New U.S. Army Regulations Will Allow Turbans, Hijabs And Beards

[eddo36 16]

 

Just days into the new year, the U.S. Army has already handed a major victory to religious liberty advocates.

 

New Army regulations released on Tuesday state that servicemen and women at the brigade level will now be granted religious accommodations to wear turbans, beards, and hijabs in accordance with their faith. The move comes just days after the New York Police Department announced its decision to allow officers to wear turbans and grow beards for religious reasons. 

 

Such accommodations for Army service members were previously made on a case-by-case basis.

 

“Based on the successful examples of Soldiers currently serving with these accommodations, I have determined that brigade-level commanders may approve requests for these accommodations,” wrote Secretary of the Army Eric Fanning in a letter announcing the decision.

 

The new regulations will also permit religious bracelets, as well as dreadlocks for female soldiers. 

 

Several lawsuits in recent years have pressured the Army to change its policies on grooming and dress. In April 2016, Bronze Star recipient Captain Simratpal Singh was granted a permanent accommodation to wear his turban and beard after he sued the military for discrimination. The ruling, however, applied only to Singh. A short video produced by Becket Law, one of the firms that has petitioned for Sikhs’ right to serve in the military, explores the history of the Army’s rulings on articles of faith:

 

Tuesday’s decision ensures that brigade-level commanders will approve all requests for religious accommodations as long as the soldier demonstrates sincere faith observance and doing so would not present a “specific, concrete hazard.”

 

The Army will continue testing for safety hazards posed by accommodating articles of faith, Fanning said. And for the time being, soldiers with religious accommodations to grow beards will be restricted from military schools and positions where proximity to toxic chemical agents may arise.

 

Military officers and religious liberty advocates celebrated the ruling, which could have far-reaching implications for people of faith serving in the Army.

 

“My turban and beard represent my commitment to pluralism and equality,” said Major Kamaljeet Singh Kalsi, who was granted an accommodation in 2009. “This new policy change underscores the military’s commitment to these values and is a sign of meaningful progress that will ensure the strength of our democracy.”

 

Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) applauded the Army’s decision in a statement on his website, saying: “This is major progress, not just for the Sikh American community but for our nation’s military. Sikh Americans love this country and want a fair chance to serve in our country on equal footing. Today’s announcement will help do just that.”

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/new-us-army-regulations-will-allow-turbans-hijabs-and-beards_us_586e8f3ae4b099cdb0fc038b

[spooky lynx 73]

Am I the only one who thinks that the serviceman (both military and police) must pay attenation at his/her professional skills and their increase at first and his/her religion at last when there are no problems with main duties? IMHO those who have enough time to spend such amount of time on religion doings do it in prejudice of their main work.

[dmarkwick 261]

3 hours ago, spooky lynx said:

Am I the only one who thinks that the serviceman (both military and police) must pay attenation at his/her professional skills and their increase at first and his/her religion at last when there are no problems with main duties? IMHO those who have enough time to spend such amount of time on religion doings do it in prejudice of their main work.

Arguable :) if you have a faith of some kind, then it could easily be the case that it is really the most important thing in your life. Think about it - your faith is your investment into the eternal, while your life is.... your current job :)

I remember seeing turbans in the RAF many years ago, they looked kind of cool actually :) I didn't mind them, and they made no difference to anything much.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Well, when your Constitution starts by 'In God we trust', that's the kind of things you should be used too. Not a secular country whatsoever.

[milosv123344 37]

"Several lawsuits in recent years have pressured the Army " i guess that its good to know that no army in the world can pressure the US army, but when it comes to f*cking lawyers they have to back down. So much bravery...

Jesus christ what the hell, i thought when Trump won , america would come to their senses, this is completely the opposite of that. Hopefully people will wake up. US army/marine is a job, to protect a country, no religious simbols should be allowed at all. Now you are telling me an indian dude came to america, got in to the army, and SUED the army for discriminiation??? I knew freedoms added to immigrants would backfire on americans, did anyone see the new MTV video against white guys? Seriously? F*ck the world.

[dmarkwick 261]

When Trump won, America would come to it's senses? LOL :D

 

In any case, although Singh is described as Sikh, he's not described anywhere as Indian. I might guess he is in fact American.

[eddo36 16]

1 hour ago, ProfTournesol said:

Well, when your Constitution starts by 'In God we trust', that's the kind of things you should be used too. Not a secular country whatsoever.

No it doesn't.

[ProfTournesol 956]

13 minutes ago, eddo36 said:

No it doesn't.

Yes it doesn't, it's the official motto, which is even worse if you ask me.

[eddo36 16]

37 minutes ago, ProfTournesol said:

Yes it doesn't, it's the official motto, which is even worse if you ask me.

Actually that motto was added in the 1950's because of the Red Scare of communism. It was never set in by the Founding Fathers.

[ProfTournesol 956]

E pluribus unum was far superior imho.