As a young atheist in the Army, I took great delight in registering as a follower of various obscure religions each time I switched duty stations, because the base chaplain was supposed to provide appropriate services for me. It was a stupid, albeit fun, thing to do and I never did get my Zoroastrian services. I served with soldiers from every walk of life and a variety of religions, although the topic rarely came up. Nobody wore a crucifix on their lapel, or a Star of David, or any other religious insignia, and the unit remained cohesive.
Today a Sikh, represented by a pro bono team from McDermott Will & Emery, convinced the army to allow him to serve while in religious garb, including a beard and a turban. Although the army says this was an individual decision, it’s hard to see how it won’t set a precedent for followers of all faiths to press a claim.
As a rule, I try to keep my editorializing here to a minimum, but this is something I feel passionate about. The military has strict rules for uniform appearance and those rules are applied evenly to people of all faiths and all walks of life. Rich, poor, black, white, Ivy League and high school grad all appear the same in army green. Uniform standards promote unit cohesion because they avoid singling anyone out. Uniform standards also ensure that military equipment is efficient – it’s difficult to get a tight seal on a gas mask with a beard, for example.
Today it seems that the need for uniformity is even greater, particularly when it comes to overt religious displays. We are sending men and women into two conflict zones, and in both we are asking them to fight an enemy that perceives this is a religious war. Visible signs of faith will only exacerbate an already tense situation, while we work to convince the populace that we are not on a religious crusade.
I welcome your comments.
To some it seems like sikhs are asking for special favor. We have no problem with any of the things that mentioned and we love the uniformity. However, cutting our hair for any reason gives us the feeling more horrible than that you might get from punching your mother or father in gut. For us hair is not just hair, it is part of our identity. It is what motivates us to serve. Hair and turban has history of self sacrifice and a saga of courage behind it. As an person born and brought up in west it might be hard for you to understand why we feel this way.
Second point I want to make is that ever since 9/11 Sikhs have been victims of racial abuse because of their appearance. As a Sikh man with turban, I have been called Osama Bin Laden or Al queda even though we have nothing to do with it. I have been asked why do Sikhs don’t serve in US forces. Now a Sikh man can cut his hair and serve (there are several who do), but then he wont be recognized as a Sikh as he lost his identity (turban and beard). So do you see our dilemma. I know I am all our the place in these comments, but I am trying to explain something very complicated. If you want to converse more, please let me know.
-Sikh American
Ignorance breeds misconceptions.
Sikh soldiers refused to wear helmets during World War I and World War II. They fought instead with turbans on their heads. Many Sikhs received the Victoria Cross prestigious gallantry award of the British army.The community has a long tradition of military service, both in India, where most of the faith’s adherents are, as well as in the countries where Sikhs have made their homes, the United Kingdom, Canada ,Sweden ,Malaysia and Singapore. As part of our religious heritage, we’re taught that we have an obligation to actively serve and protect the communities in which we live.
British Sikh
Identity is not what you wear or how you look.. Identity is how you are, not what others see. you don’t have to wear turbans, or grow long beards to know where you come from and what you represent. I feel proud of who I am, but I don’t have to tell or show the world where i’m from, because I know who i am and who i will always be who my ancestors were. I served in the US Navy for a long time and I did it with Honor. I joined because I wanted to serve this Country. There’s a purpose behind the Uniform code. we should all look equal and be treated equally. The only thing this is causing, is segregating your self from the rest of the people who are not part of your ideas. The military in this country is something you join on your own free will, you are not forced to do it. it is your choice and by electing this choice you take their rules..
I would be sympathetic to the Sikh position if we still had a draft. However, ours is now a volunteer army. I do not see the logic in volunteering for service in an organization with known and uniform rules and then demanding that the rules be changed to accommodate individual beliefs.
One no longer has an obligation to join the military. Nor does anyone have an unqualified right to do so. Americans with disabilities have made great (and appropriate) strides in requiring accommodation to their special requirements; I have not yet heard, however, of anyone advancing the argument that tanks and HUMVs should be modified for handicapped access. We have no difficulty in saying to the disabled (who, after all, have not chosen to be in their situation) that they simply cannot be accommodated in this instance. Why should someone who has voluntarily chosen a certain mode of religious observance which is incompatible with the standards of the military be treated differently? This is political correctness run amok.
Thank you for the facts of this case and the penetrating legal analysis.
“Visible signs of faith will only exacerbate an already tense situation, while we work to convince the populace that we are not on a religious crusade.”
Nice statement, clearly rooted in speculation. Can’t you argue the exact opposite–supposing each soldier wore their religious insignia–all recognized their common bonds as soldiers were stronger than their differences in belief? There are even Muslims in the US Army killing their “fellow” enemy Muslims. As to your point, Muslims in Afghanistan are also killing “fellow” Muslims. Why does that say about the fraternity of religion? Sure, religion may be used as a tool promoting hatred, but it certainly doesn’t cause hatred–and perhaps this particular Sikh has a legit reason for wearing his religious dress.
Based on your youthful escapades, am I to conclude that your solitary agenda is one that is solely anti-religion because of a belief that religion is inherently divisive? Again, what are the facts of this case? How can you publish this filth without any context? I believe there is case law to prohibit _exactly_ what you fear, but you haven’t given us anything. You’re just fear-mongering and intellectually dishonest.
What a weak article.
I have personally seen jewish members of the military wearing yarmulkes in uniform. How is it different or worse to allow a Sikh to wear his turban? In addition, I was proselytized by officers who were staunch Christians while serving in the Navy (I am a Pagan) and that offended me and hurt my concept of unit cohesion far more than seeing a fellow sailor wear any religious symbol would.
I absolutely agree with the last writer. Turbans have been worn by Sikh officers in the Indian army – the same color as the berets used by the non-Sikhs – even since the army’s inception There has NEVER been an issue regarding this.
It is ridiculous to assume that wearing a turban or yarmulke would cause divisions of any kind. Divisions are caused only when people WANT to create differences. This is all superficial stuff, not even worthy of debate.
I guess (in combat) if you think a turban will protect you over a helmut ~~~~ what in the world?
In today’s world, everywhere people want what they want! Believe what you choose, live your life accordingly but follow the rules of engagement.
Stop wanting to be a part of an organization and then demand they conform to your beliefs/way of life/etc….
only one group in history has subdued the afghans:
the sikhs
I completely agree with the author of this article. I’m a Hindu woman who served on active duty with the US Army. I never insisted on wearing a bhindi or other symbols of my ethnicity/religion, because I understood that when you enter the US Armed Forces voluntarily, you agree to abide by their rules and regulations. It’s not an easy thing to do, but it is voluntary, and I’m damn proud I did it.
One of the most special parts about serving in the military is that you get to wear the uniform exactly the same way as everyone else. The act of wearing a uniform is extremely symbolic – it serves as an outward representation of your citizenship, allegiance, and professionalism. It also is a symbol of unity, in that you automatically identify with others who wear the uniform, no matter what that person’s gender/race/religion/ethnicity happens to be. And last but not least, it also tells the world that your allegiance to your nation comes before your allegiance to everything else – including your religion.
I think it’s interesting that some of the previous commenters have mentioned that Sikhs in the Indian Army and the British Army wear turbans and are allowed to display other symbols of faith. What the commenters are forgetting is that the Indian military and the British military are not comparable to the United States Armed Forces. All three militaries – British, Indian, and American – have entirely different political histories, which have resulted in entirely different military traditions and attitudes. You can’t just import the attitudes of one nation’s armed forces and impose them on another.
It’s also worth pointing out that ethnic groups in India and the British Empire held a very different position in the public sphere, compared to the United States. The legacy of Sikh soldiers is intricately intermeshed with Indian history, which is one of the main reasons that Sikhs (and a few other ethnic groups) are allowed to dress a certain way while serving in uniform. The British Empire recognized this legacy, and in keeping with their overall colonial policy of not interfering with the habits and cultural traditions of the Indians they colonized, they permitted the Sikhs to serve His/Her Majesty in uniform while wearing turbans. (If you think about it, it was a win-win situation for the British – they got the assistance of thousands of excellently trained military men, but also had a visible reason for restricting their promotions – the Sikhs wore turbans!)
I don’t think the same political principles that govern allowing Sikhs to wear turbans in the Indian (or British) military translates over to the United States Armed Forces. When you enter the US Armed Forces, you are an American servicemember first, and a Sikh/Jew/Christian/ Muslim second.
I think the commenter who said he/she had seen many Jewish American servicemembers wearing yarmulkes while in uniform must be in error. To my knowledge, the yarmulke is not an approved part of any US military uniform. I’ve known several Jewish servicemembers, and the only time I saw them put a yarmulke on was when they were at a service – and they took it off immediately after the service was done and put on their berets. If you saw someone wearing an unapproved religious symbol while walking around in a US military uniform, you probably should have approached them and told them to take it off.
The only time I’ve seen a servicemember wear an outward symbol of faith while in the US military was when I was at summer officer training at Fort Lewis, Washington. The servicemember in question was a Muslim lady, and she received permission from the cadre to wear a camouflage head scarf that covered her hair completely. She also would always wear her BDU sleeves down (to cover her arms), and was permitted to wear a long sleeve army t-shirt and long army sweats for PT (while everyone else was in shorts and T-shirts). I thought her actions were extremely inappropriate, and it was clear that the special treatment she received bred a lot of resentment in her unit (especially among the other women). I don’t think anyone would have cared what she wore on her off-duty time – but when you are in uniform, you need to wear that uniform in accordance with the rules and regulations that have been issued by your service branch. There are no exceptions or special treatment based on your religion. If you feel those rules and regulations are incompatible with your personal religious beliefs, then don’t serve! The US Armed Forces already go a long way to accomodate different religious beliefs. They actively recruit chaplains from every religious faith (this includes Muslim chaplains, Jewish chaplains, Hindu chaplains . . . and Wiccan chaplains if you can believe it), and they even try to accomodate religious dietary preferences by providing kosher MREs and vegetarian MREs and pork-free MREs. I think that asking for more is just plain wrong.
A comment on Oct 27: Identity is not what you wear or how you look.. Identity is how you are, not what others see. you don’t have to wear turbans, or grow long beards to know where you come from and what you represent….
Interesting… The author seems to promote/ prefer physical appearance based- identity sought by the US forces while preaching that identity doesn’t require what you wear or how you look!!!
No special crap for anyone. If we want a special Sikh Unit like the British do with their various Units. that is fine, but not on an individual basis. Our armies also have had Units in various outfits ever since the Revolution, but they dressed and fought as Units. If the Sikh can wear his special stuff so could a home boy from East LA wear his low-rider pants and hooded sweat shirt. Dave
I am half-Japanese. Do I insist on wearing a Japanese kimono one day and an American pioneer dress the next?
This is so childish.