TOO FAR, OR NOT FAR ENOUGH? RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION IN THE MILITARY

[SIXFOOTERsez]

Every now and then the military has to clamp down because people decide to push the envelope on what is and is not acceptable according to the rules. When I was in back in the 70's long hair was very much still the rage among young men. AFR35/10 banned long hairstyles, hair that hung below the top of the collar etc. Our answer was to let it grow long and glue it down with dippitydo, good shit, you could stand in a 40 mph wind and not have a hair out of place. No one in this days wore dreads, most guys (black guys) wore an afro off duty, but tamed it down with pomade or some other stuff, then wash it out after work.
Dreads, Corn Row and the like are not what I would call Traditional Etnic, meaning not from a long line of heritage. They are actually modern cultural styles. You can't have a few of your troops standing there in uniform with some fucked up dreads hanging out from their cover.
Standards, Uniforms....those things make a difference in unit identity and uniformity. Doesn't matter if your black, white, brown or green.
They are lucky they don't have to go back to uniform high and tight.

[sally]

My opinion is still the same, you joined knowing it's not going to be a picnic and you do what they fucking tell you.

[HairOfTheDog]

Sikhing Military Religious Freedom in Court



A Sikh student at Hofstra University filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the United States Army, claiming the service refused to grant him a religious accommodation that would allow him to enlist in his school's ROTC program without shaving his beard, cutting his hair and removing his turban, according to court documents.

When Iknoor Singh requested a religious exemption from the military's grooming policies to enlist as an ROTC cadet in April 2013, his request was first denied on the grounds that his noncompliance would have "an adverse impact on the Army's readiness, unit cohesion, standards, health, safety, or discipline," court documents said.

The Army subsequently adjusted its decision, saying Singh could only seek an exemption after he was enlisted as a cadet -- creating a catch-22 in which Singh would have to violate his faith to be able to apply for a religious accommodation, the documents said.

"I couldn't believe the military was asking me to make the impossible decision of choosing between the country I love and my faith," Singh said in a blog post on the ACLU's website.

Full story: http://us.cnn.com/2014/11/13/justice/sik...?hpt=ju_c1

[Midwest Spy]

I personally have nothing against the Sikh faith.

However, the military has certain "uniform" standards. And, what is the definition of uniform? Everything is the same.

So, sorry Mr. Singh, request denied.

[Duchess]

Singh said in a blog post on the ACLU's website.

If he doesn't "get" the standards set then he is too dumb for our military. Next!

[blueberryhill]

Sorry, if you want to have an individualist lifestyle, the military is not the right career for you. You must have uniformity for the sake of security, discipline, morale, etc. If Singh wants to wear a turban, he should go join somewhere out of USA where they are allowed in the military.
Next thing you know, someone, during a 20 mile hike will want to stop, place their rug on the ground and pray. For God's sake, you give up some of your individual rights to become a "warrior." I feel the same about hairstyles. It needs to conform to certain styles so that hat can be worn and so on. You won't be able to spend hours on your hairstyle in a battle situation. So screw Singh and the ACLU....