The standard has been set within the military and public offices that when possible they will respect individuals religious beliefs and allow them special accommodations if it does not prevent them from doing there job.
I’m on the fence about such issues. On one I would prefer religion not enter into any legal or standardized policy, on the other I respect that people have belief systems and do not want them to have to give up their beliefs to participate in our society.
Practising religion is a choice that can affect others in a lot of ways; being gay is not a choice and affects virtually no one, aside from your partner, I guess, who is by prerequisite also gay.
First off, no, it isn’t, and saving your life isn’t even the real test. You’d better be alive, active, and at peak capacity as long as the military needs in case you save some other bastard’s life.
On the one hand I agree with this 100%.
On the other hand, I find it a bizarre concept that a man would not be allowed to fight in a war to defend his country because he wouldn’t cut his hair.
On the other other hand, I find it a bizarre concept that a man who wanted to put his life on the line to defend his country would choose to not do so because of a haircut.
http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/publications/2579/DSTO-TN-0510.pdf
This seems to hold that a helmet is very important in combat (i.e. in keeping you alive).
The Sikhs have a long and proud tradition in the Indian Army. The wear turbans, and also wear helmets.
The US Army isn’t India. The haircuts, seemingly lame to the naysayers, are a part and parcel of the conformity that breeds military success, a point that openly gay people don’t seem to get.
Seriously. Uniforms that have to meet standards. Inspections of quarters. All that happy horseshit is done for a reason, and it isn’t to make the soldier unhappy. It’s to keep him in a state of readiness.
If you cannot abide by the regulations, which apply to everyone, then don’t join. Simple as that.
Conformity in the military is extremely important, and individualism and making waves for the sake of what amounts to appearances is decidedly frowned upon.
Making the soldier unhappy is just an added benefit.
I find this thinking quite appalling. You are not alone in voicing it; it is rolling underneath several other posts here.
Suppose that the rule in the Army was this: You have to drive a stake through the image of Christ on the Cross, or you can’t be a part of the Army. Would you have sympathy for someone who wanted to join but was upset at this requirement?
The whole hair thing is not some silly custom that Sikhs follow, like the Irish drink beer or the Japanese bow rather than shaking hands. It has a deep religious significance. Requiring that they cut their hair is not the same as requiring that you or I do some minor bit of grooming. It’s something quite important to them spiritually.
Which is not to say that that alone makes it the case they should be allowed an “out” from the rules. But when discussing the issue, let’s try to avoid making demeaning rationalizations that disrespect the religious signs, symbols and activities of people who are not like “us.”
Which, by the way, might be said of some in our nation somewhat higher in the decision-making echelons. :dubious:
I was never unhappy, just overworked and overstressed. It comes with the territory. It’s a continuous training process. You are a soldier 24/7. If you can’t hack it or cannot abide by the regulations WRT uniform appearances, which hair is a part of, then join another army like the Germans that let you grow beards, long hair and drink bier on your lunch.
The issue is where the lines for regulation should be drawn. If they draw a line they need to be able to justify why it was drawn where it was.
You are also dealing with a human being and need to take that into account. There are many things we allow our soldiers to do that do not benifit our military in a measurable non-emotional way. In theory banning soldiers from wearing crosses or drinking or smoking even when not in active duty.
The uniform is one thing that the military has ALWAYS had absolute control over and always will. Again, it’s all a part of the mental conditioning necessary to be a good soldier, and I say that meaning that it isn’t a means of stripping you of your individuality so much as it is to try to bring people from all walks of life together in such a way that training for war and all its potential situations are accounted for and groups of people act in a like-minded manner, becuase otherwise, your army will NOT be effective.
Stuff like crosses and other religious symbols are different than hair…a crucifix can be worn on a necklace under your uniform, hidden…you can only stuff so much hair under a BDU cap or a helmet that you were fitted for in basic training and must wear two years hence in combat.
The smoking issue is trying to be stamped out…you weren’t allowed to smoke in basic training in the Army in 1988, and you aren’t allowed now. Sure, addicts find their way around, but smoking cigarettes after a mission where several of your buddies are killed is a small matter. Smoking and soldiers have been inexorably intertwined in wars, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Not that it enhances soldierly performance or anything, it doesn’t.
But its hard to ask someone to go through what they go through and not make certain allowances outside of the conformity regs.
The military will always have a dress code that someone doesn’t like along with a zillion other regulations. I don’t see a rational reason to entertain a lawsuit everytime someone disagrees with it. As was pointed out, there is already case law addressing the issue.
These guys’ll do just fine if they don’t get into the military, they can just provide proper health care and service to the private citizens of our country. I’m down with that. The fact that they WANT to join the military when they can get pretty damn decent jobs elsewhere is a testament to them in my opinion. Though, yeah… getting all your student loans paid off WOULD be a nice thing. But they can easily go the citizen route.
Is the military that hard pressed that they’d put their medics and dentist out there in the front lines? Or wouldn’t they have them away from combat treating troops who get injured AWAY from the battle zones? I’d think if they’re going to be at a Military hospital or a base or some such, there should be no reason for them NOT to be allowed to have their beards and turbans. I think the guy bleeding on the table isn’t going to care if his doctor looks just like everyone else and has a helmet on. Just as long as he gets the job done and saves the patient.
Sigh . . . I’ll make you a deal, DS. I’ll avoid making demeaning rationalizations (which I haven’t seen done in this thread, btw), if you’ll cut it out with the bullshit analogies. Driving a stake through the image of Christ on a cross? What does that have to do with anything?
Troops don’t cut their hair because they want to demean a religion. As has been noted, they cut it to conform, which is part of the military. Religious beliefs are respected in the military, but not when they interfere with basic military function!.
Muslim soldiers are allowed to pray five times a day at certain times, but not if that time happens to fall in the middle of a live-fire exercise. Christian marines are allowed to wear a crucifix, but not a shiny one directly hanging outside their BDU’s during a night patrol. A person’s religious customs are trumped by military regs, and our regs say that you cut your hair. What’s so hard to understand about that?
Are you trying to say something here? If so, why don’t you just man up and say it?
That is where you choose to draw your line. Obviously these Sikhs disagree and they are using their rights as private citizens to attempt adjust where the line will be.
As has been pointed out, that logic would apply to tatoos, piercings and an infinite combination of decorative preferences.
Unfortunate side effect of our society. The military serves the people of the US. If someone doesn’t like they way our military is functioning they have the right to challenge it.
I get your point and it was not my intention to be demeaning, but I think you missed my point completely.
Instead of your stake through Jesus analogy, let’s try this one:
A person belongs to a religion that forbids the wearing of the color green. Military uniforms are green. It’s odd to me (as is the converse; I’m conflicted on this as I would hope was apparent) that a person who felt it important enough to fight in the military would enroll and then refuse to wear the green uniform.
I’m not saying the practice is wrong. I’m not saying it has no value. I am saying that all religious practice is a choice, and that the decision making process that went into this story raises questions on both sides.
It depends on how you slaughter your vegetables.