Air Force allows beards & turbans and such

[Homestar]

3 hours ago, Guardian said:

You’re open? No you aren’t. You just read someone else’s thoughts and put your own meaning to it. No where in your rambling statement did you ask a question for intent of the author or attempt to discern or dissect what the author was thinking. That’s poor form old chap.

Quit being so defensive. 

[gearhog]

1 hour ago, jice said:

I’ll buy that for a $2 bill (for the sake of argument). So then the question is what do we value most? [which detriment are we most willing to accept?] Do we want the Muslim in uniform with accommodation or do we want him to stay home?

Thinking about it for a minute: Under conscription, I’d be all for absolute minimization of other-than-service identity. With an all volunteer force, we’re a team of people whose motivations should (in theory) be roughly aligned at entry. The uniforms at Lexington and Concord probably looked like shit.

 

I don't necessarily agree with the false dilemma you're presenting, which is asking what least bad scenario we're willing to accept: a Muslim in uniform or a Muslim at home. No one has made any allusions to that, by the way. Denying an outward display of religion isn't the same as denying a religious person's ability to serve. If it were, do we want someone so inflexible in their personal belief system to be trusted to do what's asked by their Nation in a time of crisis?

If we're an all-volunteer force in need of warm bodies, it should be abundantly clear that granting special status and exemptions to extremely small groups creates resentment by those who don't enjoy the same. If you're deployed and complaining about not being able to grow a killer mustache while no one else can either, it's not a big deal. But when you start seeing an ever increasing number of exemptions be granted, it begins to irritate. Same goes for the running waiver at the mass PT test when you see a large group standing around during the run.  You get people who say things like "It must be nice to be on that 'I don't have to do the run this year because my knee hurts' gravy train."

If ywe want to loosen the standards to reflect the increased diversity and equality we all enjoy, that's great! But I believe we should loosen them equally for everyone instead of labeling those who point out inconsistencies as "intolerant" and "defensive" while giving the ol' virtue-signalling finger wag to score easy debate points.

[Guardian]

I am familiar with an issue where a Muslim member died as a result of his service an autopsy was required as a result contrary to Muslim beliefs. Since this member joined and agreed to live by the military ethos, then he accepted the military’s decision as a result.

 

This discussion isn’t about denying someone their religious beliefs but showing them a standard exists and if they choose to accept that in order to join then they do that.

 

What about evangelical Christians. They aren’t allowed to practice their beliefs. But we make it ok for certain individuals to practice their beliefs but not others? Pretty odd.

 

Homestar, no one is defensive here. Just pointing out that you were inaccurate and dishonest with your made up narrative which by the way you have yet to retract.

 

[Duck]

I’m from the south so I can’t really put into words well what I’m trying to say. I think if anyone makes us a better fighting force then we need to make a way for them the be a part of the team. If they need exceptions to make that happen then we need to look at the reg and ask “why was this an issue to not wear headgear or have beards?” If we come to the conclusion that it was just a rule we made up for the sake of uniformity, maybe we just eliminate the rule altogether. Then woila, no exception is needed because now a well groomed beard is uniformly acceptable (i.e. the German military).

But the military is not a social experiment and if it comes to the conclusion that someone being in the military is not in the military’s best interest (a paraplegic fighter pilot), then I would say, thank you for your offer of service, let’s find somewhere better suited for that service.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Guardian]

Well said Duck.

[jice]

2 hours ago, torqued said:

1) I don't necessarily agree with the false dilemma you're presenting...
 

2) Denying an outward display of religion isn't the same as denying a religious person's ability to serve.
 

3) If it were, do we want someone so inflexible in their personal belief system to be trusted to do what's asked by their Nation in a time of crisis?

4) If we're an all-volunteer force in need of warm bodies, it should be abundantly clear that granting special status and exemptions to extremely small groups creates resentment by those who don't enjoy the same. If you're deployed and complaining about not being able to grow a killer mustache while no one else can either, it's not a big deal. But when you start seeing an ever increasing number of exemptions be granted, it begins to irritate. Same goes for the running waiver at the mass PT test when you see a large group standing around during the run.  You get people who say things like "It must be nice to be on that 'I don't have to do the run this year because my knee hurts' gravy train."

5) If ywe want to loosen the standards to reflect the increased diversity and equality we all enjoy, that's great! But I believe we should loosen them equally for everyone

6) instead of labeling those who point out inconsistencies as "intolerant" and "defensive" while giving the ol' virtue-signalling finger wag to score easy debate points.

1) Valid for implication of false dichotomy here as a third party.  But!
2) For many, the dichotomy isn’t false. For some it’s a choice between piety and service. Agree that banning display and denying service aren’t the same. However, what if practice and display happen to be the same? Sikh hair (thus turban) is a great example. That’s the intent these exemptions are designed around. (Not to mention, the number of times I’ve heard people say “In Jesus’s name we pray” on others’ behalf at an AF function makes me feel like wearing a different hat is pretty innocuous. 
3) Those people already serve. It just so happens that they’re Christians (including Mormons), Jews, Vegans, and Pastafarians. They just don’t have to wear things that are outwardly visible. 
4) Here’s the crux of this: they irritate because they seem invalid. That’s fine and good. The dirtbag with the ‘hurt’ knee is a dirtbag and we should all be frustrated. The person who just had ACL surgery is not a dirtbag; I don’t think you’d express the same frustration towards them.  Is a religious requirement a valid reason to grant exemption? I think so; if it gets me a more diverse force. (I’m a firm believer that diversity increases problem solving ability, and a larger talent pool doesn’t ever hurt). But... you’re right, people will rankle at “their rights are more important than my rights” arguments... So!..
 

5) Totally agree. Change the rules for everyone.  If you’re a dude who wants to wear a turban to work, do it. Not going to check up on your religious beliefs. Don’t be a douche. It’s just a hat (unless it’s not), who cares!

6) Not going to touch it. Believe what you want. 

[Hawg15]

I don’t get the issue here. When you are in uniform you represent the organization you chose of your own free will to work for. If you aren’t a chaplain, you don’t represent religious, personal, political, or any other beliefs while wearing it. If X individual can have a beard without tarnishing the uniform then everyone serving should be permitted as well. 

[Tank]

Just join SF and you can have a beard anytime you’re deployed!

Time to nut-up or shut-up!!

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2020 by Tank

[Duck]

Are those pictures from your “private” hard drive?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Tank]

9 minutes ago, Duck said:

Are those pictures from your “private” hard drive?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Found them on your Moms personal hard drive...

[Duck]

Found them on your Moms personal hard drive...

Well I’m just glad that’s her vice and not attempting coat hanger abortions like your mom did. How is your head doing these days by the way?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Duck]

Well I’m just glad that’s her vice and not attempting coat hanger abortions like your mom did. How is your head doing these days by the way?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

That was mean and I’m ashamed of myself. I love you Tank.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[brabus]

14 hours ago, Guardian said:

What about evangelical Christians. They aren’t allowed to practice their beliefs. But we make it ok for certain individuals to practice their beliefs but not others? Pretty odd.

Seventh Day Adventist and Jews shouldn’t work on saturdays because it’s a day of rest. How many of those people are working on saturdays because that’s what they signed up for and see it as something bigger than themselves, and in a part, bigger than their religion? I bet the answer is a lot. But you don’t see them complaining or asking to take every sat off.

13 hours ago, Hawg15 said:

I don’t get the issue here. When you are in uniform you represent the organization you chose of your own free will to work for. If you aren’t a chaplain, you don’t represent religious, personal, political, or any other beliefs while wearing it

Shack.

Edited February 17, 2020 by brabus

[Bigred]

I don’t like beards in uniform, and that’s my personal opinion. If we are changing the policy to allow beards for religious purposes, then we should allow everyone to have beards.
 

Reason being; equality across the board while in uniform is key. While it’s for ‘religious purposes’, it gives someone an extra benefit not available to everyone else, and it’s not a function of their job or duty position.

At the end of the day, I’m still against the idea of beards not because of the dudes that can grow a full beard but because of those dudes that can’t. I don’t wanna see guys walking around in uniform that haven’t shaved in three weeks and have the white-trash trailer park style beard going on. 

[Guardian]

But we haven’t had equality of opportunity for those with religious tenets that require a turban or a beard, which was the point of the OP. 

Completely disagree. The equality of opportunity is to sacrifice some things the military seems appropriate that you are asking for in order to be apart of the standardized military organization. There is the equality of opportunity to join for those willing. Remember it’s still an all volunteer force.

[jazzdude]

because that’s what they signed up for and see it as something bigger than themselves, and in a part, bigger than their religion?

I think this is probably the heart of this argument. It's the whole "God, Family, Country" thing-different people will put those three things in different orders, and because of that, there will always be debate.

For some that are considered religious, it may be more of a tradition than a deeply seated belief, so the sacrifice is easy. For others, religion may be more important than patriotism, and it may be enough to force them out of the service or skip volunteering in the first place; they believe they are already a part of something bigger, and more important, than their country.

It's in the same vein is the BAH argument: why should someone with dependents get paid more than a single person of the same rank for the same work? Same with family separation pay. Not saying those should go away, but it's definitely not the same standard across the board for everyone of the same rank, so it's not "fair" to all service members (particularly the single people).

As much as people like to say "country first," it's never that easy. We've all signed up for something bigger than just ourselves, but that doesn't mean it's our number one priority (at least not all the time). Just look at the healthy contingent of guardsmen and reservists in this forum. There are some AD folks that look down on the part timers as less patriotic, who are not able to fully commit themselves to their country (thankfully that attitude has been dying off, probably because retention isn't where it needs to be). However, it's great that we have a way for people to serve on a part time basis-it allows us to recruit and retain people in the service that are unable or unwilling to commit to full time active duty service. It works out to be a win-win: the AF retains trained people it can call up for way at a fraction of the cost of maintaining them on active duty, and the individual gets the flexibility to pursue other goals/priorities (personal, family, etc).

BL is that it's easy to tell others to make personal sacrifices when our own personal values don't see those sacrifices as hard choices or important. Institutionally, the AF is now saying it will make reasonable accommodations where it can, because it sees value in retaining those people requesting the accommodations, and that the benefit out weighs the cost. Don't like it? Well, call your congressman to change the law.

[brabus]

Great post. I don’t disagree, nor have any issue with beards, cranium covers, etc., but I also don’t see a problem with everyone being able to have a beard if they choose to. It’s a fine line separating sensible allowances for specific reasons and being (at least perceived) to cater to an individual or demographic while implying everyone else can go fuck themselves. The latter can erode cohesion, culture, morale, etc., which absolutely does negatively affect the mission. Sometimes the right answer is to help the individual, and other times they have to be told no because it truly is for the greater good of the unit. 
 

To circle back to my example, should the AF allow every Jewish member to never work from fri sundown to sat sundown, including while deployed? Imagine the implications if that was to occur...all of the sudden everyone is Jewish because the hell if any of us like working weekends. Second and third order effects are a real thing...

Edited February 17, 2020 by brabus

[jice]

28 minutes ago, brabus said:

Great post. I don’t disagree, nor have any issue with beards, cranium covers, etc., but I also don’t see a problem with everyone being able to have a beard if they choose to. It’s a fine line separating sensible allowances for specific reasons and being (at least perceived) to cater to an individual or demographic while implying everyone else can go themselves. The latter can erode cohesion, culture, morale, etc., which absolutely does negatively affect the mission. Sometimes the right answer is to help the individual, and other times they have to be told no because it truly is for the greater good of the unit. 
 

To circle back to my example, should the AF allow every Jewish member to never work from fri sundown to sat sundown, including while deployed? Imagine the implications if that was to occur...all of the sudden everyone is Jewish because the hell if any of us like working weekends. Second and third order effects are a real thing...

Got interested, did a little reading. Of note: There’s a debate that’s been raging Re: warfare on Shabbat since hundreds of years BCE. Generally, fighting, support for fighting (and fighting fires!) are allowed, provided you don’t intentionally start a conflict on Shabbat or exploit it. You can also walk home with your weapons. 
 

Regarding your example: Refusing to work on Saturday when I need you to is a problem for everybody. I just don’t see beards and turbans as detracting from a member’s duty or the unit’s ability to function... unless I need them to not disclose their identity. In that case, lose the turban or you get a different job.  If somebody has a problem with the AF-sanctioned headgear, that’s their problem. That person should have other things to worry about. 

[brabus]

Again, no issues with beards, turbans, etc. The point on these specific items is why not make beards allowed across the board; where is the detraction from the mission if a non-Sikh has a beard? This seems like an easy, “fuck it, let’s roll this out across the board” as opposed to, “let’s grant this to a specific group only, everyone else must maintain the ‘standards’!”  Copy Shabbat and war,  then just apply it to non-deployed ops...you cant tell me it wouldn’t be a big issue for units if a specific religion was granted no shifts, sorties, etc. fri night to sat night.

Point is not to say this particular beard/turban move is wrong, but it could have gone in a better direction, and overall, blanket giving specific groups of people whatever they want in the name of religion or other identity can have negative consequences on the force and mission. 

[jice]

9 minutes ago, brabus said:

Again, no issues with beards, turbans, etc. The point on these specific items is why not make beards allowed across the board; where is the detraction from the mission if a non-Sikh has a beard? This seems like an easy, “ it, let’s roll this out across the board” as opposed to, “let’s grant this to a specific group only, everyone else must maintain the ‘standards’!”  Copy Shabbat and war,  then just apply it to non-deployed ops...you cant tell me it wouldn’t be a big issue for units if a specific religion was granted no shifts, sorties, etc. fri night to sat night.

Point is not to say this particular beard/turban move is wrong, but it could have gone in a better direction, and overall, blanket giving specific groups of people whatever they want in the name of religion or other identity can have negative consequences on the force and mission. 

Totally with you for applying across the board. But! If for some dumb reason we’re unable to do that, I think it is better to accommodate (and consider headgear and hair ‘reasonable’) than not to in the name of “standards”; we’re (mostly) all saying allowing those things wouldn’t detract from the mission in and of themselves as we argue for allowing them across the board.  That argument means it isn’t the beard that’s the problem. 

Somebody not working on the sabbath may be reasonable; it may not. For the same person it may be reasonable at some times and not at others. Depends on the situation. Same for beards. Reasonable accommodation is the name of the game, and I don’t think fear of the masses complaining renders something unreasonable. That’s just a leadership challenge. 

[Homestar]

2 hours ago, jice said:

Refusing to work on Saturday when I need you to is a problem for everybody. I just don’t see beards and turbans as detracting from a member’s duty or the unit’s ability to function... 

Exactly.  Not working on Saturdays (for Jews) or Sundays (for some Christians) doesn't really pass the reasonable accommodation test.  What kind of hat you wear walking from your car to the office does.

As a side note, I think hats of any variety should be optional in uniform, and a well trimmed beard should be fine regardless of your religion.  I'm just not in charge so I don't get to make those decisions.

[jazzdude]

Exactly.  Not working on Saturdays (for Jews) or Sundays (for some Christians) doesn't really pass the reasonable accommodation test.  

If only there was someone in charge of a unit that could determine if it's reasonable or not based on the unique mission of the unit and make allowances for the circumstances at hand in conjunction with general guidance from the HAF, instead of having an inflexible blanket policy for the entire Air Force...

I've worked plenty of weekends/holidays where I was told by the scheduler that I was doing it because I was single and it didn't matter if I was home or not. Happy to do my duty I signed up for, but when I get tagged three weekends in a row for a weekend duty that's supposed to rotate across everyone in the squadron just because I don't have kids, or told I'm on the holiday trip because it doesn't matter if I'm home, it sucks.

On the flip side, I've generally been able to take (non-chargeable) time off when I needed it. Things like taking the car in for service, leaving work early for a personal errand/event, etc when the mission allowed. That's not something that's universal across the military service, and I'm grateful that most of my commanders have been lenient on office hours.

[stract]

On 2/14/2020 at 8:10 AM, filthy_liar said:

Has anyone seen folks wearing beards and turbans?  If so, how are folks in the squadrons reacting?

I've been out for 4 years...kinda glad I didn't have to deal with this.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2020/02/11/air-force-officially-oks-beards-turbans-hijabs-for-religious-reasons/?utm_expid=.jFR93cgdTFyMrWXdYEtvgA.0&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

 

Deal with what?  What sort of reaction would you want here?  Do you have an issue with Sikhs?

[filthy_liar]

Interesting replies.  Torqued - I tend to agree with your POV.

I think the spirited conversation about this topic illustrates my point of "kinda glad I didn't have to deal with this."  I don't know if allowing beards and turbans to be worn by some folks while prohibiting others from doing the same is right or wrong.  I just know that when you have to spend your time wading through the problems associated with perceptions of haves and have nots, it does detract from mission focus.

And to help some folks on here who seem to be tunnel visioned on beards and turbans - the concept of the perception of haves and have nots is much larger than beards and turbans, and it's much larger than religion or gender.  And its a challenging concept to work through once it gets a foothold in your organization.

[gearhog]

3 hours ago, filthy_liar said:

Interesting replies.  Torqued - I tend to agree with your POV.

I think the spirited conversation about this topic illustrates my point of "kinda glad I didn't have to deal with this."  I don't know if allowing beards and turbans to be worn by some folks while prohibiting others from doing the same is right or wrong.  I just know that when you have to spend your time wading through the problems associated with perceptions of haves and have nots, it does detract from mission focus.

And to help some folks on here who seem to be tunnel visioned on beards and turbans - the concept of the perception of haves and have nots is much larger than beards and turbans, and it's much larger than religion or gender.  And its a challenging concept to work through once it gets a foothold in your organization.

I don't think there is a right or wrong. But we have people arguing for both "equality" and "diversity" when, in some cases, they are logically incompatible.  If diversity is recognizing the differences in groups of people and putting a positive value on those differences, how do you achieve "equality" when you give "diversity" special status and privileges above everyone else? Choose one.

Diversity is feelings, Equality is logic.