said earlier, it is a conscious choice on their part to join today's military.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next