Posted on Jan 1, 2014
Does the military need to dispose of antiquated "uniformity" in lieu of more individual expression?
18K
201
112
2
2
0
An article focused mainly on Indian-Americans was recently published where the discussion turned to changing policies (grooming, wear of uniform, etc) to allow more folks to join without comprising their religious practices/beliefs.<div><br></div><div>Without focusing on specific religions, but focused mainly on grooming and uniform standards, does the military need to dispose of antiquated "uniformity" in lieu of more individual expression?</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.indiawest.com/news/15912-sikh-soldiers-want-more-indian-americans-in-u-s-army.html#kaxMGk112xXGCIbO.99">http://www.indiawest.com/news/15912-sikh-soldiers-want-more-indian-americans-in-u-s-army.html#kaxMGk112xXGCIbO.99</a><br></div><div><br></div><div class="pta-link-card"><div class="pta-link-card-picture"><img src="http://www.indiawest.com/indiawest_cms/gall_content/2013/12/2013_12$largeimg229_Dec_2013_102644053.jpg"></div><div class="pta-link-card-content"><div class="pta-link-card-title"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.indiawest.com/news/15912-sikh-soldiers-want-more-indian-americans-in-u-s-army.html">Sikh Soldiers Want More Indian Americans in U.S. Army</a></div><div class="pta-link-card-description">The United States should change its policy to allow more Indian Americans to join the military without compromising on their religious beliefs and practices, the only three Sikh soldiers in the U.S. A...</div></div><div style="clear:both"></div><div class="pta-box-hide"><i class="icon-remove"></i></div></div>
Standards
Uniforms
Religion
Grooming Standards
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 49
3
2
1
We had a discussion on RP about a month ago concern a gay couple not being allowed to go on a couples retreat because the Chaplin said it was against his religious belief to allow them to attend. Accordingly the Military needs to keep the uniformity in place is the way I feel because the recommended response to that issue was that you cannot allow your religious beliefs to come into your decision making process. If you allow a group to standout from the rest of the force just due to Religious beliefs where do you draw the line would it be a special unit for each religious belief!
(3)
(1)
1SG (Join to see)
I gave you a thumbs down for this particular reason. The chaplain is required, by title 10, to perform Sunday services/religious rites &sacraments and funerals only. Everything else is "extra". That means that those are the the things required of them by law.
The other requirement is that chaplains must perform their duties WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THEIR ENDORSEMENT. this is their specific denomination. If they practice religious laws or beliefs outside these parameters of their own religion, they risk losing the endorsement from their church.
Chaplains must be endorsed by their practicing church, or diocese, etc, in order to be accepted into the military.
They are the only ones, of soldiers that is, that are not considered to be biased or prejudice if singling folks out due to not being able to support particular religious beliefs.
Our job in the chaplain corps is to get them to someone who can, if there is somebody, to help with that.
An example....no one can expect or require a Protestant chaplain to marry 2 Catholics or give them their specific rites. The prot chaplain would be going against his entire core of beliefs...say like a doctor refusing to administer care to the wounded.
The accommodation of religious practices has been around for quite some time...and even for these BLUF: the army and mission come before these, even.
(0)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
1SG Michel, thanks for explaining the thumbs down, if we all agreed, this would be no fun.
You should jump over to that discussion mentioned by PO2 Haga and reference what I was agreeing with.
The point I was agreeing with was that the Chaplain in that incident did not do what you say you are required to do - "get them to someone who can" - he just flat out denied them something that was offered to others. He should have stepped aside and let someone else run the retreat due to his endorsement, instead of letting his personal/religious feelings deny someone something.
I realize that my short response probably didn't convey what exactly I was agreeing with or how that it tied in to what we were discussing here. Thanks!
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
CSM Maynard:
General Patton addressed this very question in his day. Taken from the words of General Patton:
"An army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team.
This individuality stuff is a bunch of bullshit."
- General George Patton Jr
(1)
(0)
1SG(P) (Join to see)
Ma'am, respectfully, GEN Patton also thought this is how tankers should dress. So anything he had to say about uniforms, I'd take with a grain of salt. He may have been a talented tactician. But that doesn't mean his judgement on these matters shouldn't be called into question.
(0)
(0)
CH (CPT) Heather Davis
SFC Callan:
I disagree; he had a long military history. He was passionate and dedicated and committed to the military. He had lost uncles, and cousins who served.
He was outspoken, and he had
dyslexia;
he had the tenacity to stand up against mediocre. He used colorful language, and he expressed himself where he offended many.
In fact, if he was here today many would say that he was a
fanatic, and I will share with
you, he would not be happy about his military, the lack of standards, the lack of leadership, and the increase push for our military to reflect our society.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
We don't need individual expression! We need personnel that respect the uniform and are dedicated to defending the constitution! I'd hate to see where this would end! Think about the regulation that would be required to keep up with the need for "individual expression!" WOW!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
"When you start looking like Marines, you'll start feeling like Marines; when you start feeling like Marines, you'll start acting like Marines"
Gunnery Sergeant Highway
Heartbreak Ridge
It's from a movie but I have seen it firsthand in the Army with my own men.
(1)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
Just this week I had the opportunity to sit and talk with a group of recruits in the USO in O'Hare. They were waiting for the bus to Great Lakes to pick them up and I was waiting for my plane. Male and Female they wanted to know a lot of things about Navy and asked many questions of this old Master Chief to see if there were "secrets" to making it in the Navy. Bottom line was uniformity and grooming that they were most interested in finding out about about. What uniforms would they wear most, haircuts needed, why Navy needed cammies? These young recruits wanted and needed uniformity and consistency in their transition from civilian to warrior - yes WARRIOR. WE ARE WARRIORS, not some kind of civilians waiting for transition back to our prior lives. Once we don the uniform and become warriors for our country, our lives change FOREVER, and we are recognized as different. Our uniformity is the brand that makes us different and unique. Lets not let anyone screw that up.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I know I'm going to be in the wrong here (for thinking a little outside the box), but I think uniformity should apply to uniforms within each unit. I'm not butt-hurt because PFC Smith is wearing a cooks uniform and I can't. Geeze, people. Aren't there more important things than uniforms, like, idunno, finding terrorists and securing the land?
Besides that, let's look at these things from a historical point of view: Vikings had beards and long hair. Spartans had beards and long hair. Colonial era soldiers had beards and long hair. I think it's safe to say that beards and long hair did not deter from their ferocity in battle. Hell, it probably added to it. And THAT was their uniform! Ha, imagine that!
And while we're on the subject of hair, let's discuss hats. I understand why you would need a hat-- to shield your eyes and skin from the sun. But just how much does that PC really cover. Umm, my neck is sunburned every summer in spite of it. Why can't we just make the boonie hat official? Is it because it looks goofy? Guess what-- ACUs look goofy. Tucking pants into boots looks goofy.
Let's get down to the really meat, though. Want to know what really boosts competence and confidence within the troops? Not uniformity or fairness. Its competence and confidence in leaders!!!! Those are the two things that our junior enlisted look for in our leadership!! When they can actually focus on a mission and engage in their own 'job.'-- THAT is what soldiers want!
So, with that said, got troops worried about what they can and cannot wear? Give them a real mission, lead them, and then they'll be less worried about what they have on and more worried about what their enemy has on.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
CSM,
The grooming standards for men in lieu to haircuts and facial hair is based on perception of certain individuals and how it relates to appearance, same with the tattoo policy changes.
Shaving my face every morning does not show discipline. It takes me 5 minutes to do along with the 5 I spend on my teeth.
If the concern is due to professionalism check the grooming standards of coalition forces that allow beards and facial hair IE the Scottish. See how they keep the standard on it. A male can have facial hair and not have a crew cut and still look the professional.
Personally I spend 30-40 a month on haircuts. That is money i would rather put towards my savings account.
The grooming standards for men in lieu to haircuts and facial hair is based on perception of certain individuals and how it relates to appearance, same with the tattoo policy changes.
Shaving my face every morning does not show discipline. It takes me 5 minutes to do along with the 5 I spend on my teeth.
If the concern is due to professionalism check the grooming standards of coalition forces that allow beards and facial hair IE the Scottish. See how they keep the standard on it. A male can have facial hair and not have a crew cut and still look the professional.
Personally I spend 30-40 a month on haircuts. That is money i would rather put towards my savings account.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Im going to make a religion, get however many followers it takes to be a recognized religion and its policies will include no shaving and no haircuts. Then I will get all my followers to join the Army and make more discussions like this. Another perk is that all my followers would save about $598 a year and countless hours waiting on a haircut.
Think the Army would honor that? NO, OF COURSE THEY WOULDN'T. So why are we making exceptions for a few privileged individuals. If you don't like the Army policy on grooming, don't join, it's that simple. The Army doesn't let Christians stop running missions on Christmas, or the Jewish off mission for Hanukkah, so what is the difference?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
CSM M<div>From the newly retired aspect, I hate to say it but until NCO's meet the standards and start following and enforcing the regulations and policies that are out there now I would say NO! The force is not ready. I am a shotgun blaster this a if the shoe fits kind of answer. </div>
(1)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Sidebar question SFC Porter... When did our military's NCO corps reach the point of not enforcing the standard, and why do you think that it happened? I'm not saying that I agree or disagree, I just want your perspective.
(0)
(0)
SFC Jason Porter
Sure MSgt E, I can only speak for the Service I served with, I am a if the shoe fits EX-NCO (shotgun blast) So not all NCO's have this problem but a number do . I feel that NCO's have gotten to buddy buddy with their subordinates meaning drinking of duty together basically fraternization, do not pass a APFT, do not counsel their subordinates, grooming standards, being overfat, being late for duty, not taking responsibility for their actions or their subordinates actions etc. I think this all started after 9/11 the 2 wars I think have damaged the basic Soldering skills yes we are a awesome fighting force no doubt. Before, during the first half of my career not so much NCO's where more professional at least mine where. I didn't even think about back talking my first line.I always did was I was told unless it was unsafe or unjust then I would go to the next NCO in the chain. I just feel the NCO corps has gotten to soft. I feel that it is time to get back to the old standard of what NCO should be. BE,KNOW,DO's what I was taught coming through the ranks. That is my opinion I am sure others will disagree but as professional we can agree to disagree.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SFC Porter is right. I see it all the time and it bothers me and I am one of the few that will say something. Standards and discipline are slipping because NCOs are not enforcing it and the reason they are not enforcing it is because they are lazy or they are friends with their subordinate.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
CSM, what many of those that would suggest a loosening of grooming requirements forget is that the US Soldier is an ambassador. Not only an ambassador in other nations, but one that works with and exists among the American public. Our appearance as a professional is important not only to maintaining discipline within our own ranks, but also maintaining our image in the United States public opinion. Americans think of the "Soldier" of the US Army and see crisp uniforms, berets and hats set in perfect alignment, clean equipment, and physically fit service members. Thus for multiple reasons, our image as professionals is important. Also, the question of allowing a religion privileges that others may not be allowed would be discriminatory as well. As CPT Wolfer stated, "In my mind, it is either permitted or not. " Service members should take pride in their uniforms and what it reflects about themselves as a person, not seek to alter it to stand out from the crowd.
(1)
(0)
CSM Mike Maynard
Good point in that the public has a certain expectation of what a Soldier is and what a Soldier looks like and our uniformity helps present that professional, undeniable icon.
(0)
(0)
2
1
1
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google