Dress code violations

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: religious liberty in the military.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Earlier this month, four men of the Sikh faith filed suit against the Marine Corps over its dress code requirements. It’s a case religious liberty advocates say could have big implications for Christians, too.

Joining us now to talk about it is Steve West. He is an attorney who writes on religious liberty issues for WORLD Digital.

BROWN: Good morning, Steve!

STEVE WEST, REPORTER: Good morning, Myrna.

BROWN: Let’s start with the details of this case. Who are the plaintiffs and what are their claims?

WEST: Beards and turbans are not generally an article of faith for Christians, and yet for the Sikh believer these things are an outward sign of what they believe–beliefs which center around truthful living, service to others, and devotion to God. The Sikh challengers here include a Marine Corp captain who is currently serving as well as three prospective recruits. All say they want to serve their country.

BROWN: What is the Marine Corps dress code?

WEST: The Marine Corp tells new recruits, who go through a rigorous boot camp, that they have to shave their beards and cut their hair before basic training. They say a prohibition on beards and turbans promotes uniformity in the Marine Corps, which aims to diminish individuality and build team spirit at its 13-week boot camp. Beyond boot camp, it says soldiers can apply for religious accommodation, and yet they cite safety concerns that beards or turbans could prevent soldiers from wearing gas masks in combat zones.

BROWN: Are those requirements applied equally to all members?

WEST: That’s part of the problem, say challengers. They claim the military has been inconsistent in enforcing its rules, citing its allowing full-body tattoos (hands, face, and neck only excepted) for non-religious reasons but not other personal expression that is religious in nature. And they say it has allowed beards for medical but not religious reasons–even in combat zones.

BROWN: And yet there's a bigger problem, right?

WEST: That’s right. A 1993 federal law, Religious Freedom Restoration Act only allows the military to restrict individual exercise of religion when a “compelling government interest” is at stake, and requires it to use the “least restrictive means” possible. No one would deny that the military has significant safety, security, and discipline concerns. Nor would anyone deny that sometimes it has no alternative but to burden the exercise of religion because of these compelling interests. Yet the case raises questions about whether the Marine Corp has been as accommodating as it could be and has applied its dress code fairly to nonreligious and religious expression.

BROWN: How do other branches of the military handle these types of issues?

WEST: They are more accommodating, though not before a lawsuit was filed. In 2016, a federal court sided with a Sikh soldier requesting a religious exemption for his beard and headwear under U.S. Army regulations. Army officials relaxed dress standards , and the Air Force and Navy followed suit, accommodating Sikhs as well as Muslim and Jewish soldiers with similar requests. But the Marine Corps held out.

BROWN: This case won’t directly affect a large number of people. But the lawyers for the Sikh plaintiffs say it could have implications for many faith groups, including Christians. How so?

WEST: It may be about beards and turbans today, but a ruling here may guide how the government approaches other burdens on religious liberty, both military and nonmilitary. A favorable ruling could require the government to treat religious accommodations the same as secular accommodations as well as be more careful, more nuanced, in trying to accommodate religious expression wherever it can while keeping the military ready.

BROWN: Steve, can you provide an example of how this could impact Christians?

WEST: This case immediately brought to mind the way the military has handled the relatively small number of soldiers who have requested accommodation because they object to COVID vaccines on religious grounds–many, but not all, of whom are Christians who are concerned that fetal cell lines were used in the development of the vaccines. They’ve not been accommodating of these concerns at all, and courts continue to tell them so. They’ve also been inconsistent, often accommodating those with medical but not religious objections.

Military officials just need to ask themselves the same question any government authority should ask when burdening religion: “Are there other ways we can do what we need to do without suppressing faith and that eventually protects people of all faiths?” Often, the answer is Yes.

BROWN: Steve West is an attorney and writer for WORLD Digital. To sign up for his weekly newsletter called Liberties, visit WNG.org/newsletters. Thanks so much, Steve!

WEST: Always a pleasure, Myrna.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.