DoD to accommodate “individual expressions of sincerely held beliefs”
Pinto Nag sends us a link to an NBC article that says that the Pentagon wants to relax grooming and uniform standards in order to “accommodate individual expressions of sincerely held beliefs” meaning that they’re going to allow religious symbols like beards and turbans and stuff. I guess Sergeant Major of the Army Ray Chandler, the fellow who wants to get rid of people who have tattoos is on board with this one;
NBC News obtained an early draft of the new Department of Defense instruction which states that the military will make every effort to accommodate “individual expressions of sincerely held beliefs” (conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs) of service members.
It goes on to say that unless doing so could have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, good order and discipline, health and safety, or any other military requirement, commanders can grant service members special permission to display their religious articles while in uniform.
Requests for religious accommodation can be denied when the “needs of mission accomplishment outweigh the needs of the service member,” the directive will explain.
Yeah, well, if you can get a tight seal on your protective mask with a beard, I’d go along with it. Again, it’s people who don’t understand that military has standards for a good reason who are writing all of these fuzzy feeling rules.
It goes on to say that “it is particularly important to consider the effect on unit cohesion.”
Each individual service member has to re-apply for new permission at each new assignment, transfer of duty stations, and for each deployment.
Yeah, that won’t last long. I can just imagine Joes telling their new sergeant that their last unit let them do something that they can’t do at their current assignment. I can’t imagine a beard being hygienic at all. When I had mine for a few months a couple of years ago, food would jump up into my beard from the plate, I swear. It smelled like my last meal for hours afterward.
Category: Big Army
#36 just so you know there IS currently a Hasidic Jewish Chaplain in the US Army. COL. Jacob Goldstein. First time I met him was at Ft. Drum while doing a MOUT LFX and he came off a Black hawk and spent the day with us running through Walk throughs, blank runs and Live fire. He was at Ground Zero for 5 months in NYC, been to Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, Panama, Desert Storm, & Grenada
http://www.army.mil/article/42219/rare-army-rabbi-serves-soldiers/
21 Zulu. “Uniformity for the sake of uniformity is pointless.” I suppose, then, that no uniformity for the sake of no uniformity is likewise pointless. And if there is a point to no uniformity, what is it? I would offer that it is a desire to be different, to set oneself apart from the group, to provide recognizable expression of one’s individuality. And therein lies the long-recognized antithesis to military discipline, at least in the US. In and of itself, banning beards or requiring short hair means little, as you argue. The larger point is in breaking with tradition and, at the same time, opening a door that will not again be closed. Why not free expression for all? Why require sameness in attire or footwear? There are many ways to identify friendlies other than by uniform attire, footwear, and whatnot. In fact, those methods of identifying one’s own forces are quite unreliable. I disagree with your suggestion that uniformity for the sake of uniformity is pointless. Uniformity in dress and appearance bespeaks discipline, orderliness, oneness, and forestalls petty differences that undermine good discipline.
@31: Well, you and I both know that some of these young-uns can’t grow a full patch of facial hair and I don’t think we want a bunch of squibs running around with the patchwork quilt on their face, just because they think they have a beard. The Navy kept beards in their standards for the simple reason of protecting the face while underway. Some chose to have the beard and some didn’t, however, you didn’t see that blotchy shit that some seem to think is a beard.
If we go back to the Continental Army days, then people would be shot for insubordination as well (Washington did just that to keep the rest of his troops in line and maintain order). They still had uniformity in both attire and appearance of the Continental Army, however, the militia didn’t have that because they were a volunteer force that came and went as they pleased. Discipline is the key and uniform standards is part of that discipline.
Anyone who doubts that there exists a need for uniformity and each individual doing it’s small part precisely need only look at a marching band during a half time show. No, of course it’s not the same as the military, but the concept translates to the military. Each individual must do their part to complete the total mission.
Looking like a soldier is part of being a soldier. The uniformity of the mass is highly significant simply because it transmits the message that this is a highly trained, capable group, functioning as one.
Military service is not about the mass conforming to the desires of a bunch of special little snowflakes. However, attempting to force the mass to assimilate a bunch of nonconformists is a dandy way to make the mass completely ineffective in performing it’s job. Besides, what happens when the desires of special little snowflake #1 are in conflict with those of special little snowflake #2? Which set of desires is the mass expected to acknowledge, then accommodate? Both? Then special little snowflake #3 as well?
Simply put, if your individual wants are greater than the needs of the work group, then you really should look for employment elsewhere.
As Gunny Highway said: When you start looking like Marines, you’ll start acting like Marines.
Or, as George C. Scott says in Patton: When you look like soldiers by G-d you’ll start acting like soldiers (in reference to the soldiers not conforming to regulation grooming standards and uniform regs. for not being clean shaven and not wearing leggings, etc.).
It’s true; how do you expect your subordinates to act like a cohesive, disciplined military unit if you don’t care how they carry themselves, whether it’s grooming or uniform? Yeah, spec ops guys were allowed modified grooming standards in the field, because someone convinced someone else that the pasty white guy with the beard and longer hair would blend in with South Asians better than someone with a regulation haircut and a clean shaven face.
Religious exemptions are fun.
Rabbi Goldstein, the famed bearded rabbi in the NY Guard, is someone I know personally and respect highly, but I’d be content if he remained the only bearded rabbinical chaplain. I, too, am a highly religious Jew, but our religious beliefs regarding the cutting of our beard can be satisfied with most brands of electric razors. There is a deference to civil authority present in observant Judaism that I fear a lot of the “induhviduals” will disregard in the effort to be different.
Point of fact – the IDF prohibits male facial hair (they’re too nice to tell our ladies to wax) except for rare religious exemptions, too. And for precisely the same reason–a good seal on their protective masks. With Syria right next door for all of these years, it seemed like a good idea, I imagine.
I can’t count the number of times I had to quote AR 670-1 to folks that were suspect of the yarmulke. That was severely irritating after, oh, the first DECADE. It’s far easier to get dispensation from a rabbi in the interest of good order and discipline than it is to deal with folk than having to produce an exemption memorandum every time someone asks…and they rightly will.
A couple of years ago, a Jewish private got beat up by two other Joes at Benning. He wasn’t observant when he joined, something noted by the former lay leader at Benning to the press, but became so when he got to Sand Hill. His drill sergeants and peers didn’t understand it because especially he had no idea what he was doing. Doesn’t make what happened to him right, but it does make it understandable. Unfortunately, I think we’re just teasing ourselves with more of the same with this move.
I just love this quote: “Unfortunately, this continues to make us have to choose between our faith and serving our country,” said Jasjit Singh, the group’s executive director. “This is an expansion of the waiver policy that is decided person by person. It does not open doors and say you can apply as a Sikh American and serve your country fully.”
Imagine that, people have to make sacrifices to serve in the Military who the hell knew? Lets have a fun for instance: Oh I wanted to join the military but couldn’t be away from my family so “Unfortunately, this continues to make us have to choose between our (replace faith with family) and serving our country”. Get effing real. Its simple, they want special treatment. Next they won’t be able to pull guard duty on the Sabbath. It would be different if the Military was not an all volunteer force and if everyone isn’t held to the same standard. But there was a no beards policy long before this was an issue and Muslim men have been serving productively under the policy for a long time.
And has the fact that the last public guy to make a big deal about the no beards policy murdered 13 soldiers lost on everyone? How can anyone in the pentagon spew this crap and sleep soundly at night knowing what they are doing to destroy the military.
@52 Cav, great comment. I am nodding my head and initiating a slow clap for you.
Social engineering at its finest.
Revisiting this post to say the duffel blog is run by geniuses. Beautiful sarcastic geniuses:
http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/01/military-juggalo/