(01-27-2014, 06:09 PM)sally Wrote: Everyone has freedom of religion here, but when it comes to the military and you happen to wear your religion through silly hats and facial hair then tough shit. The military should give an impression of being strong and disciplined, not pretty and PC.

Yes, because you can't be strong and disciplined in a turban.

Jesus fucking wept..

Nevermind, I'm bowing out now. It's your military, your country, your vote. Not mine. That would have been the next argument anyway..

(01-27-2014, 07:16 AM)Duchess Wrote: I don't want some cocksucking dothead in full beard and turban representing my country. Fuck that and fuck them.

Woah! That's so shallow. Have you seen the movie The English Patient? It shows a Sikh soldier helping to diffuse bombs in WWII on the side of the good guys, us.

Isn't the fact that we can embrace different cultures and religions what makes us better? Freedom right? Freedom of religion and expression.

Some of those razor cut hairdo guys are rapists! Look up the statistics of sexual assault in Iraq on women. Just because a guy is clean cut, doesn't mean he is, he could be a sexual predator.

(01-27-2014, 06:17 PM)aussiefriend Wrote: Woah! That's so shallow.

I know. I had second thoughts about it after the fact.

Maybe I should go find Sally's suck thread.

I have way less of a problem with people that can be honest about, and own, their discriminations, than those wo try to deny it and justify it with some bullshit excuse.

I really think we're all discriminatory in different ways to different things, sometimes even subconsciously. I think it's an inherent instinct; maybe something that stems back to a genetic survival instinct.

Just because I don't think the military should be forced to change a strict dress code to appease anyone, doesn't mean I'm discriminating. If I want to join then I know I have to abide by their rules, that's it. I don't expect special treatment and that's the way I believe it should be.

Nobody said you were. Can you see the name Sally anywhere in my post? My post was a general comment on the back of Duchess's post above it. Jesus Christ...

Some Sikhs who have been interviewed have expressed satisfaction that the US military has officially relaxed its code.

Others have expressed some degree of satisfaction, but don't want to have to seek permission on a case by case basis.

Some in the military and politics want to recruit more Sikhs and are weighing the potential benefits vs. drawbacks that deviating from the uniform code for religious purposes might bring, a code that would need to change to attract more recruits. Others believe deviations will encourage divisions amongst the troops and compromise their effectiveness, period.

Right now, there are only 3 Sikhs actively serving in the US military. This is one of them.



Prior to the 1980s, there was no official regulation against neat conservative facial hair.

There seems to be a history of the code being somewhat flexible.

Will be interesting to see if the letter to Hagel has an impact and if more congressional support for further relaxing the code will be garnered.

(01-27-2014, 08:59 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Prior to the 1980s, there was no official regulation against neat conservative facial hair.

There seems to be a history of the code being somewhat flexible.

Haha!

So much for that rock solid, age old, strict dress code!

(01-27-2014, 08:59 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

Heh.. Fuckin A! I bet Private Redneck, bleeding from an artery on the battlefield wouldn't be saying "Fuck off you cocksucking dothead!" to him..

The Coast Guard has always allowed facial hair, while the other branches have allowed mustaches.

I don't recall having served with anyone with full facial hair or a turbin.

As for Sikhs in general, I've never had a problem. They are not to be confused with Muslims.

It just seems to me that if they really wanted to serve their country they would be able to conform to regulations.

No one is trying to diminish who they are or tell them that their religious beliefs are bullshit.

(01-27-2014, 09:08 PM)crash Wrote:

(01-27-2014, 08:59 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

Heh.. Fuckin A! I bet Private Redneck, bleeding from an artery on the battlefield wouldn't be saying "Fuck off you cocksucking dothead!" to him..

Funny how they lose the turban and beard when they start their own private practice here though, a place where there isn't any dress code to make a stink about. Same with the Jews. I had lots of them working on me, never did they go into surgery with a beanie on.

The point is no one cares what religion they are, it's about conforming to the dress code of the military and nothing more. We're a country that's tolerant of all religions and that's enough imo, no need to force the military to let everyone wear whatever the fuck they want in order to appear politically correct.

I wouldn't choose a turban headed guy to be my gynecologist, it's bad enough being in the stirrups, I sure as hell don't want to gaze down and see a turban between my thighs. Nooooo.

(01-27-2014, 09:42 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: The Coast Guard has always allowed facial hair, while the other branches have allowed mustaches.

I don't recall having served with anyone with full facial hair or a turbin.

Thanks, MS.

Never thought much about the military rules and regs on appearance til now; they're very detailed.

Been interesting researching it a bit.

http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf

The army appearance code regs are actually 357 pages long. The portions of the code impacted by the new change are covered on pages 22 - 26 of the above linked PDF (PDF navigation page numbers, not the text page numbers).

357 pages. Good Gawd.

Freedom of expression of religion should apply equally to everybody. Whether you wear a crucifix or a turban or a kippah or a dot on your forehead you should be allowed to do so in the military.

I keep on reading in here “our soldiers are heroes they aren't just faceless identical clones!”

Then I'm starting to read “our soldiers? They should all look like faceless identical clones!”

I can't imagine a Sikh being shot accidentally in Afghanistan his US military uniform is a bit of a give away.

(01-29-2014, 07:35 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: Whether you wear a crucifix or a turban or a kippah or a dot on your forehead you should be allowed to do so in the military.

No

(01-28-2014, 12:13 PM)Duchess Wrote:

357 pages. Good Gawd.

Ridiculous really.

For me crossing the line of self discipline into the territory just fucking nit picking for the hell of it.

(01-29-2014, 07:38 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: Ridiculous really.

Ranking up there with obscene amounts of money spent studying why pig poop stinks and scientists determining that yes, our pets really do love us.

Like British redcoats polishing their buttons.

Pointless.

I think this is going too far. If women have been wearing the styles for years without any issues, it makes little sense for the US Army to ban them now for the sake of conformity. IMO.

Snip:

The U.S. Army is facing criticism for its new appearance and grooming regulations, which some soldiers say unfairly target black women's hair.

Army Regulation 670-1 was released Monday, with rules on tattoos, hairstyles, grooming and uniforms for soldiers.

One of the new regulations, which applies only to women, is a ban on twists, dreadlocks and multiple braids/cornrows that are bigger than a quarter of an inch. Army spokesman Paul Prince told the Army Times that twists and dreadlocks have been barred since 2005, but these regulations go into more detail about specific hairstyles.

Women with these banned hairstyles will need to get rid of them or cover them with wigs or extensions, which can damage hair.



Sgt. Jasmine Jacobs of the Georgia National Guard has started a petition on the White House website calling on the Army to reconsider its changes to "allow professional ethnic hairstyles." From her petition, which needs 100,000 signatures in order to trigger a response from the White House:

More than 30% of females serving in the military are of a race other than white. As of 2011, 36% of females in the U.S. stated that they are natural, or refrain from chemically processing their hair. Females with natural hair take strides to style their natural hair in a professional manner when necessary; however, changes to AR 670-1 offer little to no options for females with natural hair. In the proposed changes, unauthorized hairstyles include twists, both flat twists as well as two strand twists; as well as dreadlocks, which are defined as "any matted or locked coils or ropes of hair." These new changes are racially biased and the lack of regard for ethnic hair is apparent. This policy needs to be reviewed prior to publishing to allow for neat and maintained natural hairstyles.

When asked for comment on the criticism, Lt. Col. S. Justin Platt, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said, "The requirement for hair grooming standards is necessary to maintain uniformity within a military population."

Full story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01...ostpopular