A new military policy has been gaining some attention from online news outlets over the past few weeks for allowing soldiers to incorporate religious dress as a part of their uniforms. This policy has drawn both criticism and praise from various groups, but could be viewed as a positive step for those whose only barrier to military service was an obligation to their religious teachings. The new policy, which was released by the Pentagon this past week, changed longstanding uniform rules, which almost universally disallowed religious alterations to the uniform, to allow soldiers to seek waivers on a case-by-case basis. Those waivers will allow soldiers to wear items of religious importance such as beards, turbans or yarmulkes as a part of their uniform so long as those additions do not have any “adverse effect on military readiness, mission accomplishment, unit cohesion and good order and discipline.”
One of the religious groups that has been most positively affected by this change in policy would be Sikhs. Sikhism, a religion that was founded in India during the 15th century, boasts 25 million adherents worldwide. Certain Sikh teachings require practitioners to keep their hair (or beard) long and uncut, wear a turban and steel bracelet and carry other religious items as an aspect of living out their faith. As a result, despite the fact that many Sikhs could be interested in serving in the military, very few have actually been able to practice their religious teachings – only three Sikh officers currently serving in the United States military have been given permission to follow Sikh religious teachings on hair and dress.
Religious leaders in the Sikh community have both praised the new policy for its openness and criticized it for its ultimate form, which still requires a case-by-case waiver. Amardeep Singh, a spokesman for the Sikh Coalition, told The Huffington Post that while it was the first time the Pentagon had expressed a willingness to work with soldiers and make accommodations, the fact that these were ultimately case-by-case decisions was a troubling one. “What is disappointing […] is that the presumptive bar on the Sikh articles of faith remains […] A Sikh can’t just sort of enlist in the U.S. military and expect that they won’t down the line have to make the false choice between their faith and their service to the country.”
On this point, Singh is absolutely correct. The Supreme Court has upheld the principle that the military’s authority to maintain discipline and order trumps the First Amendment rights of soldiers to freely exercise their religion by wearing religious apparel. The most noteworthy Supreme Court decision addressing this question is Goldman v. Weinberger, a 1986 case in which an Air Force officer, who was an ordained rabbi, had been penalized by his superiors for wearing a yarmulke while on duty. The officer sued, claiming that his First Amendment rights had been violated.
The Supreme Court, however, disagreed and decided in favor of the military. In his majority opinion, Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist stated in part that “The desirability of dress regulations in the military is decided by the appropriate military officials, and they are under no constitutional mandate to abandon their considered professional judgment. […] the First Amendment does not require the military to accommodate such [religious] practices in the face of its view that they would detract from the uniformity sought by the dress regulations.”
Because of the Goldman decision, the military has absolutely no obligation to accommodate soldiers who wish to follow religious teachings on clothing or physical appearance while on duty. In contrast to the hard line won by the military in that case, this new policy suggests that the Pentagon now believes it can maintain military cohesion and still allow for more fluid forms of religious expression. Military leaders still, however, retain the ultimate ability to decide when those accommodations may still harm military discipline through their ability to issue or revoke waivers.
While this issue may seem trivial to some, it is of serious importance not only to those who actually wish to live out their religious teachings, but to society at large. America has gone through a significant period of adjustment over the past decade in dealing with how religious groups participate in the public square, and issues have ranged from predictable topics like gay marriage and birth control to the more unexpected, such as whether or not churches may legally feed the homeless in some cities around the country. While the tendency as of late has been to restrict or limit the role religious groups can play, policy changes like these are a hopeful sign for the faithful that while some doors may be closing, others have – within reason – begun to open.
David Giffin is an Alumnus of the Masters program in Theological Studies at the Candler School of Theology and is currently attending law school at Wake Forest University. He is from Charleston, Ill.
Illustration by Mariana Hernandez
The Emory Wheel was founded in 1919 and is currently the only independent, student-run newspaper of Emory University. The Wheel publishes weekly on Wednesdays during the academic year, except during University holidays and scheduled publication intermissions.
The Wheel is financially and editorially independent from the University. All of its content is generated by the Wheel’s more than 100 student staff members and contributing writers, and its printing costs are covered by profits from self-generated advertising sales.
