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

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1890415' date='Jun 14 2009, 03:35 PM']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.[/quote]

Would you call it an infringement on religious liberty if a neo-Pagan decided his false god required that he wear a nose-ring all the time and the army didn't permit him to wear it?

[MichaelF]

This is the helmet that doubles as a turban (goes over the inner cloth):

[url="http://img254.imageshack.us/i/dsc03638da2.jpg/"]http://img254.imageshack.us/i/dsc03638da2.jpg/[/url]

Full ballistic protection.

[puellapaschalis]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1890520' date='Jun 14 2009, 11:35 PM']Would you call it an infringement on religious liberty if a neo-Pagan decided his false god required that he wear a nose-ring all the time and the army didn't permit him to wear it?[/quote]

There's religion and there's religion. I'd consider it an issue of religious freedom [i]after[/i] I managed to forget the role the Gurkhas have played in the history of the British Army. Seeing as the latter isn't going to happen anytime soon, I'm not going to trip that light with you, fantastic or not. The context of the US Army is something completely unfamiliar with me. Once a US tv network starts making something like NCIS about the Army, I might learn a bit about it.

[MichaelF]

[quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1890536' date='Jun 14 2009, 06:10 PM']There's religion and there's religion. I'd consider it an issue of religious freedom [i]after[/i] I managed to forget the role the Gurkhas have played in the history of the British Army. Seeing as the latter isn't going to happen anytime soon, I'm not going to trip that light with you, fantastic or not. The context of the US Army is something completely unfamiliar with me. Once a US tv network starts making something like NCIS about the Army, I might learn a bit about it.[/quote]

Gurkhas are the short Nepalese chaps in the jaunty hats with big knives.

Sikhs are the guys with the turbans and whiskers.

[puellapaschalis]

[quote name='MichaelF' post='1890537' date='Jun 15 2009, 12:12 AM']Gurkhas are the short Nepalese chaps in the jaunty hats with big knives.

Sikhs are the guys with the turbans and whiskers.[/quote]

My bad, I conflated them with the (now Indian) Sikh Regiment.

[morostheos]

I think they should be allowed to wear their turbans and grow beards. It's a requirement for their religion, not just a pious practice. I think the US Army should respect that.

[Hassan]

I don't see a pratical problem. I believe the Sikh faith has no problem with its members serving in the US Army. An Orthodox Sunni Muslim would probably make himself a Kufir by serving in the Army, I don't know about traditional Jews. Considering how small the population of individuals who would need such an exception and how incredibly small the total population of Sikh soldiers would be I don't see how it could be a pratical problem.


As I recall these men are doctors. They have a very specific and valuable set of skills which takes a unique personal disposition and rather substantial ammount of time (about a decade I suppose) to attain. Not to dump on regular MOS's but for most of them the skill set can be attained in a fraction of the time it takes an individual to become an M.D. Even something like 35P one does not have to invest the time or skill like a MD.

I guess what I'm getting at is this. When you have such a vital, rare, and difficult to attain set of skills you have more bargaining power. This is a pretty small concession on the Armies part for a pretty large gain (like SF soldiers being able to grow long hair) and just makes sense. The military does not have to follow a steady stream of logic. I don't see any slippery slope danger and has been pointed out the Sikhs have historically been extended this concession and the Army got along just fine.

[Paladin D]

Some very, well-thought out points being made in this thread. Keep it up.

It's working.

[Maximilianus]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1890489' date='Jun 14 2009, 03:45 PM']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.[/quote]

Women don't serve in line units.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Maximilianus' post='1891129' date='Jun 15 2009, 03:06 AM']Women don't serve in line units.[/quote]
Don't mean they are out of harms way. Look at the role of the Army women in Iraq.

[Hassan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1891764' date='Jun 15 2009, 04:54 PM']Don't mean they are out of harms way. Look at the role of the Army women in Iraq.[/quote]


I guess my question would be how much hand to hand combat would these doctors be facing?

[Maximilianus]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1891764' date='Jun 15 2009, 04:54 PM']Don't mean they are out of harms way. Look at the role of the Army women in Iraq.[/quote]

Yes, they are indeed in harms way as a consequence of being in an armed conflict but they generally serve in rear echelon and support elements, they never make up the bulk of a unit whose purpose is to close with and destroy the enemy with fire and maneuver. Because of this and social standards thay are allowed long hair.

The prohibition of long hair for men doesn't have so much to do with it being a liability in close combat, it has to do with appearance, uniformity, hygene and grooming efficiency. The latter three reasons being important in line units because they are out in the field for long periods of time away from the rear echelon.

Using the argument that Sikhs should be allowed long hair because women in the military are allowed to have long hair doesn't work because women don't serve in line units (at least in the United States).

I know that not all men serve in line units either, but all men(at least in the Marines, but I'm pretty sure the Army is similar in doctrine) are expected to fill in as a rifleman when needed, so they must be within the same standards as the grunts.

[puellapaschalis]

Sikh men not only have to grow their hair, but also keep it neat, tidy, and wrapped up on their head under a turban. If helmets can accommodate for a turban (which I think someone here showed was quite possible), then it's neat, tidy and safe.

[CatherineM]

The big fight here with the Sikhs isn't the turban, it's the kirpans. That's this ceremonial dagger that all their men are supposed to carry at all times. The Supreme Court here has held they are allowed to wear them to school. I'm not sure if they would allow a Catholic boy to carry a Knight's of Columbus sword to school.

[MichaelF]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1893017' date='Jun 16 2009, 11:29 AM']The big fight here with the Sikhs isn't the turban, it's the kirpans. That's this ceremonial dagger that all their men are supposed to carry at all times. The Supreme Court here has held they are allowed to wear them to school. I'm not sure if they would allow a Catholic boy to carry a Knight's of Columbus sword to school.[/quote]

Except that the Gurus mandate the wearing of the Kirpan at all times.

Catholics are under no such directive from the Holy Church. Although, now that I'm thinking about it....