The United States Army changed its policy regarding Sikhs in 1984, when it decided to no longer permit adherents of Sikhism to retain their uncut hair, wrapped in a turban, and unshaven faces and still enlist in the military. However, the army has recently granted exemptions to this policy to two Sikh men, and Captain Tejdeep Singh Rattan just graduated from basic officer training.
The Supreme Court held in 1986 (two years after the aforementioned policy shift) that a Jewish Air Force officer could not wear his yarmulke with his uniform, so this is certainly a change in the way the military feels about religious apparel and the uniform code. The Court did not rule that soldiers could not display external signs of their religion; only that the military was within its right to ban those displays, and the case of Captain Rattan shows that the military has decided to allow at least some displays of religion.
One of the major concerns that would arise with this case would be unit cohesion, since Captain Rattan appears noticeably different from his peers while they are all in uniform. However, one of Rattan’s unit’s instructors stated that, “[o]nce the other soldiers understood that [Rattan wasn’t a foreign national and had received the Army’s permission to maintain his beard and turban], there were no issues.” I think that there will always be people who do and do not accept people who are different from them, and if there are soldiers who will not accept a practicing Sikh, their opinions will not really hinge on the soldier’s outward signs of his faith but rather his religious beliefs or ethnic background.
Another concern is the safety of stepping outside of the traditional uniform, a worry that the article also addresses, describing how Rattan wore a helmet over his turban and how he was able to seal his gas mask over his beard. The Army’s safety concerns, which would have been legitimate, were thus assuaged. I agree that safety is tantamount and I think that is the appropriate line of demarcation when it comes to religious displays on soldiers. If a soldier’s outward manifestation of his religion could present a danger to himself or others, he will have to choose between his uniform and his faith, but as long as the outward display cannot cause harm, the Army should allow soldiers to express their religion because the Constitution allows them free exercise.
I do believe that the Army has erred in only granting exemptions rather than doing away with the non-Sikh policy in the first place. Since Captain Rattan has made it clear that Sikhs maintaining the articles of their faith can successfully serve in the military, there is no reason for the Army’s continued discrimination against his Sikh fellows. In addition, since the Supreme Court’s main argument in Goldman v. Weinberger was that the Court should yield to military experts, that case should be overturned as the Army has determined that retaining the articles of their faith does not negatively affect a Sikh’s performance, and I cannot see why a Jew’s yarmulke would not fall under the same banner.
7 comments:
Well, what about any other religious article of clothing? They might be headed down the slippery slope road here though, because if you said "any religious article of clothing" is ok, then you would have to define religion. What happens when a Wiccan or Pagan wants to wear something? Not being in the military, I personally think that stripping away individuality brings resentment and prejudice rather than unity, but my bigger question is what is the best way to deal with this issue? "Neutrality" has been a very irksome word in the past couple of weeks, but how does the military maintain a neutral stance in this situation? If you say the turban is fine, then you have to say the yarmulke is fine. And the outward symbols of any other religion have to be fine as well. If neutral means all or nothing, than it has to be. I can see the government living to regret this decision eventually, but honestly, it is about time something was said about this idiotic rule. I can understand a uniform, but yarmulkes, turbans, crosses, etc. in and of themselves are not hurting anyone.
A part of me really wants to agree with this, however not all Constitutional rights are applicable to the military. Free speech is definately limited. I don't think its so much a slippery slope, but if the military were to permit all rights involved with the First Amendment, then you would have many soldiers taking extreme advantage of such rights that would impede the progress involved within their training. Often times soldiers are required to do extensive training that can last from a week to months at a time. Some of this training takes place on particular religious days of worship and if these soldiers were permitted rights such as those established in the Sherbert v. Verner case, then important training time would be lost. I as much as anyone else do not want my religious time taken nor want anyone's religious rights enfringed, but having a military background myself, my experience wants to say that the Army needs to come to an overarching decision on the matter that makes the wearing or prohibitting the wearing of religious markings; something that makes it the same and fair for all.
The correlation of this article with the Goldman v. Weinberger case is very interesting because of the obvious similarities. I find it odd that the defendant did not appear to use the fact that soldiers were able to wear turbans as he was appealing his right to wear a yarmulke. I agree with Shannon that there needs to be some consistency and if there is no risk associated with the religious symbol then it should be allowed to be worn. There will always be a slippery slope argument but I believe in this case certain restrictions on what religious item can be worn is justified. It is not discriminatory but rather it is about a person's safety. If a person cannot put on a helmet because of a religious garb of some sort than obviously it would not be appropriate to wear.
I understand the importance of uniformity to the Armed Forces, but members should be able to wear religiously mandated headdresses.
In class, we discussed how religious belief may be directly linked to morale. I can't think of another place where the morale of the work force is more essential than in the Armed Forces. The rule of men removing their hats indoors originates from etiquette standards based on Protestant values. Since the US militia employs Americans regardless of religion, its policies should accommodate legitimate religious practices that don't interfere with workplace standards.
I think this blogs raises some pretty interesting points, but I would go back to the original ruling in Goldman v. Weinberger, which stipulated the need for strict military uniformity. I think this case is interesting in that exemptions can be made for those soldiers who posses some needed attribute that’s high in demand. This exemption is clearly the deal breaker and signals why Goldman v. Weinberger makes sense. The Jewish officer didn’t have to be in the army, it wouldn’t have made a galactic impact, dissimilarly, these Sikh officers were highly in demand and could not be replaced, thus their religious needs constitutionally filled.
I disagree that the Sikh officers high in command should receive privileges that others do not. To get to where they are in military standing, they had to start in the same position as the officer in Goldman v. Weinberger. All positions in the military and all soldiers looking for religious exemptions deserve equal protection under the first amendment. I agree that there needs to be consistency and don't see any reason why any religious accessory that does not cause harm, discomfort, or hinder abilities in anyway can not be worn. If a turban can fit under a helmet, I would place a heavy bet to say a yarmulke would too. I am happy for the Sikh officers whom were granted exemption and I hope the court continues to grant others that fall within the necessary guidelines.
religious exemptions to military clothing, uniforms codes
Post a Comment