Guardsman sues over Army's new tattoo rules

Stars and Stripes ^ | May 1, 2014 | Brett Barrouquere

[Jet Jaguar]

A Kentucky National Guard soldier with aspirations of joining a U.S. Army special operations unit wants a federal judge to overturn the military's new regulations concerning soldiers with tattoos.

Staff Sgt. Adam C. Thorogood of Nashville, Tennessee, said the tattoos covering his left arm from the elbow to the wrist aren't harmful, but the Army is using the body art against him and stopping him from fulfilling a dream of joining "The Nightstalkers," the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Thorogood's attorneys said the new rules are preventing their client from seeking appointment as a warrant officer.

Thorogood, 28, sued Thursday in U.S. District Court in Paducah, Kentucky, seeking to have the new rules declared unconstitutional. He is seeking $100 million in damages.

The regulations went into effect in March cover a variety of appearance-related issues including hair styles, fingernails, glasses and jewelry. The rules ban tattoos below the knee or elbow. Soldiers who already have the ink are grandfathered in. Under the new regulations, any soldier with tattoos is barred from seeking a promotion to warrant officer or commissioning as an officer.

"You've got a soldier who is about as gung ho as you get ... then you've got this regulation you read about on Facebook and you don't have a career," said Robin May, a Kentucky-based attorney who represents Thorogood. "That would be a blow."

May said the new regulations violate a constitutional ban on laws that retroactively change the legal consequences or status of actions that were committed before the enactment of the law. The ban also infringes upon Thorogood's free speech rights, May said.

An Army spokesman did not immediately return a message Thursday. In an online video posted in March, Sgt. Maj. of the Army Raymond F. Chandler III addressed why the changes were made, saying appearance matters and should "be a matter of personal pride" to soldiers.

"The Army is a profession, and one of the ways our leaders and the American public measure our professionalism is by our appearance," Chandler said. "Every soldier has the responsibility to understand and follow these standards. Leaders at all levels also have a responsibility to interpret and enforce these standards, which begins by setting the example."

Tattoos have long been a part of military culture, but as they have become more popular, and more prominently displayed on the body, the various branches have been regulating them in to try to maintain a professional look. The Air Force bans tattoos covering more than a quarter of an exposed body part, under regulations revised in 2011. In 2006, the Navy announced that forearm tattoos could be no wider than a hand's breadth.

The Marine Corps has been cracking down on tattoos for years. In 2007, the Corps banned sleeve tattoos and those covering the leg below the knee.

Thorogood spent 10 years on active duty in the Army as a decorated soldier and sniper before switching to the Reserves, a move that allowed him to pursue a degree in aerospace at Middle Tennessee State University and pursue certifications in flying planes. Attorney Ken Humphries said Thorogood's goal was to submit an application for an appointment as a warrant officer, which are usually technical leaders and specialists, and become a helicopter pilot.

Thorogood has 11 tattoos, including three on his left arm featuring a three-member sniper team, a second of skulls and the sniper logo of a serpent and spear and an ambigram of the words "Fear Is the Mind Killer." After the tattoo regulations took effect, body art that Thorogood had before the regulations could get him charged with a military offense if he even applied for the position.

"It disqualifies a candidate for cosmetic reasons," Humphries said.

[SkyPilot]

For tattoos or incest? (Leviticus 19:28 or 18:6?)

[ozaukeemom]

My tats are personal and I am happy with them. They are for me. Took me 49 years to get one.

[jjotto]

Eeny, meeny, miny, moe...

What does Michael Rood say?

[Delta Dawn]

Tattoos can also spread AIDS, because equipment is sometimes not adequately sterilized.

That's nothing, my wife told me that she got syphilis off a toilet seat at work.

Any state licensed tattoo artist will have a clean sterile studio. If you are getting tattooed at Art's Crack & Tats shop, that may be a problem.

[xzins]

Not true...it is still in effect per Acts 15. As I said, the 4 items restricted included sexual immorality, so the Lev 18:6 passage still applies. You are not to approach a close relative sexually. That IS, and everyone knows it, one form of sexual immorality.

So, read Acts 15 to see those things restricted still for gentile Christians.

They are:

1. Meat offered to idols (participating in idolatrous worship)

2. Consuming blood (a subset of barbarity and ritual fierceness)

3. Meat strangled (probably a form of things found dead)

4. Sexual immorality (all forms and varieties)

So, tattoos do not restrict a person from being saved and more than does eating bacon for breakfast.

However, that does NOT make getting a tattoo beneficial thing. Personally, I don’t think it is beneficial.

[familyop]

What do you think? Tattoos: idolatry or not? It would seem to be something to shy away from although not specifically delivered before Moses as far as I know. But for combat soldiers?

Probably not. We weren’t allowed to express individuality. We were trained to move as units. Maybe non-combat military personnel should be allowed to wear whatever they like. It would make them look more distinguished and cool.

[familyop]

"Any state licensed tattoo artist will have a clean sterile studio."

Are tools autoclaved like dental instruments?

[SkyPilot]

However, that does NOT make getting a tattoo beneficial thing. Personally, I don’t think it is beneficial.

What do you think that Jesus or Billy Graham would say to that?

[SkyPilot]

Not true...it is still in effect per Acts 15. As I said, the 4 items restricted included sexual immorality, so the Lev 18:6 passage still applies

So, let us be clear. Tattoos are now OK with God per your interpretation. Incest, so far, is not. Both of those Laws are from Leviticus.

[rmlew]

That might be better said without irony. Granted, we shouldn't look at the physical collapse of any cruel, idolatrous empire with our eyes and jump for joy at the demise of its supporters, although it's very difficult to avoid doing so. Very difficult indeed. Several empires like that have fallen for good reasons.
I'm Jewish. I have mixed feelings about Rome. That said, the Western Roman Empire was Christian after 330. At that time, it was effectively Western Civilization. "The West" used to be congruent with Latin Christendom for a reason. In fact, I can barely fathom a conservative taking your position.

At any rate, I am directly comparing our fate to Rome's, no irony intended. The American Empire collapses before us. Europe is breaking away from us and its history as it becomes Eurabia. The Goths who destroyed Rome came as refugees. We face an irridentist and revanchist invasion from the south, even as our elites choose to destroy ou nationalism and civic cohesion. The Goths crossed the Danube in 332 CE. The Western Roman Empire ended 123 years later. We will be lucky to survive 1/3 as long unless there are drastic changes.

[SkyPilot]

So, tattoos do not restrict a person from being saved

Hello xzins. I really do like you, and I respect you. But I am still trying to get my arms around what you said.

A child rapist who comes to Christ has no restrictions on being saved by the Cross. Jesus fulfilled it all. Are you saying that there are qualifications based on behavior that will accept or reject salvation? I am not talking repentance - which is a different matter. Thanks.

[Future Snake Eater]

You keep posting pics of gangbangers and circus freaks as “evidence” of this so-called “evil.” That’s a great strawman tactic, but it’s utterly useless here, and you’re not fooling me. I’ve served with these people, in combat, and I know that tattoos don’t make a damn bit of difference as to the effectiveness or potential as leaders.

As long as you’re quoting the Old Testament regarding tattoos, was that in the moral, civil, or religious law?

[xzins]

Let’s be clear, tattoos are in the same category as eating pork, getting circumcised, and eating shrimp. All are not part of the moral law, but are set aside as having no impact on salvation.

As God has given me wisdom, I know that circumcision is not required for me to be a Christian in good standing. Beyond the picture of spiritual cleanness that God taught with circumcision, I’m certain God approved of the health benefits of circumcision. So, there are good reasons to have my male children circumcised. The same with tattoos. You can be a Christian in good standing and have tattoos. That doesn’t mean it does not have health issues attached with the practice. Reviewing this thread, one can see some of them that are mentioned.

As for those practices NOT approved in Acts, I believe there are spiritual, moral, social, or psychological negatives that the Acts 15 apostles thought were so significant that they continued the ban on blood consumption. As for sexual immorality, that is a moral issue, as are all of the commandments of the moral law through the command, “love God with your whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, and your neighbor as yourself.” As Jesus taught, all the law (especially moral) is summed up in those.

I think Jesus, Paul, Billy Graham, and other saints who understand salvation by grace will be fine with what I’ve asserted.

[xzins]

Are you saying that there are qualifications based on behavior that will accept or reject salvation?

No, I'm saying that the Leviticus passage makes it salvific....salvation through works. That is why the Judaizers in Acts were taken to task by Paul and the Jerusalem council was held. Paul was teaching a pure message of "salvation by grace" and the Judaizers were adding elements of the law, specifically circumcision, to the requirement for salvation. Paul contended with them, and the Jerusalem Council sided with Paul, but added some restrictions that would be better for the people.

So, those who wish to apply the Levitical law are generally asking that we go back to salvation by works of the law and not by grace.

I don't think tattoos will cause a soul to be lost.

[meadsjn]

Idiot sues someone else for his own stupidity.

Hopefully this gets dropped on a judge who will echo the same sentiments.

[SkyPilot]

Yes, salvation is through faith. Of course if someone has committed sin, and they repent and accept Christ they are not prohibited from the Kingdom. It is by Grace that we are saved. Christ fulfilled the law (Matthew 5:17).

Romans 13 helps us understand how we keep the law now. Romans 14 tells us the effect keeping the Old Testament laws means now. Romans 12 and 15 tells us why we keep the law (as explained in Romans 13) now.

All scripture is God breathed and useful (2 Timothy 3:16). The Levitical laws hammer out ethics and righteousness. You never answered if incest is no longer valid or a practice that human beings should espouse. That prohibition is right next to the prohibition in Leviticus regarding tattoos. Leviticus also prohibits homosexuality. You would not argue that that is OK for Christians.

A Christian should not mark themselves with tattoos. We are no longer under dietary laws (Acts 10:13). But we are still commanded by God not to practice righteousness, even though we are no longer under the law.

As John Stott wrote: “The function of the law was not to bestow salvation, however, but to convince men of their need of it.”

Romans 6: 1-4 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

If I was doing a Bible study with a saved Christian, and he went out that afternoon and got a tattoo on his face, I would ask him why he did that.

[Hot Tabasco]

Thorogood, 28, sued Thursday in U.S. District Court in Paducah, Kentucky, seeking to have the new rules declared unconstitutional. He is seeking $100 million in damages.

Thorogood is a tatted scumbag who's invested in the legal lottery.........

[Hot Tabasco]

I have a good buddy that is a warrant officer in the reserves and an Apache pilot.

It is a damn shame the way they are being treated (and he has no tattoos)

the military has a history of not being friendly to individuals. Tell your friend to suck it up and get over it.......Obviously he's not too pissed off since he's still flying.......LOL!

[xzins]

All forms of sexual immorality remain prohibited according to Acts 15. That includes incest and homosexuality. I assume you see that, SkyPilot.

Therefore, the issue is tattooing. Tatooing is not among those items still forbidden to Christians in Acts 15.

Is eating pork a sin?

Is getting a tattoo a sin?

No on both.

Here is Lev 19:19: “19 “ ‘Keep my decrees. “ ‘Do not mate different kinds of animals. “ ‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. “ ‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.”

Is it a sin to wear a poly/cotton shirt?

Is it a sin to put both corn and beans in your garden?

Is it a sin to have a mule?

[Future Snake Eater]

It was his own stupidity that the Army changed its policy while he is still in—with no “grandfather clause”—and deems that he’s now not fit to be a leader even though just recently and certainly a few years ago he’d be welcomed in with open arms?

That’s a pretty interesting statement. Enthrall us with your intelligence, please.