Beards aren't something that we look at and say, "Oh this man has a beard, he must belong to such and such religion," but they are indeed a huge symbol for the people who have them. Peter Berger talks about different "hate-crimes" related to beards. You may ask how cutting someones beard off or not allowing them to have it in court can be a hate crime, but to me it is definitely something that can take a piece of a person away. Take it from someone who cries every time they get their hair cut... While I am fully aware that it will grow back and I am usually sick of the length; I can't help but shed a little tear when it falls to the floor. Hair is only dead protein, but it is my hair, something that has been a part of me for awhile and it is hard to let it go.
While I do see the side of the story where beards go against "grooming regulations," I also believe that beards take some hard work.. or at least that is what I have observed. While I can not grow a beard, I know that it takes a lot of time to get a good one. It must be taken care of on a daily basis as does the hair on my own head. In addition to this if someone is growing it as a symbol of their religion it will only become more of an important part of their life. I think that telling someone that they can not have a beard in court is wrong. I think it is the same thing as telling a muslim woman that she is not allowed to wear her head piece or telling an Indian woman she can't wear her Bindi. I realize that there is proper attire for an court appearance, but I also think that that should not be something that is considered wrong.
I'm not completely sure where to go with this article, after all beards are such a strange subject to attempt to try and figure out how they correspond with religious matters. I've never looked at beards being affiliated with any sort of religion, I've only associated them with males and having them groomed to be presentable to other people (except "No-Shave-November" up here at App). It does not seem to focus on a certain religion, but rather a social norm in an area (Just that more people tend to have beards in an area, therefore others feel the obligation to have one as well). The whole case with the Amish "hate-crime" issue is that I believe that there is nothing for the case to really fall onto, so the defense wants to try and shoot really high for a possible conviction for this being a "hate-crime." Plus, they seem to not be fully Amish if they have disposable cell phones.
I am not familiar with "Army grooming regulations," so I have no clue what the guidelines are for any sort of facial hair, but it has been my general view that most people in the military are clean-shaven, but that is only my personal perspective. The guy has thirteen counts of premeditated murder, and thirty-four of attempted premeditated murder. The whole statement for "God wanted me to do it" does provide a significant enough reason to go out and kill someone anyway. Why are they even worrying about his beard...?
I found this article very interesting because personally I do to a degree think of certain beards as a religious symbol. For example, my father is a dark tan Italian man who used to grow a dark black full beard until he repeatedly was stopped for the “random security check” at airports, I can only assume they felt he was a terrorist because he looked to be from the Middle East. I would have to agree with Peter Berger, that we as Americans do to a degree associate beards with a certain religion. As Berger mentions sometimes beards are as symbolic as a women’s headdress. Also, I took the time to look up pictures of Nidal Hasan on Google one of the beard prisoner, and an another of the Major in the military; and honestly as hard as I try to not think this way, the bearded prisoner looks like the staple terrorist or Muslim. Then I think about the Amish people and those who follow Judaism and realize the majority of the adult males all have long groomed beards and little twisty payot that Jewish males have. So I do believe that beards are yes defiantly a culturally symbol and also a religious symbol as well.
As far as the hate crimes go by cutting off one’s beard, I do not agree with that at all. If all people involved were truly Amish, which when using a disposable cell phones kind of disproves this, and this is part of their religious traditions and punishment for disagreeing with a high official. This is hard to prove but if this is the case I don’t think the government has the right to persecute them. Now when it comes to the military case of Nidal Hasan, I do not know the correct rules of grooming in the military, but I do know that military court has many different rules and regulations than normal civilian court. For example I believe that when you appear in a military court all those involve in the case must be in their “dress blues”. So if this is true and that part of their “dress blues” is a clean shave I do believe the court has the right to tell Nidal Hasan to shave his beard regardless of religion.
Even though the article tends to argue otherwise, I do not see beards, or any other type of body hair for that matter, as a religious symbol. In my opinion, beards are more dependent upon cultural and/or social situations that arise from a person’s living environment. Perhaps it’s just that those people who tend to live in certain areas, say Amish country or Muslim regions for example, prefer to sport a beard. Maybe the facial hair trend is a deep-rooted tradition with no religious basis within their societies. Unfortunately, until we actually take part in these communities where beards seem to have a higher purpose, it is difficult for us to truly understand the meaning behind them.
As for the Amish story, if the “hate-crime” is only referring to the cutting off of “cherished markers of Amish identity,” I do not believe that the event was a hate-crime at all. A hate-crime is so named because the crime is motivated by prejudices. In this instance, I do not believe that the offenders were particularly prejudiced, they were simply angry. In saying that, the attackers expressed their anger in an inappropriate manner, and I do not believe that they should be protected under the first amendment by claiming that their behavior was nothing more than “internal religious practices.”
As for Major Nidal Hasan, he knew there were certain rules and regulations that he must subscribe to upon accepting a role as an officer in the United States Army. Upon violating this creed, he knew there were certain rights that he would be made to surrender. Furthermore, upon looking at the abomination of his accused crimes, I think his beard should be the least of anyone’s concerns.
Giancarlo Lookman (Im trying to submit it "Anonymously" to see if it will post!)
This story was very interesting to me and I read more about the story in this link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9545660/Amish-beard-cutters-face-possible-prison-terms-as-jury-weighs-clash-of-the-clippers.html
The whole situation seems very odd. It is established that individual’s beards were shaven without their consent. Since beards are highly valued in Amish culture, its unforeseeable why one would want to have his beard shaven; in fact a clean face for older men is considered a negative cultural mores. So it is unquestionable that the motives of the young men where to accost those “shunned.” The physical exertion one would have to go through to subdue a full-grown man to remove his highly valued facial hair is another unquestionable borderline violent act. Those people, if the claims are accurate, should be charged with assault, for detaining the man against his will, and theft, for the removal of his prized possession (his beard) against his will. However, charging the assailants for a hate crime I think is not necessary. Does the reasoning behind the attack really matter when everything is said and done? At the end of the day an individual’s liberty and property were violated by another person and that’s what the courts should consider in deliberation. As for the sexual counseling, the chicken coop punishments, and the reasoning for the shunning, those are irrelevant accusations that do seem to give the story another interesting sub layer. It seems its purpose is to grab people’s attention.
Beards aren't something that we look at and say, "Oh this man has a beard, he must belong to such and such religion," but they are indeed a huge symbol for the people who have them. Peter Berger talks about different "hate-crimes" related to beards. You may ask how cutting someones beard off or not allowing them to have it in court can be a hate crime, but to me it is definitely something that can take a piece of a person away. Take it from someone who cries every time they get their hair cut... While I am fully aware that it will grow back and I am usually sick of the length; I can't help but shed a little tear when it falls to the floor. Hair is only dead protein, but it is my hair, something that has been a part of me for awhile and it is hard to let it go.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do see the side of the story where beards go against "grooming regulations," I also believe that beards take some hard work.. or at least that is what I have observed. While I can not grow a beard, I know that it takes a lot of time to get a good one. It must be taken care of on a daily basis as does the hair on my own head. In addition to this if someone is growing it as a symbol of their religion it will only become more of an important part of their life.
I think that telling someone that they can not have a beard in court is wrong. I think it is the same thing as telling a muslim woman that she is not allowed to wear her head piece or telling an Indian woman she can't wear her Bindi. I realize that there is proper attire for an court appearance, but I also think that that should not be something that is considered wrong.
I'm not completely sure where to go with this article, after all beards are such a strange subject to attempt to try and figure out how they correspond with religious matters. I've never looked at beards being affiliated with any sort of religion, I've only associated them with males and having them groomed to be presentable to other people (except "No-Shave-November" up here at App). It does not seem to focus on a certain religion, but rather a social norm in an area (Just that more people tend to have beards in an area, therefore others feel the obligation to have one as well). The whole case with the Amish "hate-crime" issue is that I believe that there is nothing for the case to really fall onto, so the defense wants to try and shoot really high for a possible conviction for this being a "hate-crime." Plus, they seem to not be fully Amish if they have disposable cell phones.
ReplyDeleteI am not familiar with "Army grooming regulations," so I have no clue what the guidelines are for any sort of facial hair, but it has been my general view that most people in the military are clean-shaven, but that is only my personal perspective. The guy has thirteen counts of premeditated murder, and thirty-four of attempted premeditated murder. The whole statement for "God wanted me to do it" does provide a significant enough reason to go out and kill someone anyway. Why are they even worrying about his beard...?
I found this article very interesting because personally I do to a degree think of certain beards as a religious symbol. For example, my father is a dark tan Italian man who used to grow a dark black full beard until he repeatedly was stopped for the “random security check” at airports, I can only assume they felt he was a terrorist because he looked to be from the Middle East. I would have to agree with Peter Berger, that we as Americans do to a degree associate beards with a certain religion. As Berger mentions sometimes beards are as symbolic as a women’s headdress. Also, I took the time to look up pictures of Nidal Hasan on Google one of the beard prisoner, and an another of the Major in the military; and honestly as hard as I try to not think this way, the bearded prisoner looks like the staple terrorist or Muslim. Then I think about the Amish people and those who follow Judaism and realize the majority of the adult males all have long groomed beards and little twisty payot that Jewish males have. So I do believe that beards are yes defiantly a culturally symbol and also a religious symbol as well.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the hate crimes go by cutting off one’s beard, I do not agree with that at all. If all people involved were truly Amish, which when using a disposable cell phones kind of disproves this, and this is part of their religious traditions and punishment for disagreeing with a high official. This is hard to prove but if this is the case I don’t think the government has the right to persecute them. Now when it comes to the military case of Nidal Hasan, I do not know the correct rules of grooming in the military, but I do know that military court has many different rules and regulations than normal civilian court. For example I believe that when you appear in a military court all those involve in the case must be in their “dress blues”. So if this is true and that part of their “dress blues” is a clean shave I do believe the court has the right to tell Nidal Hasan to shave his beard regardless of religion.
Even though the article tends to argue otherwise, I do not see beards, or any other type of body hair for that matter, as a religious symbol. In my opinion, beards are more dependent upon cultural and/or social situations that arise from a person’s living environment. Perhaps it’s just that those people who tend to live in certain areas, say Amish country or Muslim regions for example, prefer to sport a beard. Maybe the facial hair trend is a deep-rooted tradition with no religious basis within their societies. Unfortunately, until we actually take part in these communities where beards seem to have a higher purpose, it is difficult for us to truly understand the meaning behind them.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Amish story, if the “hate-crime” is only referring to the cutting off of “cherished markers of Amish identity,” I do not believe that the event was a hate-crime at all. A hate-crime is so named because the crime is motivated by prejudices. In this instance, I do not believe that the offenders were particularly prejudiced, they were simply angry. In saying that, the attackers expressed their anger in an inappropriate manner, and I do not believe that they should be protected under the first amendment by claiming that their behavior was nothing more than “internal religious practices.”
As for Major Nidal Hasan, he knew there were certain rules and regulations that he must subscribe to upon accepting a role as an officer in the United States Army. Upon violating this creed, he knew there were certain rights that he would be made to surrender. Furthermore, upon looking at the abomination of his accused crimes, I think his beard should be the least of anyone’s concerns.
Giancarlo Lookman (Im trying to submit it "Anonymously" to see if it will post!)
ReplyDeleteThis story was very interesting to me and I read more about the story in this link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9545660/Amish-beard-cutters-face-possible-prison-terms-as-jury-weighs-clash-of-the-clippers.html
The whole situation seems very odd. It is established that individual’s beards were shaven without their consent. Since beards are highly valued in Amish culture, its unforeseeable why one would want to have his beard shaven; in fact a clean face for older men is considered a negative cultural mores. So it is unquestionable that the motives of the young men where to accost those “shunned.” The physical exertion one would have to go through to subdue a full-grown man to remove his highly valued facial hair is another unquestionable borderline violent act. Those people, if the claims are accurate, should be charged with assault, for detaining the man against his will, and theft, for the removal of his prized possession (his beard) against his will.
However, charging the assailants for a hate crime I think is not necessary. Does the reasoning behind the attack really matter when everything is said and done? At the end of the day an individual’s liberty and property were violated by another person and that’s what the courts should consider in deliberation.
As for the sexual counseling, the chicken coop punishments, and the reasoning for the shunning, those are irrelevant accusations that do seem to give the story another interesting sub layer. It seems its purpose is to grab people’s attention.