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.
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.
I do think we agree on the practical implication for jobs - just that laws don’t align with that where I’m at. (If you can’t/refuse to do the job, you shouldn’t be working it)
It’s central to the problem. Individuals from religious groups sue employers (often successfully) citing that not hiring them or firing them for refusing to fulfill the job description would be discrimination. (This is not unique to any one group btw)
No. What I’m saying is that they should be solely responsible for the consequences of their faith. Other people should not be forced to give them special treatment due to their religion.
I wasn’t. I was creating a hypothetical of somebody non-religous (or at least not an adherent to a major religion) placing greater or equal value on not shaving as a religious person might. The point being that major religions are given preferential treatment as compared to other beliefs and preferences.
There are certainly different ways for religious folks to be faithful. However, in the modern day, literal adherence to many modern religions essentially amount to centering your life around a myth. At best, it is a sign of being misguided and ignorant with regard to scientific fact (which is incompatible with those myths) and at worst it amounts to a delusion (yes, I will use that word). Willfully rejecting overwhelming evidence.
Somebody can be respectable in spite of that, but in my book, it is a clear negative.