In many religions, having facial hair is an important symbol of faith. The Muslim and Orthodox Jewish religions both have spiritual requirements to have a beard. In the case of Di Liscia v Austin, this tradition comes into conflict with a naval order to be clean-shaven. Edmund Di Liscia is a Hassidic Jew and a member of the Navy. When he first joined the Navy, he received a “no-shave” allowment, but on April 14, 2021, he was told that he had to shave and would face punishment if he did not. He requested a temporary restraining order that would prevent the Defense Department from forcing him to shave, giving him time to file this case. A group of Muslim sailors joined Di Liscia as plaintiffs - Dominque Braggs, Mohammed Shoyeb, and Leo Katsareas. Many sailors have received exemptions for medical reasons but there are no accommodations yet for religious beards. According to the Naval rules, having a beard “reduces safe and effective wear and operation of protective equipment.” It may pose a safety risk to the job of the sailors. However, Di Liscia view his beard as an “expression of obedience and fidelity to God.” He considers it a crucial part of his community and spirituality.
The overarching question here is whether the government, particularly the military, is prohibiting the plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion by requiring them to shave their facial hair. There is a conflict of interest here between the safety of the sailors and their religious convictions, as well as the fact that other exemptions to this rule have been offered. If Di Liscia cannot receive an exemption, he will be subject to penalties, damaging his career. In this case, he is forced to choose between his job and his religion, which is not a choice one should have to make, especially when one is employed by the government. Religious freedom is a right guaranteed to all citizens, and the ability to put into practice strong religious convictions should not be inhibited by the government unless there is a compelling enough interest that such restrictions would be more beneficial than detrimental.
I believe that Di Liscia and the other plaintiffs should be given religious exemptions to keep their beards. The traditions in the Orthodox Jewish community and Muslim community in regards to facial hair are well-grounded and sincere. Di Liscia feels as if he has a moral, spiritual, and social obligation to maintain his facial hair. Although there can be a slippery slope here, as sincerity is difficult to judge, in this case, it does help prove that an exemption should be permitted. Also, the state is clearly favoring non-religion over religion as they have allowed exemptions for medical reasons among other cases. While there is a distinction here because these medical reasons are more easy to prove, not providing a religious exemption singles out religion and is a form of discrimination. Furthermore, the state must prove a compelling interest in cases of religious freedom. They have to show that the safety risk behind not being fully clean-shaven is significant enough. One of the plaintiffs, Mohammed Shoyeb, argued that he rarely had situations in which he would have to wear the kind of masks with which the Navy is worried facial hair will interfere. When he did, the beard was inconsequential to the working of the mask. Although this is just one plaintiff’s example, it is evidence against a compelling state interest that being clean shaven will benefit the safety of the plaintiffs.
It is challenging for the court to rule that these plaintiffs should be exempt because they feel as if their beliefs are sincere. Others may start to argue that they should receive exemptions for their religious convictions that seem more phony, but the court cannot discriminate among religions even if the other cases seem ridiculous. Also, safety is incredibly important, especially in a military context, as this can be a life-or-death situation. However, I believe in this case, there are no significant safety discrepancies between the clean-shaven and bearded sailors in the Navy. Contrary to my beliefs, previous Supreme Court decisions may set a precedent for how a court may rule in this one. In the case Goldman v Weinberger, an Orthodox Jewish soldier was prohibited from wearing his yarmulke, an important Jewish symbol, while on duty and in uniform for the Air Force. The Court ruled that this regulation did not violate the Constitution, as military operations are unlike general civilian rulings and are subject to harsher review. Regardless, on the grounds that Di Liscia v Austin is arguing, I think the court should rule in opposition to what they have previously ruled. The religious convictions held by the plaintiffs that they need to maintain their beards outweighs arguments against them. The plaintiffs are clearly being denied free exercise of religion by being restricted from practicing a crucial tradition in their respective faiths. This is a governmental violation of the first amendment, as well as religious discrimination.
5 comments:
This is an extremely interesting case to look at, particularly because it involves the military, which is treated differently from traditional citizens. First, in terms of safety, I think the rule should depend on which position the individual is. As stated, the safety argument is for a particular mask, not often used, and presumably by some navy personnel more than others. However, if the concern is proven to have a compelling state interest, it is hard to argue against it. On the other hand, if the exemption is allowed for medical reasons, is it truly a safety concern. I agree with your argument that the regulation clearly favors non-religious issues with it over religious concerns.
As much as I believe that people should have body autonomy and I see the religious point in having a beard, but as previously mentioned in class, constitutionality applies differently to soldiers than it does to normal citizens. The issue as presented by the military, is that a beard restricts the ability to safely wear certain gear. If this is indeed the case, there is a compelling state interest to enforce the shaving policy. The safety of one soldier effects the safety of all soldiers involved, so in order to keep everyone safe, there needs to be a religious sacrifice made by the men trying to keep their beards.
This is a very interesting case in regard to compelling state interests against personal autonomy and religious expression. From his particular worship, he should be able to keep his beard because of his interpretation of religion and the respective traditions. However, citizens knowingly are giving up freedoms to that particular government controlled, Navy occupation, while is completely legitimate. There are guidelines and rules that must be obeyed when being part of such operation as you are signing away some freedoms. I am hung up on the fact that he was initially granted the "no shave" allowment; however in April of 2021 it appears as though that exemption was suddenly terminated. Maybe if the exemption would have been consistent he could have possibly chosen a different division to gone into or not enlist as all knowing the intolerance his religion would face.
If there is a serious threat of danger if one has a beard while wearing or being in charge of a dangerous piece of equipment, I absolutely believe the religious exemption should not apply. As other comments state, the military has different rules due to their importance to the safety of our country. I completely understand that this is forcing these men to choose between their religion and profession, but this they must make the sacrifice if needed. It is also factual that there are an infinite amount of professions that do hire people with beards, so it is not like there is no hope for them making an income. Now, if there are some jobs in the army (that I am unaware of) that a beard would pose no threat to, a religious exemption should be allowed. For the greater good for the country's interest, the exemptions should not be granted. This is similar to the government being able to shut churches down during the pandemic. No one ate the bread of Christ for almost a year because it was too dangerous for everyone to do so. There are instances where safety is more important than the practice of certain religious sacraments and ways of life.
Post a Comment