- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
The latest edict from beard-obsessed Secretary of War Pete Hegseth adds strict new regulations to his crusade on facial hair, which rights groups have characterized as an attack on troops’ civil liberties.
In a March 11 memo, Hegseth, who has made grooming and appearances a central focus in his time at the helm of the U.S. military, raised the bar to qualify for a religious exemption to his blanket ban on beards. The guidelines lay out a strict new process by which service members may apply for a religious exemption and subject those who’ve already received one to a reevaluation, arguing they need to ensure their religious beliefs are “sincerely held” and have a genuine conflict with the grooming standards.
Service members who have spoken against Hegseth’s focus on grooming standards say his restrictions on beards are exclusionary to people from religious communities that require adherents to follow specific tenets of faith around beards, hair, and other grooming matters.
Sikhs, for example, who have served in the U.S. military since at least World War I, are required by their faith not to cut the hair on their head, to keep a beard, and to wrap their long hair in a turban. Members of many schools of Muslim tradition likewise have rules around beards and hair length.
Either everybody should be able to have beards, or nobody. Believing in a fairytale should not be tied to special privileges.
That’s an easy and convenient stance to take when you nonchalantly disregard other’s religious beliefs as a “fairytale.” Those “special privileges” aren’t a “privilege,” but a duty to one’s faith.
I’m not religious, closer to modern atheists than anything else. Even I can understand and respect the nuance to the situation.
The right answer, in my opinion, would be to ban them from any form of service which would require conflicting grooming standards. That’s how you address the safety issue, not by implying “fuck your religion.”
Edit: if you so please, you can even make it illegal to (officially) change your religion during a single contract term. That way the issues are resolved then and there, before they’re assigned any duty.
For a nation that is all about personal freedom, they sure spend a lot of time telling other people what to do in areas that don’t really matter. Even for the sake of military uniformity, facial hair must be maintained and groomed seems like an acceptable stance. Anything else is just power tripping.
Here in America, we are absolutely free to live our lives exactly the way conservatives want us to. Unless of course you’re not white, in which case your right to exist is always a little up in the air.
If I were to say I had a “duty” to my own atheist sense of beard honor or whatever, that’d fly out the window. Religion is a preference, a choice. The duty is only to the persons own sense of pride and morality.
We have similar problems with nurses of certain religions in my country, refusing to do their job (for instance related to abortion) and endangering patients citing religion.
Thankfully the regulations have been upheld and these people have been told “If you refuse to do your job, you’re fired.” in these cases, but there is a religious lobby rapidly growing in influence in my country, and have already secured exceptions from stuff like hygiene rules in healthcare.
A “beard exception” matters little in truth, but allow one such exception and suddenly they’re everywhere (I’d argue let people have their beards ffs!). However, this kind of pandering is insane, dangerous and my patience for it is very limited. Religion is their choice, but that is no excuse to impose their will on the rest of society.
Yeah, obviously. That would fly out the window because you aren’t even coming to the table in good faith. Is your best argument seriously “if I had a duty to my atheistic nonbelief in higher order?” I’m sorry, friend, but I don’t sympathize with that. If you had a religious faith that was held in good faith, it ought be respected even by people with opposing views — no “flying out the window” as your argument suggests. We’re literally debating the premise that these should be respected, to include yours.
I go back to my first point that there are better ways to solve the problem. If religion can discriminate against healthcare, it should be healthcare who discriminates against religion instead… I agree with you there, but in a different way. Don’t hire people who will refuse to do the job. Ask them if they can meet the job duties, just like is already common with “can you stand for more than an hour at a time” and “can you lift 20lbs.” Here, we should be asking questions like, “do any religious beliefs prevent you from fulfilling these job functions…”
It really should be as simple as can you do the job or not. If not, they shouldn’t have the job. Wouldn’t you agree with that? It’s not like we’re saying they’re banned from the profession of their choice. They can’t do what they refuse to do, so we aren’t shutting any doors that weren’t shut anyway. Religious folk can still have positions that don’t put their religion at odds with others.
What’s so obvious about it? The initial example here is facetious and absurd, but what’s to say that I don’t take my “beard honour” just as seriously as someone else does their religion?
Because I’ve certainly met people who take their religion very lightly, yet absolutely will use it as an excuse for special treatment at every opportunity.
A less absurd example might be somebody with the delusion (a.k.a strongly held personal belief) that their value as a man depends entirely on their beard, that they might as well kill themselves if they were unable to have one. Or someone with a facial scar tied to incredible emotional trauma that they use their beard to cover up.
The simple fact is that special treatment of religious adherents is discriminatory, not against them, but against everyone else. The root of the problem is that laws that were intended to prevent special maltreatment of religious adherents have instead become leveraged as a basis to grant privileges. When they don’t get the job after refusing to follow hygiene protocol, shake hands with certain demographic groups or perform job duties, they sue their employer for discrimination. They demand the job, and demand that the job description be changed to fit their personal preferences.
I agree, it should be as simple as “can you do the job or not”. If being clean shaven is part of the job description (which I certainly could find good reasons for, such as gas masks or hygiene) and you refuse to be clean shaven, then you’re out.
It’s anecdotal. It really shouldn’t matter, though. If the terms were agreed to when the contract was signed, you adhere to those terms or get kicked out. We don’t disagree about this.
There’s your problem. It shouldn’t matter. If someone makes a listing that requires “abortions” as part of the job description, they should damn well be able to deny anyone unfit for the role — to include anyone whose reason is religious. It’s as simple as it’s ever been. Can’t do the job, don’t get the job.
That’s odd, because one could just say “I can’t change the job description without changing the role I am hiring, and I only need that role.” Or rather, “we are hiring a general surgeon for a role that can assist in the abortion workload. If we change the description, we no longer need the role.” That’s the fight we ought be fighting.
Your argument comes across to me like you’re saying that you’d prefer to force people to not adhere to their religion, which comes across as very disrespectful in my opinion. Reinforcing my perspective, I’ve read you liken religion to a “choice” as though that fact has any bearing whatsoever on making it an insignificant factor. It does not.
I would agree, if we’re talking about “delusions” in good faith here. For some reason, however, I think you’re referring to Muslim practice as delusional. So to be clear, yeah, a faith to the Muslim god which forbids shaving is respectable and not delusional. A random personal delusion, sure, we’re on the same page about that. “Delusion” and “faith” aren’t the same thing. To insist otherwise is just arrogant, shallow, and yes “delusional” in its own right.