Posted on 01/04/2017 5:23:56 PM PST by blackbetty59
In the final days of the Obama administration, the military has issued new guidelines for religious accommodations and dress.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Women should be taken of of Navy ships as well.
It’s no longer “PC” to say it but the Brits for more than 150 years referred to the Sikhs one of the “martial races,” right up there with the Gurkhas, and they were every bit as renown for their loyalty and ferocity in combat. The US Army allowed serving Sikhs to wear beards, turbans and religious amulets (the 5 Ks) when in uniform until (IIRC) 1986. If any group is worthy of a dress code modification, at least so they can serve in REMF roles, it is the Sikhs.
But the rest of those slackers should either conform or put in their résumé at Burqa King. Especially the women. Get a “high and tight,” just like everybody other swingin’ Richard in uniform. Then they won’t need cornrows, or a size 8 and 3/4 cover to tuck it under.
I always understood that beards were only permitted in the Asiatic fleet. But then I am way out of date.
How soon can we get rid of Mabus and the rest of 0’s Sec of Military branches, not just remove them from office, but RETIRE them.
Once out of boot camp, I grew my beard back, while I was in A school. I spent my entire hitch on the Lexington, out of Pensacola, and had a beard the entire time. 4/74 - 4/78.
No. Not in the US military! NO!
Sikhs are an interesting case. They have specific religious requirements to not cut their hair (including their beards), for men to wear turbans over their hair. I think the Army already had some accommodations for Sikh men.
But there are no specific religious requirements for Muslim women to wear a hijab. The only religious requirement from the Koran is to dress modestly.
We hear all of the politically correct bullsh!t that Muslim women "choose" to wear a hijab, and it is not forced on them. Then we get this politically correct bullsh!t that essentially says the hijab is a requirement of Islam, so it must be accommodated. It required cognitive dissonance.
As for dreadlocks, it is just as much political correctness. Dreadlocks require hair to be unwashed for an extended time in order to naturally mat. For some crazy reason dreadlocks are popular now in the African American community, more so by African American males than African American females. When dreadlocks fall out of style, and if the Afro returns, will the Army then revise its dress and appearance rules to allow large Afros?
There is a reason military clothing is called a "uniform". There is a reason military dress and appearance regulations often speak of "uniform" dress and appearance. Uniformity of dress and appearance is considered a prerequisite for good order and discipline. Uniformity of dress and appearance enforces a sameness and egalitarianism, and eliminates individualism. For millennia armies saw this as a prerequisite for good order and discipline.
What is crazy is the left, in society loves egalitarianism and wants to reduce everyone to a level of sameness. But at the same time, they want their preferred identity groups to retain the right for individuality.
As a veteran, it saddens me to see the military come to this.
There is no way that would have been allowed in my day. Even Crystal Gayle would not have been allowed to tie up that much hair.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.