Yeah, and as a member of the Budha Budha Budha Superman 5 Clique my religion says I must be allowed to wear a hot pink thong with leather chaps and my nipples pierced. Who the hell are you [generic you] to draw the line and say that isn’t allowable? Where should the line be drawn?
Why have military regulations at all? Why can’t my buddy wear a polo, Oakley shades, and Lucky brand jeans if he wants?
So, we let the Sikhs keep their hair and turbans and, in return, we get a bunch of Totally Badass Sikh soldiers? Seems like a more than fair trade to me.
ETA: Battle of Saragarhi - Wikipedia
AETA: Are they NUTS to say no?
It’s why we have a court system to determine where the line will be. A member of Budha Budha Budha Superman 5 Clique is welcome as to challenge the military to explain why they think he should not be allowed an exception.
Historically the courts have ruled against individual reasons while accepting cultural or religious reasons.
If an individual or group or people have the conviction to go through the court process I feel the court then should weigh the merit of the case. Your buddy who just wants to wear a polo isn’t likely to have that conviction nor is he likely to be able to convince the justice of his merit while one of these Sikhs mat have a better chance of swaying them.
[quote=“dropzone, post:42, topic:493181”]
ETA: Battle of Saragarhi - Wikipedia
/QUOTE]
I would totally watch a Movie called “21” about that. Too bad it’s already been taken by the blackjack movie. But still. Very cool to read about. I was always taught growing up that Sikhs were bad ass fighters, but I never really knew why.
No, that’s where the US military draws the line. Don’t like it, OK, support others right to challenge it, OK, but it is the regulation as of right now.
And it has been. People that act all put out and surprised by what they find in the US military were bovine sheep that accepted what their recruiter told them.
I mean, Jesus Christ, Of COURSE there are strict rules of behavior, appearance and the like.
What a fucking shocker!
:rolleyes:
that’s fine but religious dress issues have already been addresssed by the courts as posted earlier.
They feel they have a case. They can explain the previous case does not cover their specific exception or are arguing the previous ruling shouldn’t be applied. It is their right to take the issue to the courts no matter how redundant other people feel it may be.
Courts being experts on what makes an effective military, of course.
I think that any person going to court to assert their religious rights should be required to bring their deity along to explain to the court why IT instituted such silly head gear practices in the first place.
From a cultural viewpoint, could it be a way to give the followers an easy way to identify each other and identify as part of the group? Isn’t this what the army is trying to accomplish with everyone following the same rules and wearing the same uniform?
India does it, and it seems fine. Indeed, the Sikhs are an integral part of the Indian military. Which is what you would expect from a culture with a military tradition going back hundreds of years.
Yeah, sure, it’s something new. But in the past, we didn’t have tons of Sikhs around to join the military. Now we do, so we gotta figure out what to do about it. I say they are willing to defend our country and they are part of a religious tradition dating back hundreds of years. Why would I tell them that they can’t for what seems to me to be a very legit cause?
According to at least one source I’ve seen, Sikhs are exempt from motorcycle helmet laws in India. Should that be the case here as well? And if we’re willing to say yes, Sikhs can take their chances if they wish, then why don’t we say that to all motorcyclists?
I can understand the Army not wanting a unit to go into combat with some soldiers helmetless. It seems to me that it potentially can affect the way the entire unit operates if certain soldiers are unusually vulnerable. I’m not a military guy, though, so I may be wrong.
Googling produces a couple of sources that suggest that Sikh pilots in the Indian military substitute a small head cloth when flying, because of the helmet requirement. There are ceremonial Sikh battle helmets surviving from olden times; possibly something similar was done back then, too. Conceivably some compromise like that could be worked out for combat and other helmet situations in the US as well.
As for the turban in non-combat situations, it seems like it would be necessary to repeal the religious-symbols rule to permit it. What other consequences might follow from that? Maybe it’s not that big a concern. What was the impetus for the rule in the first place?
I just want to point out yet again that women can wear their hair long in the Army. Actually, they can grow it as long as they want, but they have to put it up while in uniform such that it doesn’t fall below their shoulders.
In other words, this isn’t some immutable standard designed to bring all the soldiers together in harmonious homogeneity. It is already a double standard, and if they can make an exception for women, they can make an exception for Sikhs.
Beards might be a different story, because ostensibly they are banned so that gas masks will seal correctly around the face. Although soldiers with skin conditions can get “shaving profiles” which allow them to grow very short beards (less than a 1/4 inch, I believe).
My big problem is with double standards, which simply aren’t legitimate in my mind. When it comes to hair, a double standard already exists. Beards and turbans are both banned all around though, so it is a different kettle of fish.
My take…
Hair: Double standard already exists for women, which, frankly, is annoying. Let guys wear their hair long, with the same restrictions as women. Then it becomes a non issue.
Turbans: Conservative religious items are already allowed in certain circumstances. Keep the requirement for dress uniforms and formal functions. All other times(i.e. normal workdays), a Turban is fine. If at all possible, an approved turban style would be preferable.
Beards: The primary purpose of not having a beard is to ensure a good fit on gas masks. Relax the facial hair rules in the military so that allowed facial hair is determined by the current risk of chemical attack. If you’re in an active war zone, sorry… the beard has to go. If you are stateside somewhere, then there is no issue.
Helmets: Sorry, your safety is primary concern here, and helmets do save a lot of lives. The military wants live soldiers that can fight, not dead/injured soldiers. Any time a helmet is normally required, the turbines have to go up and a helmet put on in its place, or something that can be worn under the helmet substituted.
Speaking as a former sailor, theres lots of rather bullshit, arbitrary rules that are present merely because some general or admiral didn’t like the look of something, which have no bearing on actual performance. Hair length, beards when conditions warrant, etc… I would have absolutely no issue with some of these requirements being removed or relaxed. Others, however, are there for a very good reason(like helmets), and those lessons were paid for in blood. The military needs to take a long and honest look at the uniform requirements and figure out what is superfluous bullshit, and what is actually important.
It seems to me that there is a reasonable compromise possible – if Sikhs are allowed to keep their hair uncut, then they can wear the turban unless they’re in a combat zone. After all, it’s only the uncut hair – not the turban – that’s part of the religious strictures.
Frankly, I think that that’s a totally bullshit claim, at least when it comes to irrelevant conformity like “Let’s all pretend to be the same sexual orientation.”
But for the sake of argument let’s say you’re right. Suppose the military really does fight better if everyone pretends to be the same as each other.
Even if that’s true, having everyone pretend to be straight is blatantly discriminatory. A far more fair policy would be to have everyone pretend to be free of all sexual attractions. That way, they’re all living a lie. How’s that for conformity?
Call it the Timmy Rule.
ETA: I swear, I did not look at the username before posting this! How’s that for coincidence!
I’m sure it would be funny if I got it. 
Is it a reference to that disabled kid from South Park?
Side note: What is it about the name “Timmy” that just screams “disabled kid”? There’s the Christmas Carol kid, the South Park kid . . . OK, that’s only two, but it’s still annoying. (Not that anyone has ever called me “Timmy”, mind you.)
What I meant by that is don’t you think that an openly gay (particularly gay male) would polarize his unit? Suffer abuse? Be a distraction?
IDK, I just think that if the Sikhs want to join the US military, they should have to conform to the rules like everyone else does.
Looking sharp is another aspect: having some dude with flowing hair just isn’t going to look good in the rank and file.
Some soldiers (i.e., those who are prejudiced against gays) might have problems with it, but why should it be the gay man’s job to hide who he is to make them comfortable?
Here’s an analogy: a soldier who was prejudiced against African Americans might feel uncomfortable serving alongside one. But if he went to his commanding officer with this concern, the officer wouldn’t say “OK, we’ll make the black guy bleach his skin and hair so you feel more comfortable.” They’d say, essentially, “Tough shit, you’re in the army now, and you’ll serve with the people we tell you to serve with.” And that’s exactly what they should say, because as long as being black or gay or whatever doesn’t make that soldier any less able to do his job (and why would it?), there’s no good reason not to let them serve just as freely and openly as anyone else.
I’m not certain I agree with the analogy. Racism has subsided quite a lot in the ranks of the military while homophobia runs rampant (at least it did when I was in the Army). It’s like the NFL almost…it behooves you to keep your sexual preferences to yourself or suffer being ostracized (or worse).
I don’t get the sikh versus female comparison, either. Females are, um, female, and as such are expected to look and be different. I don’t think it’s a double standard at all, as women are free to shave their heads too.
The uniform standards are different for men versus women, and so are the defined roles within the military. And for the most part, that’s as it should be.
It’s no secret that men are generally physically more powerful than women, and are more capable of humping a rucksack with 100lbs of shit in it.
Females have hygenic requirements that men do not have in the military too. Should we then tell them that they cannot stop the entire marching formation to change a tampon or shower?
Edit: I swear I’m not trying to be obtuse. My family’s deeply ingrained military background is trying to wrap my head around some of these concepts.
It would look good if the Sikhs were in a separate regiment or something, where they all had a standard uniform appearance within that regiment. Armies used to do this kind of thing all the time - the Russian army had all sorts of regiments of cossacks that wore the traditional attire of their tribe or whatever, but was separate from the other types of Russian soldiers. I think the British used to do the same thing, their Irish and Scottish units would have different outfits that reflected the traditions of their cultures. And the French had “Zouaves” who wore the traditional Turkish baggy pants and caps, etc. But this was all in the context of separate regiments that were intentionally supposed to look different from the regular soldiers, but maintain uniformity amongst themselves.