Sikhs Challenge U.s. Army's Ban On Turbans, Beards

[Paladin D]

[url="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526241,00.html"]Sikhs Challenge U.S. Army's Ban on Turbans, Beards[/url]

[quote]NEW YORK — Military service is in Capt. Kamaljit Singh Kalsi's blood.

His father and grandfather were part of India's Air Force. His great-grandfather served in the army in India under the British. So when U.S. Army recruiters talked to him during his first year of medical school, he readily signed up.

But his plans to go on active duty in July are now on hold. An Army policy from the 1980s that regulates the wearing of religious items would mean he would need to shave his beard and remove the turban he wears in accordance with his religious precepts.

Kalsi and another Sikh man with the same concerns, Second Lt. Tejdeep Singh Rattan, are the centerpieces of an advocacy campaign launched by the Sikh Coalition as it tries to persuade the Army to let them serve without sacrificing their articles of faith.

"I'm an American, there's no reason why I can't serve," Kalsi, 32, said.

The Army has a long-standing interest in how its members carry themselves, with policies that ban exotic hair colors, long fingernails or certain colors of lipstick. Army officials declined to comment on the reasoning behind its policy that would force the Sikh men to give up their religious displays. Sikhs who were active-duty military when the policy was adopted were allowed to continue serving without shaving their beards or removing their turbans.[/quote]

(To read the rest of the article, just follow the link)

I have nothing against this article of faith, if it pertains to other professions or services (such as law enforcement, fire department, and etc); however, the Army is about [b]uniformity[/b]. I just don't see how it would properly reflect uniformity in the branch if it were allowed. I understand the Special Forces (Green Berets) are permitted to grow their hair and grow a beard, but that's solely for the purpose of the overall mission (to better blend in with the locals). I also understand that this policy was put in place in the 80's, and we've had some brave men in uniform who wore such articles of faith during their service prior to that. With that said however, I still don't see how one could stress the concept of uniformity if a particular group of people are given special privilages. Ironically, I'm for religious freedom and expression, so maybe my stance is hypocritical since these aren't simply fashion statements but are [b]articles of faith[/b] to them.

I'm mixed on this issue, but I would say I'm against overturning of the Army's policy.

[puellapaschalis]

The Gurkha regiments in the British Army are allowed to wear their turbans and grow their beards (at least I'm pretty sure they are; I've never seen any of them without!). From my father I've learnt to have an enormous amount of respect for these men. It would be odd for the British Army to tell them to not wear them.

However, it's a different situation in the US Army, I suppose, as (I'm guessing) there isn't a specific regiment with the kind of history the Gurkhas do. But with those factored out, I'd still wonder if such a ban isn't some kind of infringement of religious freedom.

[CatherineM]

Our local police get to wear them. They are the same color as the regular uniform caps, and I've never really thought much about it. I do remember my dad talking about how unhappy the regular army establishment was with the green berets in the beginning. There was a memo from the Secretary (if I remember correctly), that forbid the wearing of foreign type head gear. I believe it was President Kennedy who finally gave them permission to wear the beret. Now all the soldiers do. Progress is always possible.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1890455' date='Jun 14 2009, 05:19 PM']They are the same color as the regular uniform caps, and I've never really thought much about it.[/quote]

If the turbans are the same color, in which it'll help blend it with the uniform, then that would make things better.

[MichaelF]

Several Sikh Officers in the US Army have been wearing the turban for a long time. They were Commissioned prior to the rule, and were grandfathered in. They have been performing excellently the whole time.

In this case, as an Officer (Army), given the context, I would say the turban should be allowed. There are protective articles (helmets) that accomodate the turban (I've seen Sikh Officer in the Indian Army wear them).

[Paladin D]

[quote name='MichaelF' post='1890464' date='Jun 14 2009, 05:24 PM']Several Sikh Officers in the US Army have been wearing the turban for a long time. They were Commissioned prior to the rule, and were grandfathered in. They have been performing excellently the whole time.

In this case, as an Officer (Army), given the context, I would say the turban should be allowed. There are protective articles (helmets) that accomodate the turban (I've seen Sikh Officer in the Indian Army wear them).[/quote]

True, Sir. (Curious, what rank?)

But what is the limit then? What if women wanted to start wearing their hair down, and men wanted dreadlocks?

Edited June 14, 2009 by Paladin D

[KnightofChrist]

From memory, Sikhs have long hair under their turbans. The problem with long hair and beards for those in the army reveals itself in open hand to hand combat. A person with long hair on their head gives the enemy an unfair advantage. With long hair the enemy can easily grab it pull that person's head back and cut their throat.

This was my understanding of one reason why the US Army did not allow long hair and breads.

Edited June 14, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[CatherineM]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1890474' date='Jun 14 2009, 03:32 PM']From memory, Sikhs have long hair under their turbans. The problem with long hair and beards for those in the army reveals itself in open hand to hand combat. A person with long hair on their head gives the enemy an unfair advantage. With long hair the enemy can easily grab it pull that person's head back and cut their throat.

This was my understanding of one reason why the US Army did not allow long hair and breads.[/quote]

My father taught me that a knife to the Chinese wind tunnel is a quicker and quieter way to dispatch someone than slitting their throat.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1890478' date='Jun 14 2009, 05:36 PM']Chinese wind tunnel[/quote]

Translation?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1890478' date='Jun 14 2009, 04:36 PM']My father taught me that a knife to the Chinese wind tunnel is a quicker and quieter way to dispatch someone than slitting their throat.[/quote]

By what ever means having long hair makes it much easier to accomplish. Also when soldiers are in the field long hair can help in the investigation of lice and other such parasites, which helps in the spreading of deceases between the soldiers.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1890473' date='Jun 14 2009, 03:31 PM']True, Sir. (Curious, what rank?)

But what is the limit then? What if women wanted to start wearing their hair down, and men wanted dreadlocks?[/quote]
I don't think wearing ones hair down is religious... and a true Rastafarian wouldn't serve in the US military. The limit would be religion.

The beards could be a disadvantage in hand to hand combat; but women are not wearing their hair high and tight, so the long hair argument doesn't work.

[MichaelF]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1890473' date='Jun 14 2009, 04:31 PM']True, Sir. (Curious, what rank?) [b]Captain.[/b]

But what is the limit then? What if women wanted to start wearing their hair down, and men wanted dreadlocks?[/quote]

Sikh Soldiers (in any Army) have [u]historically[/u] worn the turban. Dreadlocks have no modern military presence (even in Jamaica).

I've worked with the IDF, whose female soldiers are infamous for wearing their hair down (and generally trying to look as unmilitary as possible). It doesn't hurt their efficiency (they put it up when they need to).

The regs (AR670-1, in this case) are not meant to be fair (females cannot cut their hair as short as men can, for instance). They are arbitrary. So yes, we can say yes to the turban and no to the dreads.

Edited June 14, 2009 by MichaelF

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1890483' date='Jun 14 2009, 03:39 PM']Translation? [/quote]

There is a spot between the spine and skull on either side of the spine where a knife can quickly and easily be inserted. The person drops like a rag doll without making a sound. At least that is what I was taught. I have not personally tried it myself, but did earn a visit to the principal's office after demonstrating it as a school project in 4th grade. I think the principal had my mom on speed dial. She didn't talk to my dad for a month after that.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='MichaelF' post='1890497' date='Jun 14 2009, 06:03 PM']Sikh Soldiers (in any Army) have [u]historically[/u] worn the turban. Dreadlocks have no modern military presence (even in Jamaica).

I've worked with the IDF, whose female soldiers are infamous for wearing their hair down (and generally trying to look as unmilitary as possible). It doesn't hurt their efficiency (they put it up when they need to).

The regs (AR670-1, in this case) are not meant to be fair (females cannot cut their hair as short as men can, for instance). They are arbitrary. So yes, we can say yes to the turban and no to the dreads.[/quote]

Makes sense, Sir.

[Groo the Wanderer]

I wanna see a bulletproof turban