# Sikh Army Captain wins right to wear beard and turban



## Kraut783 (May 14, 2016)

Sikh U.S. Army captain wins right to wear beard and turban

Personally I have no issue with this.....I do have a question, don't Sikh's not cut their hair too?  I wonder how the helmet thing works out....


----------



## TLDR20 (May 14, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> Sikh U.S. Army captain wins right to wear beard and turban
> 
> Personally I have no issue with this.....I do have a question, don't Sikh's not cut their hair too?  I wonder how the helmet thing works out....



They make armored turbans.


----------



## Marine0311 (May 14, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> Sikh U.S. Army captain wins right to wear beard and turban
> 
> Personally I have no issue with this.....I do have a question, don't Sikh's not cut their hair too?  I wonder how the helmet thing works out....



Why don't you have an issue with this?


----------



## Kraut783 (May 14, 2016)

Not sure, think it's because of the history of Sikh's in service with the British army....just use to seeing them in uniform with Turbans and beards.


----------



## Bypass (May 14, 2016)

Fuck it let em share the showers with the women. Let's all wear rainbow berets as well. COED showers and free beer all around. This new military is better than a college frat party. Sign me up.......again.


----------



## RackMaster (May 14, 2016)

He's our regulations.   Basically unless they have an occupational hazard that the hair, beard, turban interferes with; they can keep it.  



> CANADIAN FORCES DRESS INSTRUCTIONS
> 
> SECTION 3 A-DH-265-000/AG-001 RELIGIOUS AND SPIRITUAL ACCOMMODATION
> 
> ...


----------



## Il Duce (May 14, 2016)

The first Sikh to get a waiver supported my unit two tours ago - was/is a Dentist.  All-in-all a good troop I thought, great dentist, pretty decent officer - especially for a DDS who had been in for six months.  I saw SEALs three tours ago not just with full beards, but with curated facial hair looking like full-time hipsters.  If we can relax or ignore grooming standards for special folks I don't see why we can't adjust who we consider special.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 14, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> Why don't you have an issue with this?



Because who fucking cares? These dudes are warriors. The only issue I see is the double standard with tattoos.


Bypass said:


> Fuck it let em share the showers with the women. Let's all wear rainbow berets as well. COED showers and free beer all around. This new military is better than a college frat party. Sign me up.......again.



You have a reason they shouldn't be allowed to serve?


----------



## Marine0311 (May 14, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Because who fucking cares? These dudes are warriors. The only issue I see is the double standard with tattoos.



Because I am curious of the reasoning behind his opinion that is why,  and he answered my question in his response.


----------



## Kraut783 (May 14, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> They make armored turbans.



Seriously?


----------



## Etype (May 14, 2016)

Bypass said:


> This new military is better than a college frat party. Sign me up.......again.


This new military is more effective than its ever been.

That may be due to lengthy conflicts which are because of negatives like poor civilian leadership and war profiteering- but don't hold the military accountable for that.

He even wears an ACU pattern turbin, which gives me the impression that he wants to accommodate both the Army and his religion.


----------



## Bypass (May 15, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Because who fucking cares? These dudes are warriors. The only issue I see is the double standard with tattoos.
> 
> 
> You have a reason they shouldn't be allowed to serve?


Nah, everyone who wants to serve should be allowed to serve but there shouldn't be a double standard. Let everyone grow beards and wear turbans if that is how they want to roll. A few more bodies behind a trigger never hurt anything.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 15, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> Seriously?



No, I was joking.


----------



## Bypass (May 15, 2016)

Etype said:


> This new military is more effective than its ever been.
> 
> That may be due to lengthy conflicts which are because of negatives like poor civilian leadership and war profiteering- but don't hold the military accountable for that.
> 
> He even wears an ACU pattern turbin, which gives me the impression that he wants to accommodate both the Army and his religion.



Yeah maybe it was or would have been had it not been for the current administrations need to "draw down" our forces. Unless they have the ability to turn the remaining 450k soldiers we have into green berets then I think we are up shit creek if anything major happens. So yeah I'm all for letting them join up since everyone will most likely be kicked out regardless.

Army Plans to Cut 40,000 Soldiers and Shrink Force to 450,000 by 2017 | Military.com


----------



## Etype (May 15, 2016)

Bypass said:


> Unless they have the ability to turn the remaining 450k soldiers we have into green berets then I think we are up shit creek if anything major happens.


To pretend that there is any type of hypothetical conflict which would result in a US defeat is absolute lunacy.

We have this pesky little thing called a Navy which could probably defeat the greater part of the world on its own.

The Army swelled in size to accommodate the world police initiative, I personally would like to see that era come to a close.


----------



## Kheenbish (May 15, 2016)

The only issue and possible problem I have with this would be what stops other individuals from being granted the right to wear pieces of clothing that has to deal with that individuals religion. A muslim woman wanting to wear a headress or a Jewish  man growing a beard and wearing a yamaca. Some of those could be argued saying in combat or what not its not accommodating, but we let one group be aloud to wear religious items why should we stop others ?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (May 15, 2016)

Helmets and Turbans, they've been aroud for quire a while:

fitting helmets to turbans - Google Search


----------



## TLDR20 (May 15, 2016)

Kheenbish said:


> The only issue and possible problem I have with this would be what stops other individuals from being granted the right to wear pieces of clothing that has to deal with that individuals religion. A muslim woman wanting to wear a headress or a Jewish  man growing a beard and wearing a yamaca. Some of those could be argued saying in combat or what not its not accommodating, but we let one group be aloud to wear religious items why should we stop others ?



I know Jews that wear the yarmulke.  

Pentagon Relaxes Rules On Religious Clothing And Appearance In Military Uniforms Allowing Turbans, Head Scarves And Yarmulkes


----------



## Kheenbish (May 15, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I know Jews that wear the yarmulke.
> 
> Pentagon Relaxes Rules On Religious Clothing And Appearance In Military Uniforms Allowing Turbans, Head Scarves And Yarmulkes



I have to ask myself though , at which point does this affect mission capabilities? Then when I have a clear answer, what stops a lawyer from saying well this individual can express said religion why can't this one ? Just feel like we should have this one standard of uniformity and not stray from that lane to accommodate.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 15, 2016)

Kheenbish said:


> I have to ask myself though , at which point does this affect mission capabilities? Then when I have a clear answer, what stops a lawyer from saying well this individual can express said religion why can't this one ? Just feel like we should have this one standard of uniformity and not stray from that lane to accommodate.



I think that as the pool of qualified candidates for the military shrinks, accommodations should be made for those who are qualified but need to be able to do things for religious reasons. Sikhs are a great example of that.


----------



## Kheenbish (May 15, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I think that as the pool of qualified candidates for the military shrinks, accommodations should be made for those who are qualified but need to be able to do things for religious reasons. Sikhs are a great example of that.



I respect and can understand that decision if the individuals religious items won't effect gear or other essential items one would wear. 

Now why can't we do the same with tattoos...


----------



## Gunz (May 15, 2016)

I think Sikhs are badass. Gurkhas too. Strong military tradition among both. If they do their job and are there when you need them, who cares what they're wearing as long as it doesn't compromise the mission.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 16, 2016)

One part of me says why is this even news worthy, who gives a shit. The other side says, if you wanna serve in the US Army conform to the regulations and policies like everyone else. Ain't nobody special...


----------



## Il Duce (May 16, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Ain't nobody special...



So, special operations forces should not have relaxed grooming standards either?  Not trolling you, I actually think this is a decent argument.  Relaxed grooming standards for MI have to meet specific criteria for employment and be approved by a CDR.  My impression is most SF relaxed grooming standards are for status, and because nobody is going to say anything - they're special.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 16, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> So, special operations forces should not have relaxed grooming standards either?  Not trolling you, I actually think this is a decent argument.  Relaxed grooming standards for MI have to meet specific criteria for employment and be approved by a CDR.  My impression is most SF relaxed grooming standards are for status, and because nobody is going to say anything - they're special.



There is a difference between a relaxed grooming standard for soldiers that have a special mission. That doesn't make them special and doesn't mean everyone should have a relaxed grooming standard. SF is notorious for out of regs all kind of stuff. That's on them, if their CDR has allowed it and its all on the up and up, I don't care. They show up to a school or conventional unit, they will be getting hair cuts like everyone else.

On a personal note, I think the grooming standards are bullshit. But that's the standard. I can't tell you the amount of times I came back to the FOB with a week old beard, smelling like shit, uniform filthy, hungry and just wanting to catch chow in time, usually cutting down to the minutes, because I had to go shit, shower and shave and look like everyone else before I could step foot in the chow hall. Almost always pissed off because garrison Army belongs in the garrison and only pisses people off when they should be stressing on other things, like getting chow, sleep and refit.

$.02


----------



## TLDR20 (May 16, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> So, special operations forces should not have relaxed grooming standards either?  Not trolling you, I actually think this is a decent argument.  Relaxed grooming standards for MI have to meet specific criteria for employment and be approved by a CDR.  My impression is most SF relaxed grooming standards are for status, and because nobody is going to say anything - they're special.



Our relaxed grooming standards have to be approved by a commander. There is a reason guys in Iraq didn't have beards while guys in 'Stan do. 

I was on relaxed grooming standards CONUS, but our uniform was also civilians.


----------



## Frank S. (May 16, 2016)

Only issue I have is that I don't watch "Game of Thrones", and if I did, The Dothraki'd get on my tits.


----------



## Etype (May 17, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I can't tell you the amount of times I came back to the FOB with a week old beard, smelling like shit, uniform filthy, hungry and just wanting to catch chow in time, usually cutting down to the minutes, because I had to go shit, shower and shave and look like everyone else before I could step foot in the chow hall.
> $.02


I remember this from my days in the 82nd, no worse end to your day than to be denied the chow hall.


----------



## Gunz (May 17, 2016)

Wait...You guys had chow? In a building? With a roof?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 17, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Wait...You guys had chow? In a building? With a roof?



The FOBITS did, we got it on refit days. With some E7/8 acting as gate keeper for the grooming standards.


----------

