US military to permit more religious garb [CWN]


#1

The United States military has amended its policies on the wearing of religious garb."Religious garb that had previously been banned, including head coverings or pendants, is likely to …

More…


#2

I believe this is a good move.


#3

I don’t like this. It is going to cause division and it is going to make having a uniform useless. What point in having a uniform if everyone is wearing something different than everyone else in the platoon?


#4

Why not? After approving overt homosexuality, including having homosexual “marriages” on government property, and providing housing for homosexual “spouses”, and moving toward putting women in combat, letting them be bejangled as well is hardly a dramatic move.

The leftists now in power would, I am sure, eventually like to see no military at all.


#5

would solders wearing crosses be kosher in your book? How about religious medals?


#6

The point of a uniform is uniformity, so that everybody is made to understand that they are on the same team.


#7

If the Vatican had an army, I would be okay with either on their uniforms.

As part of the U.S. uniforms? Absolutely not, except for those standard U.S. military medals that are cross-shaped, like the infantry rifleman’s sharpshooter’s medal . Perhaps a Victoria Cross awarded by Britain for some reason. I believe that’s permitted. But specifically religious medals on the exterior, no. Under the shirt, fine. After all, they wear dog tags.


#8

Exactly.

Currently sodiers can where one medal, cross, star of David, etc on the chain that their dog tags are on. The PX even sells approved religious jewelry that can be added on with the dog tags. They can carry rosaries, bibles, or just about anything they want in their many cargo pockets. Some Jewish men even where their yarmulke under the approved headgear. As long as it doesn’t show, no one says anything. Tattoos and piercings that are covered by long sleeves and pants are also allowed. Female soldiers may wear one pair of small earrings already as well. all members of a unit must be in THE SAME UNIFORM unless there are specific reasons for someone to be out of the assigned uniform (going to the board, certain appointments, etc). When doing PT, all members must be wearing either winter PTs or summer PTs, or the same mix (long pants and short sleeve shirt or long sleeves and short pants, etc.). It is for team building. It is for uniformity. It is for placing everyone on a level playing field. It is for looks as well. I’ve seen times where one guy forgets his boots at home and everyone else is in boots. The guy in shoes looks silly.

It’s hard for people to understand the necessity of uniforms these days. Our society says we should shout out our deepest secrets from the rooftops and be individuals. We are supposed to vocally proclaim our beliefs even if we offend, and if someone is offended then it is their problem not ours. We think we need to be “non-judgmental,” but what most people think of as non-judgmental is really division. (“I think this, so I’m staying on this side with all the other people who think and all the others can stand over there. We have the bigger group so we win and they just have to realize they are judging us so they are bad.”) It is ridiculous to do this in a situation where lives depend on each other for safety.

Look at pictures if the Swiss Guard. They are a religious CATHOLIC army. There is no crucifix on their uniform. And all of them are dressed alike.


#9

Yeah, because wearing a religious item or increasing what items one can wear while in uniform is the exact same thing as putting women into combat MOSs (women already are in combat) or homosexual marriage. :rolleyes:


#10

You mean like how rank indicators, special skill badges, unit patches, hair length, facial hair (mustaches), wedding ring (if married), tattoos (waivered in, visible in PT uniform)glasses cause division? That’s not even going into the gear a soldier wears (not every soldier carries the same equipment into combat as his platoon mates).


#11

Those things don’t cause division. Those things are differences. Some are earned, some are job related, some are just because they improve a soldier’s performance or a unit’s performance. Divisions are caused by strong feelings. And now a days, hair length is pretty strictly enforced in the Army, not sure about other branches. SF hair may be slightly longer but not by much. Mustaches are regulated as well in their length and how they are groomed.


#12

-Regulated doesn’t equate to “the same” (i.e. uniform); and if you don’t think a haircut or mustache that is within regs but not the norm for the unit doesn’t cause divisions, you haven’t had to deal with a soldier who decides to actually read the regs so he can push his sergeant’s buttons.

-You mind citing the studies that show this apparent division that will be caused by the increase in what religious items one can wear while in uniform?


#13

Ah, consistency! I like that!


#14

I don’t read studies. I don’t like them. I don’t trust them because you can find any study that proves whatever point you want you want to make, and I can find one that proves the exact opposite. But I live in real life among real people and can tell you very few things encite anger, resentment, division more than religion and politics.


#15

I don’t much care one way or another, as long as whatever policy that’s in place is enforced consistently and fairly between branches, bases, units, and religions.

I don’t see a problem at all with opening up what kind of religious garb can be worn, especially when some religions mandate that those items must be worn. Now of course, war zones, training exercises, etc will all have an impact on when these things can be on. But all in all, allowing people to wear their religiously-mandated clothing while working working in an office or other environment where it won’t be a problem, is a kind accommodation to make.

I don’t think that it was cause division. Our troops are all adults. If someone wants to make someone else’s religious head covering a divisive issue, I trust that the higher ups will be ready and able to deal with it swiftly.


#16

So you’re all for the removal of religious symbols from the military all together? Like what the chaplains wear instead of rank, in and around some of the military chapels, removal of the chaplain corp all together?


#17

No. There is a time and a place for everything. Chaplains have everything they need to perform their job just as an 89D has everything to do theirs. A chaplain has a cross (or whatever religious symbol) to identify them as a chaplain. An 89D has a bomb-like thing to identify them as EOD. No one is required to talk to the chaplain and the chaplains are trained to talk to the troops in ways that don’t breed division.


#18

Would be nice if there were no military and no killing in the world. :slight_smile:


#19

I see. In theory you’re pro-chaplain corps, but only if said chaplains belong to a faith that does not require facial hair (Sikh for example) or religious garb (Jewish for example). Or do chaplains fall under a special category in regards to what they wear (which pretty much destroys your everyone looking uniform argument)?

As for chaplains and the chaplain corps not causing a division, would you care for me to link the various news stories involving soldiers upset with and/or suing over the military’s use of chaplains and/or their faith not having a chaplain or facilities?


#20

I’m afraid the “no killing” would have to come before the “no military”. Human nature being what it is, I doubt humankind will ever see the end of either.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.