In 1981 the Supreme Court ruled that the military did not
violate soldiers’ constitutional right to the free exercise of religion by
keeping them from wearing religious garments such as yarmulkes, hijabs,
turbans, and beards (Tedford & Herbeck 349-350). Essentially, the Court decided
that the uniform was more important than the service person’s religious beliefs
and attire. The first amendment does not require the military to allow such
deviations from the uniform and when one joins the military there is an
expectation of subordination; that one’s service is more important than one’s
own beliefs, religious practices, and first amendment rights (Tedford &
Herbeck 350).
I find this ruling to be pretty interesting. The military
there to defend the United States, to defend what the United States stands for.
One of the things the United States stands for is the freedom of speech and
religious expression. So the fact that the first amendment does not apply to
the military (in this instance) seems to be somewhat ironic; if not ironic
there is at least some kind of tension between the United States’ ideology and
it’s military’s practices.
In January of 2017 the army announced that it was easing some
of those restrictions. If a service man or woman wants to wear a turban, hijab
or have a beard for religious reasons, they can (Hincks). The biggest push for
this easement came from Sikh Americans who could not serve in the U.S. military
if they wanted to maintain their religious practices, which includes growing a
beard and wearing a turban. This change by the U.S. army better aligns the army's policy with American
values of free speech and religious expression, the very values it is there to
defend.
Sources:
Hincks, Joseph. “U.S. Army Relaxes Rules On Beards And
Turbans in Military.” Time, Time, 6 Jan. 2017, time.com/4625313/us-army-uniform-sikh-turbans-hijab/.
Tedford, Thomas
L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of
speech in the United States. 8th ed., State College, PA,
Strata Publishing, Inc., 2017.
I have never been in the military, nor do I know much about the uniform regulations other than what I have read in chapter 12 of our book, but I think I can see the argument of the strictness of uniforms in the military from both perspectives. From what I understand your argument being, the military does not comply with the United States constitution and citizen rights because people in the military are not allowed to alter their uniforms in any way. From the military and court's perspective, the uniform is meant to unify the soldiers and create more objectivity. I agree with both perspectives, but if I were to choose which would be better, I would agree with the military/courts that uniforms have the right to limit alternations of the uniform no matter the circumstance, as long as recruits are explained this rule before committing. I think this because of the need for the exclusion of personal beliefs or opinions, and unity in the stressful circumstances faced in the military. Soldiers are put in life or death situations where anything that has potential to effect a decision needs to be limited. The courts seem to have a stronger argument in my opinion.
ReplyDelete