« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

US Dhimmi Army

By: Raven (Diary)  |  November 12th, 2010 at 11:25 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

In the US Army, Christians can not mark their gear with crosses and are being threatened with the removal of crosses from Arlington; Jews can not wear their yamakas; Buddhists can not wear robes; Hindi can not wear their dots; no one is allowed a beard; and no male can have long hair.  The uniform standards are spelled out in Army Regulation 670-1 and all are expected to abide by them.

…Except Muslim officers, it would seem. Capt. Kamaljeet Singh Kalsi, a doctor and Sikh, has been allowed by the US Army to serve without cutting his hair, shaving his beard, or removing his turban while in uniform, according to the NYTwits. The Rest of us must continue to meet the standards of uniform wear and appearance, but not him.

General Farrisee, speaking on behalf of the Army, said such issues are decided on a case by case basis depending on factors such as “unit cohesion, morale, discipline, safety and/or health.”

Unit cohesion will be served greatly, singling this man out as special as an activist Muslim even while in uniform. Morale? Discipline? He’s been singled out by the DoD for special treatment. Furthermore, how long till members of his unit start refusing to cut Their hair or beards and wearing headgear not in keeping with Army regs? Safety and health? I don’t know that I have Ever seen a doctor with a full beard or long hair. Would that not provide a hygiene hazard to the patients? The NYTwits don’t make it clear what this man’s specialty is. A hair dropped in the abdominal cavity of a surgical patient can be quite a problem. Will he be required to wear a hairnet while treating patients? He’s an officer. How will he expect to have any respect or authority over enlisted personnel wearing a hairnet over his face?

The Sikh Coalition and Congress both seem to believe that a full change in policy providing an exception for Sikhs in AR 670-1 will be made, with Congress writing a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that stated “We do not believe that any American should have to choose between his religion and service to our country.”

Call your Congressmen and senators now. This travesty can still be reversed.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • exitsfunnel

    I am generally opposed to these sorts of exceptions and am probably even opposed in this specific instance, but it’s sort of a tough call with respect to Sikhs, who essentially can’t be Sikhs without their turbans.

    But why are you conflating Sikhism with Islam? It’s hard to believe that almost a decade after 9/11 someone could still not know the difference between the two.

    -exits

    • eastbaylarry

      “…essentially can?t be Sikhs without their turbans.”

      So? He must have known about this before he enlisted. Was he betting he could get an exception all along?
      I say No.Exception and if he doesn’t like it he can resign, (or be discharged for cause).

      • JSobieski

        As do Christians with extreme skin conditions

        So no, its not what an elistee agrees to. Frankly, I wish we had more Sikhs in the military–many speak Arabic and are far more familiar with Islam than your run of the mill American

        • ffc99

          And interestingly enough, I just saw a story yesterday on the graduation of the first Sikh enlisted soldier since the early 80′s (I believe). He will be serving as a combat medic and was recruited under a program seeking speakers of Hindi and Punjabi.

          http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/army-gets-1st-sikh-735990.html

        • Raven

          However, it would seem I owe Capt Kalsi an apology. He is indeed not a Muslim. I mistakenly confused Sikh as the 3rd largest branch of Islam.

          • JSobieski

            I remember reading back in 1992 that some people were excused from the shaving requirement based on skin issues.

          • exitsfunnel

            When I was in Basic Training (1987) it was pretty common for some of the black soldiers to get shaving waivers for razor bumps. I don’t believe though that the waivers were permanent. I think that it was more common for the condition to come and go.

            -exits

          • acat

            Has to do with the thickness of the skin and the curliness of the hair, which varies quite a lot among you humans.

            Some simply cannot shave. They get a permanent exemption.

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            (1) Sikh’s aren’t Muslims, in fact Sikh’s are frequent targets of Muslim violence and Sikh’s don’t have the status of being “people of the book”

            (2) Google “shaving waivers” and “US military”. While most shaving waivers for medical reasons are temporary, not all of them are. It would also appear that medical-based shaving waivers are on the rise.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Ease up?

          • JSobieski

            You are of course right. That is why you are the moderator and I am the guy misdirecting my frustration from some technical problems this week.

            Raven, you are correct to look for such things. Its just so happens that in this instance, there was no PC-double standard. There are of course many instances where there was a PC-induced double standard.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            … but it’s always easier being the third party looking in. Picking the specks from everyone’s eyes, so to speak. :)

          • Raven

            First, “Razor Bumps” are not “extreme skin conditions.” They are temporary. Razor bumps are ingrown hairs caused by shaving areas not used to being shaved and/or using equipment that trims the hair in such a fashion as to cause problems.
            People with curly hair have a vastly greater tendency to have such a problem because the hair curls under the skin.

            Second, it is a temporary condition. Changes in method or equipment (electric razors, different shaving cream, whatever) invariably make the problem go away. Other temporary skin irritations (sunburns, rashes, windburn, etc), invariably make the problem return, temporarily.

            Third, yes, shaving waivers are on the rise. So are weight waivers. The Army has decided PT isn’t necessary during Basic or AIT anymore. “We’re moving from a strong army to a smart army,” or some such stupidity. ALL of that kind of thing is on the rise.

            And finally, and perhaps most importantly, This kind of waiver can’t be gotten during the enlistment process. Something about which I do happen to be an expert on, having spent a significant portion of my career in precisely that field. Medical waivers of Any kind are extremely difficult to get and skin conditions are invariably unwaiverable. And since I said that “extreme skin conditions” (something razor bumps don’t qualify as being as they’re rather not “extreme”) can’t enlist, I believe your argument on that point is rather less than shaky.

            I admitted my error in this diary and what caused it. Are you able to do the same in your own case?

          • JSobieski

            So there are people in the US military who are permanent excused from shaving. This is what I classified as an extreme skin condition.

            I may be using incorrect terminology, but I wasn’t wrong about what I said

          • JSobieski

            the links speak for themselves

          • mskdl

            Just so we understand — do you still standby your comments now that you have found out that he was a Sikh? If not, why are only Muslim hair problematic and not Sikh hair?

            You wrote: “Furthermore, how long till members of his unit start refusing to cut Their hair or beards and wearing headgear not in keeping with Army regs? Safety and health? I don?t know that I have Ever seen a doctor with a full beard or long hair. Would that not provide a hygiene hazard to the patients? The NYTwits don?t make it clear what this man?s specialty is. A hair dropped in the abdominal cavity of a surgical patient can be quite a problem. Will he be required to wear a hairnet while treating patients? He?s an officer. How will he expect to have any respect or authority over enlisted personnel wearing a hairnet over his face?”

            Btw, your post also referenced here:
            http://blog.seattlepi.com/muslimperspectives/archives/228423.asp
            “Redstate’s use of Army’s exception to target Muslims”

          • powertothepeople

            You and that ignorant site fail to see that very quickly the author recognized the mistake and made a correction. But the basic tenants of this post stand and you can take that back to the pathetic blog you linked to and let them know the same.

            Go practice flying from a high building and spare us your nonsense!

    • Raven

      While I recognize the emotional reaction over my error mixing in Sikhs as Muslims, I still rather wish more could have responded in the same manner as yourself.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Sikhs aren’t Muslims.

    • Raven

      Failure of research on my part.

  • tegs

    Sikhs unfortunately are the target of mistaken identity in this country and RAVEN’s headline proves it. Almost 100% of the men who wear turbans in this country are Sikhs, unlike the images of terrorists that you see on TV.
    I am rather shocked at Raven’s comments about hygiene and so called hair falling in abdominal cavity and his utter ignorance and irresponsibility in making these wild statement. There are thousands of Sikh doctors all over USA and many of them surgeons who are serving this country and treating the patients every day.

    Sikhs have a very proud history as one of the best soldiers and fighter pilots in the entire world. More that 85,000 Sikhs died as part of British and allied forces in world war I and II in Europe and Asia.

    The Battle of Saragarhi, one of history’s most famous last stands, was fought during the Tirah Campaign on 12 September 1897 between twenty-one Sikhs of the 4th Battalion (then 36th Sikhs) of the Sikh Regiment of British India, defending an army post, and 10,000 Afghan and Orakzai tribesmen. The battle occurred in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, now part of Pakistan, which then formed part of British India.

    The contingent of the twenty-one Sikhs from the 36th Sikhs was led by Havildar Ishar Singh. They all chose to fight to the death. Sikh military personnel and Sikh civilians commemorate the battle every year on 12 September, as Saragarhi Day
    When the gallantry of Saragarhi was recounted to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the recitation drew a standing ovation from the members. The saga of Saragarhi was also brought to the notice of Queen Victoria.

    ? “The British, as well as the Indians, are proud of the 36th Sikh Regiments. It is no exaggeration to record that the armies which possess the valiant Sikhs cannot face defeat in war” – Parliament of the United Kingdom[5] ?
    ? “You are never disappointed when you are with the Sikhs. Those 21 soldiers all fought to the death. That bravery should be within all of us. Those soldiers were lauded in Britain and their pride went throughout the Indian Army. Inside every Sikh should be this pride and courage. The important thing is that you must not get too big-headed it is important to be humble in victory and to pay respect to the other side.” – Field Marshal William Joseph Slim, 1st Viscount Slim[9]

    Prince Charles even tried to raise pure Sikh battalions in UK but was over ruled by British commission for equality.

    Sikhs are sworn enemies of fanaticism and bigotry and believe in all the freedoms and liberties that this great country stands for.

    • powertothepeople

      she was not challenging their decency or their bravery. Her comments concerning the facial hair came from legitimate concerns. As she stated, the uniform rules should be exactly that, uniform. And there is a very legitimate concern that hair could fall into an open wound. We shed numerous hairs every day, hence that is why doctors wear hair helmets when operating.

      Not cutting ones hair for a religious purpose is fine, but if that interferes with common rules or hygiene rules, it is a choice they must make and we should not have to be preached out for holding them to a certain standard. To put it another way, if my religion tells me to not kill animals and I firmly believe and practice that, then I nor my supporters should not get up in arms when the pig killing factory refuses to hire me.

      • Raven

        I’m a guy. Thanks.

        My issue was actually less about the hygiene and uniformity than about kowtowing to another “muslim” demand. The other 2 parts are significant issues, but not what got me so twisted up on this.

        As it happens, and as everyone has pointed out (some more helpfully than others), I was wrong about Sikhs being Muslims. I had rather completely forgotten what the name of the third largest Muslim faction and failed to look into it before writing this.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
          • JSobieski

            although some Sufi’s are Shia (and Sufism original grew out of Shia Islam)

            http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/islam-sufi.htm

          • Raven

            That’s exactly what I thought, but I couldn’t even find it with a search.

        • Ed54

          Your mistake helped us all to learn something we didn’t know before. Nothing wrong with that.

          The Sikh article on Wikipedia is pretty interesting. Apparently they are reknowned warriors in India, making up about 20% of the Indian Army though they are less than 2% of the population. Also, most of their history has been marked by warfare against various Islamic rulers such as the Mughuls.

          Good to have ‘em on our side, I say.