U.S. Army eases rules on beards, turbans for Muslim, Sikh troops

Renae said:

So you would make up strawmen to knock down trapping e with a nonsensical point (under uniform, unseen, not conflicting) so you can call me a hypocrite if I disagree

Click to expand...

Have you back checked the history of this discriminatory policy? They served from WW1 thru Vietnam. Rule changed in the 80's. Though it had a grandfather clause.

JANFU said:

Have you back checked the history of this discriminatory policy? They served from WW1 thru Vietnam. Rule changed in the 80's. Though it had a grandfather clause.

Click to expand...

Whatever, you think it's a good idea, great, I disagree. That diminishes neither of our positions. I personally disagree with it. You leave that off base and you wear the Uniform, not the uniform plus "extra" Also, it's not discrimination, it's saying "you serve, you meet our standards, you don't get to change them to meet yours." Since EVERYONE is held to that standard.. Well, they were, now they are not. Now you have special people not required to abide by standards. Ergo, that's a problem.

Renae said:

So you would make up strawmen to knock down trapping e with a nonsensical point (under uniform, unseen, not conflicting) so you can call me a hypocrite if I disagree

Click to expand...

No, a strawman is presenting a false position and then attacking it. I was using a rhetorical question to point out that, if your statement were applied to the letter, then current religious exceptions would be eliminated. I was not claiming that was your intent, but that it would be a necessary consequence if you allow NO exceptions, as you seemed to be suggesting.

I could also have pointed out that while male placement of ribbons and badges is strictly uniform with specific distances for each, the female uniform allows for placement of ribbons and badges that suits the individual's specific proportions. Or the difference in hair regulations for men and women.

So my non-rhetorical question to you is whether, when you stated " Get it, UNIFORMITY. When you join the US Military, you leave individualism behind." you meant it in the strictest sense or if some individuality was allowed?

JANFU said:

Is it a religious requirement?? = Nope=Question answered.
Next up.

Click to expand...

I didn't ask a question.

I thought libs were for equal treatment.

Fishking said:

Don't particularly care but part of being the the military is being uniform, while uniformed. Can't tell you the number of times everyone had to take their jackets off in cold weather because a couple of people forgot them so we all had to take them off (and many similar such things). You join knowing you're making a lot of sacrifices.

So basically anyone should be able to wear a beard or w/e if others are allowed.

Click to expand...

I totally get the value in uniformity, but I remember stuff like that, too, and I always thought it was just dumb.

JANFU said:

I disagree. Religious accommodation that prior to this prevented Sikhs from serving their country. Basically, religious discrimination that has been amended, the original ban came out in the 80's

Click to expand...

It didn't prevent Sikhs from joining anymore than any other person with any particular beliefs would have to amend to join. I mean, you cannot be a pacifist and join, either.

Renae said:

Whatever, you think it's a good idea, great, I disagree. That diminishes neither of our positions. I personally disagree with it. You leave that off base and you wear the Uniform, not the uniform plus "extra" Also, it's not discrimination, it's saying "you serve, you meet our standards, you don't get to change them to meet yours." Since EVERYONE is held to that standard.. Well, they were, now they are not. Now you have special people not required to abide by standards. Ergo, that's a problem.

Click to expand...

The Military is reverting to what was policy prior to the 80's. Next it is religious discrimination. Next, they are not special, they have differing religious beliefs, that precludes them from serving based upon what?? Care to define what and why?

Renae said:

You haven't served. We all wear the same covers, the same uniforms... there is a reason for this.

Click to expand...

I have served far longer than you have and there are many exceptions. In the Army, female drill sergeants do not wear the same headgear as males. The Navy has, and Army used to have, different headgear for males and females in some uniforms.
Flight crew do not wear the same uniform as non-flight servicemembers. Tankers and cooks and medical and dental corps have different uniforms as well.

And do you want to compare your hairstyle in uniform to mine?

There is a reason for uniformity, and the SCOTUS ruled back in the seventies that the services were not obligated to accommodate religious practices with exceptions. However, they can if they choose, though they also have exceptions. I remember from the 80's that Sikhs were allowed beards and turbans, but ONLY in the medical, dental, and JAG corps (maybe administration). They could not serve in line units or deploy.

countryboy said:

I didn't ask a question.

I thought libs were for equal treatment.

Click to expand...

It is unequal- you know that as well as I - decisions was based upon religious beliefs. Now come up with something that relates to that specifically.

Fishking said:

It didn't prevent Sikhs from joining anymore than any other person with any particular beliefs would have to amend to join. I mean, you cannot be a pacifist and join, either.

Click to expand...

For religiously observant Sikh’s, the Turban and Kirpan are mandatory. Not all Sikh’s wear a Turban
Pls note that prior to the 80’s this was not an issue. Policy changed.

radcen said:

I totally get the value in uniformity, but I remember stuff like that, too, and I always thought it was just dumb.

Click to expand...

I think it's dumb in some ways but I also get it as well. Either way, it is what it is and either we stick with it or dump it to allow much more relaxed/varied standards.

JANFU said:

For religiously observant Sikh’s, the Turban and Kirpan are mandatory. Not all Sikh’s wear a Turban
Pls note that prior to the 80’s this was not an issue. Policy changed.

Click to expand...

Then policy can change for anyone to grow a beard.

Fishking said:

Then policy can change for anyone to grow a beard.

Click to expand...

This was based upon religious grounds, but yes it can. I do not see that happening.
What is your Naval Policy on beards??

JANFU said:

It is unequal- you know that as well as I - decisions was based upon religious beliefs. Now come up with something that relates to that specifically.

Click to expand...

Lol, I guess equal treatment only applies to Muslims and LGBTQWXYZ issues in lib lala land.

countryboy said:

Lol, I guess equal treatment only applies to Muslims and LGBTQWXYZ issues in lib lala land.

Click to expand...

As mentioned to FK, this was based upon religious beliefs. Reason why it was changed.
Will the Military change it for al. Doubtful, but it is NOT unequal treatment,
If all ya got is this is Lib crap, try another angle. Based upon why it was changed.

JANFU said:

This was based upon religious grounds, but yes it can. I do not see that happening.
What is your Naval Policy on beards??

Click to expand...

None of the Navy Service Members I've worked with have been allowed to wear a beard, but that is more limited to when I've been in joint service environments. In the Army, no one wears beards, but for a few exceptions. Sometimes human intel peeps and others who have a job where interaction with local nationals get waivers in order to gain more cultural acceptance with them, but this would be dependent on the location of the deployment. A lot of SOF units get waivers on deployments as well, or they just kinda do their own thing anyways because that's how they are. There is also sometimes a relaxing of standards on deployments if you are on a remote COP where you don't have much with you there. Finally, there are those that have extreme reactions to shaving so they get a waiver to grow short facial hair for medical reasons.

Basically, it's either something that can happen on a deployment, for specific cases, or a medical condition. No one rolls with beards back home.