If the military were to start honoring individual preferences then I can imagine a time in the not too distant future in combat when a young O1 gives an order and her/his squad calls a meeting so that each troop can discuss and express their personal view on said order.
I’m usually not one for slippery slope arguments, but religious exemptions for Military (other than religious services) seem stupid.
Ready, aim, fire!
Excuse me sir, I think you will note in my Religious Exemption 2a part C that it is against my beliefs to shoot on Saturdays/Sundays/at fellow human beings (delete as applicable)
There is a huge difference between irregular forces and regulars. Irregulars do well in fluid situations. They get their asses kicked every time in set piece battles and in meeting engagements. It has ever been thus. The Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army suffered a major defeat with the Tet Offensive and much of it was the result of meeting engagements.
The Taliban, Al-Qaeda and ISIS are all irregular forces, although ISIS seems to be attempting to form a regular army. If they succeed, it will follow the same model – basic training to enforce uniformity and emphasize the importance of following orders.
There have been a bunch of cases in the actual military where it’s been decided that reasonable accomodation should be made in matters of grooming and uniforms.
But what I’m wondering is whether this means that even the black cadets at the Citadel have to wear the KKK robes, erm “ghost costumes” that were the institution’s most recent news peg…
Yes, and so many of the future (and current) strategic predicaments the U.S. will face will be resolved with set piece battles, right? Tell me, do you think the U.S. military games for set piece battles against organized armies of opposing nations more often, equal to, or less than trying to figure out how in the hell to deal with ISIS style insurgencies and guerilla warfare? My money is on prepping for militia insurgencies and guerilla warfare.
No bet. Your money is in the right place. In fact, we probably spend too much time and money planning and gaming wars among equals. I’m sure that some officials would disagree with that assessment and with Putin running Russia they might be right.
Whichever view is correct, the army (and particularly its education arm) focuses on the traditional battle: skirmish, meeting engagement, and set piece. The special forces are drawn from those who master that syllabus.
So that is why the US military as well as militaries form many many other nations allow the wearing of religious headgear. “Religious headgear that meets these criteria is authorized irrespective of the faith group from which it originates.” The type of headgear (i.e., pertinent faith group) is not specified, however, the Jewish yarmulke is specifically approved for wear by military personnel.
2 things that have already been gone over, but are worth repeating. If the Citadel has never made an exception for altering their uniform based on religious exceptions, this isn’t a reason to do so now. The girl has a choice now since the lawsuit will undoubtedly fail. Her career or her faith. There is no reason to open the flood gates now and create a precedent.
As for people commenting on the fact that they have to dress identically, it’s matter of instilling parity into the unit. Everyone, no matter their race, gender, or religion, is given the same treatment. You are not a special snowflake to have your needs pandered to when you are in the military or a boot camp program. You are part of a group, and it is your duty to work with the group as opposed to finding ways to be divisive, so dressing the same and doing everything together is part of that.
THIS!
If they allow exemptions for OTHER religions, they must allow this.
If not. There is no issue (especially if this information is public already.)
Don’t really get the hating here for this girl, just because she asked for the accomodation. Actual military members have also sought accomodation, and the Army has given some.
This is an interesting point. If the uniforms are about instilling military discipline wouldn’t it make sense to have them follow the same standards as the actual military? I don’t know, I have mixed feelings. She knew the rules when she applied and that she wasn’t guaranteed an exception, so if they are being consistent in applying the rule then it has that in it’s favor. Yet when you come down to it given that the majority religion in this country doesn’t really have any religous dress requirements that means that ones most likely to fall foul of the rule for religous reasons are members of religous minorities. Sort of a “the law disallows the rich and poor alike from sleeping under overpasses” type situation. Further, if one is looking at a career in the military I assume that a degree from some place like the Citadel would be a boon to ones career. It seems off to limit access to that career avenue to individuals over conflicts related to uniform dress where even the actual military allows exceptions. IDK, like I said mixed feelings.
Officer preferences is given based on Academies, Military Colleges, OCS/ROTC, if I remember correctly it has been almost 28 years since I served, I retired after 23 years as an LTC. So if all is equal when a promotion is due then they go to these individuals first. Since the number of officers is regulated that preference listing does come into play. During my career I know that at least once I was passed over my the first year on the promotion list due to the numbers allocated for that year.