Sikh U.S. Army captain allowed to wear beard, turban in uniform

[XenoMorph]

if it makes the soldier happy and would encourage more to join the military that might not have before do to these reasons i dont see much of a problem with it. He did make it to Captain before getting this privlage so its not like he inlisted and then immediately complained.

[Belsnickel]

So, here's what is interesting in some of the arguments of "they should just not join." The Second Amendment has been interpreted by all sides in different ways, but one thing that I think a lot of people overlook is the interpretation of the right to defend your country, the United States. After all, the way it is worded definitely could lend to that interpretation. So in thinking that through, how would you reconcile that?

[XenoMorph]

if it makes the soldier happy and would encourage more to join the military that might not have before do to these reasons i dont see much of a problem with it. He did make it to Captain before getting this privlage so its not like he inlisted and then immediately complained.

Freedom of religion is allowed. although some other religions would have stranger demands im sure. overall this seems like a reasonable request and if it hurts anyone it would be him with gas mask or other gear that might be used.

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2016, 05:14 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: if it makes the soldier happy and would encourage more to join the military that might not have before do to these reasons i dont see much of a problem with it. He did make it to Captain before getting this privlage so its not like he inlisted and then immediately complained.

USMA grad, if I recall correctly, right? I mean, that's nothing to sneeze at.

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-05-2016, 04:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Your Mormon situation is irrelevant as that is not a requirement of their faith.

I guess I am just failing to see how someone being allowed to wear a beard when there have been, according to the article at the start, 100k exceptions for medical reasons alone already and a turban that we have seen can be worn in the same pattern as the uniform and I have seen in other articles can be made small enough to fit under a cap and/or helmet is going to cause any real breakdown in uniformity.


Sorry to tell you, but the government is an employer, military included. They should be held to the same standards as every other employer. I don't give the government leeway in breaking their own laws. As for jobs that may put you in harms way, there are plenty of them out there. There are many jobs that require the type of cohesiveness that exists in the military in order for them to perform their jobs safely and effectively. They must all make those reasonable accommodations.

What other job requires you to sign your body over as property of the government and can throw you in jail for quitting?

The military is much different than every other job and should be so. Not mad at you but hearing a civilian saying this type of stuff just gets my blood boiling.

Individuality and the military do not mix.

It is a whole different world. And trying to wuss it down to civilian standards is degrading its capabilities. Its not supposed to be nice, its not supposed to be accepting. Its supposed to be a killing machine that fights against the most despicable enemies on the planet.

AH people trying to bring political correctness to the military pisses me off like no other.  

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-05-2016, 05:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, here's what is interesting in some of the arguments of "they should just not join." The Second Amendment has been interpreted by all sides in different ways, but one thing that I think a lot of people overlook is the interpretation of the right to defend your country, the United States. After all, the way it is worded definitely could lend to that interpretation. So in thinking that through, how would you reconcile that?

So just let anybody in?

No standards at all?

Brilliant...

I sure hope the blind guy watching my back has Daredevil like capabilities. Its a shame we have to live in the real world.  

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2016, 04:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: None of these "ant-beard" arguments hold any water because the military has already made exceptions and allowed other military personnel to wear beards for medical reasons.

If it was as dangerous as some pof you are claiming then the military would have discharged all of these other guys who wanted to wear beards instead of allowing them to remain in the military.

First of all; I have already said I have less of an issue with the facial hair than I do the altered headgear. Secondly the medical waiver is for Soldiers that are susceptible to ingrown hairs and the length is regulated to be no longer that the medical condition allows (universally no longer than 1/4"). I see no danger in wearing a beard; as some are authorized relaxed grooming standards just to "blend in" in a Combat environment. In Garrisson they must conform with the regulation.

My issue is more directed to the headgear, for which one of the reasons of wear is to cover the long hair of the Sikh.

[fredtoast]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/02/us/sikh-army-captain-simratpal-singh.html?_r=0




Q. The Army has argued that letting soldiers be different could undermine discipline and safety standards. You are a captain in an engineering battalion; do you understand their concerns?

A. Based on my experiences, I don’t understand the good order and morale concerns. The response from my unit has been overwhelmingly positive. My fellow soldiers, my command, people I studied with at West Point, they have told me they support what I am doing. I have never had a single negative comment. The people I work with, they just treat me like a regular soldier, which is what I want. In the Army, people care how good you are at your job. Are you a leader? Do you work hard? Then having a turban and a beard doesn’t change anything.

As for safety, I was able to put on a helmet and go qualify at a shooting range with the rest of my unit, no problem. I was able to go through the gas chamber with my unit, too. I don’t see safety concerns.


Q. The Army says it will continue to assess whether your beard and turban are disruptive or unsafe, and if so, it will revoke your religious accommodation. What will this mean for you going forward?

A. Ideally it shouldn’t mean anything. I should just be doing my job to the best of my ability and meeting Army performance standards. If that is the case, nothing should change.




So does everyone feel better now?  All the concerns about lack of discipline or any other effect on the rest of the soldiers has been addressed.  Instead of relying on make-believe problems the Army has agreed to give him the exemption, but retains the right to revoke it if it causes any problems.  Seems like a pretty logical way to handle it.

[fredtoast]

(04-05-2016, 05:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My issue is more directed to the headgear, for which one of the reasons of wear is to cover the long hair of the Sikh.

What is your problem with the turban?

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2016, 06:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What is your problem with the turban?

Uniformity. As I said I am of the more traditional variety.

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2016, 05:28 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: So just let anybody in?

No standards at all?

Brilliant...

I sure hope the blind guy watching my back has Daredevil like capabilities. Its a shame we have to live in the real world.  

No rights are without limits, but where do you draw the line? Does the religious exemption for a turban and beard create enough of a reason to deny someone the right to defend their country if they can perform the duties as well as any other military personnel?

[fredtoast]

(04-05-2016, 06:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Uniformity. As I said I am of the more traditional variety.

Thank goodness the modern army does not sacrifice skill and ability in the name of uniformity.

I guess they think like me.  They would rather have the best soldiers other than just the ones that all look alike.

[GMDino]

(04-05-2016, 06:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Uniformity. As I said I am of the more traditional variety.

Even if it does not interfere with their duties?

Must they all wear the same underwear?

Full disclosure:  Of all the reasons I would have made a poor soldier, blind obedience and losing control over your own person is near the top of the list.  I knew better.

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2016, 06:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Thank goodness the modern army does not sacrifice skill and ability in the name of uniformity.

I guess they think like me.  They would rather have the best soldiers other than just the ones that all look alike.

What is that straw thing you and others around here accuse others of employing?

Where they hell did I say they should sacrifice skill and ability in the name of uniformity.  

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2016, 07:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: Even if it does not interfere with their duties?

Must they all wear the same underwear?

Full disclosure:  Of all the reasons I would have made a poor soldier, blind obedience and losing control over your own person is near the top of the list.  I knew better.

Even if. I could have done my job in blue jeans, but that would not lend itself to a well disciplined Uniformed Service.

It they wore the underwear on the outside yes. They have to wear the same T-Shirt

Somebody has to do it for you

[GMDino]

(04-05-2016, 07:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Even if. I could have done my job in blue jeans, but that would not lend itself to a well disciplined Uniformed Service.

It they wore the underwear on the outside yes. They have to wear the same T-Shirt

Somebody has to do it for you

I know they do...which is why I never disrespect them.

Lots of jobs I could never do and I have great respect for those who choose to.

So much so that I don't care if they wear a different hat while doing it as long as they can do it successfully.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-05-2016, 07:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: I know they do...which is why I never disrespect them.

Lots of jobs I could never do and I have great respect for those who choose to.

So much so that I don't care if they wear a different hat while doing it as long as they can do it successfully.

But your opinion isn't important, and I don't mean it in a bad way. I see 3 guys here who served all saying differently. While the military probably isn't interested in their opinion either,I will give credence to their opinion.

[GMDino]

(04-05-2016, 08:08 PM)michaelsean Wrote: But your opinion isn't important, and I don't mean it in a bad way.  I see 3 guys here who served all saying differently.  While the military probably isn't interested in their opinion either,I will give credence to their opinion.

I would too...if the military hadn't decided to do the opposite and allow the beard and turban.

Maybe some stop listening when they get out?

[McC]

(04-05-2016, 06:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No rights are without limits, but where do you draw the line? Does the religious exemption for a turban and beard create enough of a reason to deny someone the right to defend their country if they can perform the duties as well as any other military personnel?

You think he was the first ***** guy in the Army who was religious?  This whole thing is pure bullshit and symptomatic of the ridiculous attitude that is permeating this society, that all rules must be abandoned and every little pissant walking has some god given right to express himself and the rules shouldn't apply to me because I came up with some horseshit exception. 

Everybody else can conform but this guy shouldn't have to.  The bleeding hearts are out of control.  And the Army lets him do it to avoid all the further bullshit that would come down if they didn't.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-05-2016, 08:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: I would too...if the military hadn't decided to do the opposite and allow the beard and turban.

Maybe some stop listening when they get out?

But the army is also a political machine so the top may not always make decisions based on what is actually best.

And I'm not just talking this incident. Matt is expressing concerns about the loss of rights, and all 3 guys who voluntarily accepted that are saying it's necessary. It has nothing to do wirh being punitive because thwy can, but rather because ir's a job unlike any other. Other people have dangerous jobs, but none of them have a job in which killing people and destroying things is their primary duty. No other job is comparable in the least. Cops have to kill people on occasion, but that's not their job.

I was against gays in the military because I believed it could cause some issues in close quarters. Then just about every military person I knew said they couldn't care less. I figured if it doesn't bother them then it doesn't bother me.