Sikh Wins Court Case To Join ROTC: Is this a victory for religious freedom or did the court go too far?

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:34:46 -0400

A Federal Judge has ruled that Iknoor Singh's adherence to his Sikh faith - wearing facial hair, keeping his hair long, but wrapped in a turban, and carrying a sharp knife on his person - would not diminish his capacity to serve the nation he loves, the United States of America, as a future Officer in the United States Army. Do you feel too many allowances are being made for his faith or do you feel he should be welcomed into the ranks if he can successfully fulfill the requirements for Commissioning? What say you, RP?
--
(Note: Full article added by RP Staff.)

MINEOLA, NY — A Sikh college student from New York said Monday he is excited about a federal court decision that will permit him to enroll in the U.S. Army's Reserve Officer Training Corps without shaving his beard, cutting his hair, or removing his turban.

U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued the ruling Friday in Washington, D.C., saying 20-year-old Iknoor Singh's adherence to his religious beliefs would not diminish his ability to serve in the military.

"I didn't believe it at first when I heard about the decision," said Singh, who lives in the New York City borough of Queens.

He told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Monday: "It was kind of surreal. This is something I have been fighting for for two or three years. I'm excited and nervous; very excited to learn."

Singh, who will be a junior next fall studying finance and business analytics at Hofstra University on Long Island, said he has had a lifelong interest in public service. He speaks four languages — English, Punjabi, Hindi, and Urdu — and he said he wants to work in military intelligence.

"Becoming an officer is not an easy thing," he conceded. "You have to be proficient in many areas."

Sikhism, a 500-year-old religion founded in India, requires its male followers to wear a turban and beard and keep their hair uncut.

Under a policy announced last year, troops can seek waivers on a case-by-case basis to wear religious clothing, seek prayer time or engage in religious practices. Approval depends on where the service member is stationed and whether the change would affect military readiness or the mission.

Currently, only a few Sikhs serve in the U.S. Army who have been granted religious accommodations.

In her ruling, Jackson said, "It is difficult to see how accommodating plaintiff's religious exercise would do greater damage to the Army's compelling interests in uniformity, discipline, credibility, unit cohesion, and training than the tens of thousands of medical shaving profiles the Army has already granted."

Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Ben Garrett, said in a statement the decision is currently being examined. "The Army takes pride in sustaining a culture where all personnel are treated with dignity and respect and not discriminated against based on race, color, religion, gender and national origin," he said.

Hofstra spokeswoman Karla Schuster said in a statement that the university "supports Mr. Singh's desire to serve his country, as well as his right to religious expression and practice. We are pleased that the courts have affirmed that he can do both as a member of the ROTC."

Gurjot Kaur, senior staff attorney for the Sikh Coalition, said the decision was "an important victory in the fight for religious freedom. We urge the Pentagon to eliminate the discriminatory loopholes in its policies and give all Americans an equal opportunity to serve in our nation's armed forces."

The American Civil Liberties Union and a group called United Sikhs jointly represented Singh in the case.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/sikh-student-queens-clear-join-army-rotc-article-1.2259423

Sikh student from Queens clear to join with Army's ROTC

Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that Iknoor Singh's adherence to his religious beliefs would not diminish his ability to serve.

Response by PO3 Mitchell Haynie made Jun 16 at 2015 9:38 AM

PO3 Mitchell Haynie — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:38:29 -0400

Much too far!

"The Uniform" is the key element in military identity. Not only does it represent the character of each branch, it is the one thing that gives a true sense of visual unity, you belong when you wear one. To make such an allowance based on a personal choice such as religion first dishonors the code of the uniform, it also undermines the unity of those who wear it. It becomes a visual identifier that says, "We are in the same military, but we are not the same."

Let this man practice his faith as he wishes, just as I do as a Christian, this is why we ultimately wear that uniform, to protect our liberty to make those choices. As a member of the military elite, I expect him to conform to military process, discipline, uniform code, duty, esprit de corp and honor like all good soldiers do!

Response by SrA Johnathan Kropke made Jun 16 at 2015 9:41 AM

SrA Johnathan Kropke — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:41:16 -0400

This one is kind of tough. On one hand congrats for the religious freedom to this guy, but on the other it shows something wrong. It doesn't show the military precision and "looking like the group" that the rest of the military has to do.

I believe there will be two problems that end up stemming from this. First, the fact that when the military goes into chemical gear, the smooth face is for a correct seal of the mask, a beard will hamper that situation thus making him more of a liability than an asset. Second, a lot of military members could go as far as creating religions or lying, saying it is against their religion to shave their heads or to take out their lip rings. This opens the door for all military members to take advantage of and start exercising "religious freedoms" to just do what they want to break protocol and proper wear of the uniform.

My own take is it just looks tacky to have a full beard in a military uniform when you are used to the person in the uniform looking clean cut and like the rest of the group.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 9:47 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:47:56 -0400

I see too many in the future citing this case as reason that they should be able to present themselves however they want. Will we next see camo buddhist robes?

Response by CDR Michael Goldschmidt made Jun 16 at 2015 9:49 AM

CDR Michael Goldschmidt — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:49:52 -0400

Recognizing the privileges of rank and position, what applies to one should apply to all.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 9:58 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:58:17 -0400

I believe both parties are wrong. The military is wrong to make this accomdation when no one else has the privilege to do so. He is clearly in the wrong profession if he can not conform to military wear and appearance according to AR 670-1. He can serve our country in other ways.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 10:06 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:06:04 -0400

Oh, just a quick note about the Captain pictured here. Army CPT Dr. Kalsi was made the news several years ago when the Army granted him an exception to policy to comply with the Sikh faith. Dr. Kalsi was a medical doctor however, and not a frontline leader of troops. So, yes, the Army has been down this road before, to a point.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 16 at 2015 10:07 AM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:07:36 -0400

If this guy can have long hair and a beard, THEN EVERYONE should be able to have long hair and a beard.

IF...the military has a REAL honest to God reason that beards are detrimental to the mission then make Delta Force and the SEALS Shave, and this Sikh too.

IF, on the other hand, as I suspect, there really is NO REAL REASON other than Appearance to preclude the wearing of beards, then what ever Officer or CSM someplace that writes the regs can SHOVE IT.

IF ONE CAN DO IT and it is not detrimental, then let EVERYONE do it...EQUAL MUST APPLY Equally...NO NO NO....The Army has not been EQUAL for a long long time, that goes back to EO Goals and promotion boards, and having to list race and gender on awards forms so EO and HR People can make sure that awards are given "Equally", thus again insuring that they are not.

I am a White Christian Male, I am retired now, but I would love to have not had to shave every morning, especially in the field when the water was frozen and I had to sleep with a canteen in my fart sack to keep it warm enough to shave over top of the camo paint so some CSM could avoid choking on his coffee and creamed beef. I shaved for over 20 years and did not want to and no one gave a rats ass...now these guys don't want to shave...AND I DON'T GIVE A RATS ASS. Be in Uniform or be a Civilian....OR Change the standard for EVERYONE.

Response by MSgt Keith Hebert made Jun 16 at 2015 10:18 AM

MSgt Keith Hebert — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:18:12 -0400

To far

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Jun 16 at 2015 10:20 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:20:35 -0400

If he loves this country as much as he says then he should put himself second and his country first and align with one of the organizations that help ensure he has a country to love.

Pretty soon (perhaps we are already there) anything will go. Why wear uniforms, why have standards. Wear whatever you "feel" you identify with. I have no issue with his religion or him practicing it but when he must have a special accommodation which no one else gets, then we've gone too far. How many Sikh converts do you think we will have in the next year or two?

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 10:20 AM

PV2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:20:43 -0400

So does this mean Wiccans can wear a pentacle and carry an athame (knife) while in uniform? I'm all for religious freedom, but sacrificing miltary regulations and discipline for religious freedoms sets a bad precendence.

Response by SPC Christian Ziegler made Jun 16 at 2015 10:29 AM

SPC Christian Ziegler — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:29:33 -0400

How many times does the Army have to endure the PC bull crap. This guy cant meet the standards so he should not be allowed in the Army now it say's he is in ROTC nothing say's yet he is in the Army. Lets hope they tell him to take a leap off a cliff. Scout's Out

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jun 16 at 2015 10:30 AM

MSG Brad Sand — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:30:53 -0400

But I could have answered 'Really? We're debating trans-gendered troops, and we're delaying action on a Sikh?' as well.' Of course, we might want to also remember the Sikhs past India before we hire them for the Secret Service too?

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Jun 16 at 2015 10:34 AM

SGT Ben Keen — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:34:37 -0400

This might go against what others think but why is the military making this type of call? What's the point on having standards if some judge or whomever can make a ruling and remove that standard? So what if someone says running is against their religious freedom? Will we see a court ruling saying they can use a scooter instead? What if I didn't want my hair cut when I was at basic? Oh wait I had no choice because it's a standard. Standards are in place for a reason. I've said before in other similar threads, if you choose to be part of the best military in the world, you must be ready to meet and follow the standards set forth. If you don't want to do that then find a job elsewhere.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Jun 16 at 2015 10:40 AM

SGT Richard H. — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:40:12 -0400

I went with the court went too far, but given the choices of the poll, it's actually a tie for me on that and the "unfair" choice.
I am 110% in favor of religious freedom and accommodation, but neither of those things should change the fact that the Army has uniform regulations that are well publicized and easily searchable. In addition, there are recruiters and career counselors who are well versed and very capable of filling people in on said regulations. These regulations exist based on 240 years of research and development on what works best for the service as a whole. If your religion won't allow a haircut and a shave, I respectfully submit that you should find another way to serve our country.
As to the fairness issue, unless things have changed, I don't recall any other religions wearing religious clothing or devices outside of their uniforms. Sikh also isn't the only religion where beards are a part of tradition, but I haven't seen anyone else wearing a beard in uniform.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 16 at 2015 10:41 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:41:26 -0400

We already have Sikhs serving so this is really a non-issue. Our society seems to be making exceptions for everyone today because of some identity issue and it's really getting tiresome.

I don't understand how a religion dictates your daily dress, appearance hair length and it's that or nothing. Everyone must accept that difference or we're the ones who are deemed "intolerant" but their failure to adhere to the standards of others is cause for a lawsuit.

Welcome to the new Am3rik@

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 10:50 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:50:07 -0400

Religious accommodation is important. But, we're missing the bigger issue here. The military's policy on facial hair is outdated.

I understand that cleanshaven was "the look" in the 1950s. But, beards are a historical tradition in the military. And, facial hair is accepted in the civilian workplace once again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/business/international/facial-hair-style-executives.html

The excuse that it interferes with gas mask seals is really nonsense. And, I've served in cold weather climates and forward deployed areas where shaving every day really creates bigger problems.

To save articles or get newsletters, alerts or recommendations – all free.

Response by SSG Brian Kresge made Jun 16 at 2015 11:00 AM

SSG Brian Kresge — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 11:00:46 -0400

I think of the Civil War military, with the Irish Brigade and all of the zouave units in the Union and Confederacy, and their unique adoptions of cultural and religious accoutrements when this comes up. Granted, uniform standards have coalesced along with the National Guard and federalized military, but there was once a tolerance for whole units filled with deviations based on the same things.

I've worn a yarmulke for the greater portion of the last 20 years in uniform. Colonel Goldstein, who recently retired after 40 years in uniform WITH A BEARD, was a sterling example of dedication and duty to troops from all walks of life. I would argue that many people made the same arguments about Jews when they first started accommodating us decades ago, and none of them came to be. Sikhs, like Jews, are a religious minority, but one, like Jews, with long-standing and identifiable practices that are predictable and well-defined. This does not open the floodgates for Wiccans and Jedis that don't have either a tradition or an identified ecclesiastical endorser with the DoD.

I believe that these accommodations, based on the service of existing religious minorities, will yield patriotic service that actual brooks a net positive for the force. E pluribus unum, fellow service members. Our collective ability to reconcile our cultural and religious differences in the interest of our greater good has always been the key ingredient in American exceptionalism.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 11:05 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 11:05:48 -0400

BRAVO! A nation's army should represent a microcosm of its constituents. The days of white ethnocentrism have expired. If I'm a white, 46 year old, middle class American coming to grips with that notion, surely there are others who can do the same.

Now the weapon, mmmm, I think we can leave that at home.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jun 16 at 2015 11:39 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 11:39:02 -0400

Other:
1. Build regulations (grooming, uniformity, weapon carrying) based on combat instead of unnecessary tradition.
2. Enforce the regulations.

There are other posts on beards on RP where I've said the same. Same goes for headgear, hair length and carrying knives at all times. Personally I don't see why we can't permit men or women Christian, Sikh or atheist to grow Spartan top knots, rich beards and carry Xiphos on their flaks. Or not. Unlike physical fitness standards or the contents of your medkit or the pattern of your cammies, these do not have combat applications.

Response by SGT Joe Sabedra made Jun 16 at 2015 11:51 AM

SGT Joe Sabedra — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 11:51:06 -0400

If he can not comply with the gas mask sealing he should not be allowed.
On the hair thing I would treat it the same a the women's restrictions.
That he has a special cover is BS.
He can not remove that cover when indoors, again BS.

I say no to active service unless he complies with military standards.
The shaving that was mentioned for other soldiers that exists is a medical profile not a choice.

Soldiers are not allowed to wear rwliligios items where visible so he should not as well.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 16 at 2015 12:09 PM

PO1 John Miller — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 12:09:44 -0400

I was watching the new season of Orange is the New Black and it had a similar sub plot. The inmates were unhappy with the food so they all started claiming to be Jewish so they could get special Kosher meals.

If I were still on active duty, I'd claim that my religion also requires long hair and beards.

I would also have a hard time listening to this potential officer if he was telling me to fix something on my uniform.

Response by SGT Kristjan Rahe made Jun 16 at 2015 12:20 PM

SGT Kristjan Rahe — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 12:20:27 -0400

Firstly, this is not the first Sikh to serve. I recall a unit adjacent mine during basic had a Sikh in it. Sikhs have a tradition of military service in many countries and a reputation of devoted and ferocious service. U noted a comment about Wiccans, there was a case several years ago in which a service member was permitted to have a split tongue due to an alleged pagan belief. Similarly an USA officer led satanic masses and some provisions were made if I recall as to the hair color. The point is provisions have been made for the entire history of the army, heck, look at some of the uniforms worn by officers, etc. Uniformity is important but is this soldier able to perform the functions of the MOS? This harken to an earlier post about women in combat arms. I will have this Sikh, that woman, or anyone that can tow the line, do the job and back me fully.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 12:35 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 12:35:21 -0400

I goes against uniformity and the good seal of a gas mask.

Response by PO3 Mitchell Haynie made Jun 16 at 2015 12:41 PM

PO3 Mitchell Haynie — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 12:41:38 -0400

At the end of the day this is an issue of citizenship, not military code. As a citizen of the United States his right to freely express his religious preference and the exercise thereof is constitutionally protected. We all know that when we volunteered to serve we give up these rights as military personnel and chose to live under military regulations, code, law and justice. While he certainly has the right to exercise his faith, he has no right to subjugate, alter, change, adopt or otherwise subvert the military to suit his religious preference, and a federal judge should know better!

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 12:42 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 12:42:36 -0400

I would never salute that. Sorry, it offends me, especially since we hear so much hegemony against the Christian faith here.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 12:43 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 12:43:46 -0400

Interesting comments and points. I find it more interesting that the outside courts ruled it instead of understanding the good order and discipline the military adheres too. I feel in the end this individual did it to push an agenda that doesn't need to be. I respect his religious convictions because I have my own. I am disappointed that we have to run by ideology of the social norms.

Response by SSG Jeremy Siebenaller made Jun 16 at 2015 1:27 PM

SSG Jeremy Siebenaller — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:27:23 -0400

SGM Dawson, Unfortunitly...this is just how its gonna be for now on. Women are going through Ranger course (not that I have a problem with that) However the women that were going through it failed out, so the Army is considering lowering the standards...ekkkk

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Jun 16 at 2015 1:34 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:34:03 -0400

Is the Sikh transgendered?

Response by SFC Joseph Bosley made Jun 16 at 2015 1:45 PM

SFC Joseph Bosley — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:45:38 -0400

One standard for everyone. Race, religion, or ethnic background should not play a factor period.

Response by SSG Brian Hart made Jun 16 at 2015 1:55 PM

SSG Brian Hart — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:55:58 -0400

Granting this exception is nothing new. I had a Sikh MI Bn cdr, turban, full beard. I just want to see the Cadet enjoy the gas chamber.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 2:04 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 14:04:33 -0400

Just other. I see it like this:

If a woman can wear her hair long and it has to be put into a bun, Then the long hair should be no problem for any military member. It would be absolutely hysterical to see men in buns tho... LOL

There are a lot of soldiers that I saw that had no shaving profiles... This could fall into that.

The only thing I really might have an issue and it really isn't a great big one, is that he can't wear the SM hat. That he is only capable of wearing the turban. The only problem for me. EH

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 2:09 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 14:09:50 -0400

The military has the policies that are in place to ensure the good order and discipline of the whole for a reason. They are there to separate, so there is no conflict in the ranks regardless of beliefs or religion and to maintain uniformity. Those policies should remain in place and should not be altered unless the rules change for everyone the same way. If not then i believe that i shouldn't have to shave or cut my hair as well.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 2:10 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 14:10:50 -0400

Response by SGT William Howell made Jun 16 at 2015 2:12 PM

SGT William Howell — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 14:12:51 -0400

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/21sikhs.html

Why would you not want a group of people that have roots as being loyal, hardened soldiers!

Badass of the Week: 21 Sikhs at the Battle of Saragahri

The ultimate list of all badasses past and present.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 2:19 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 14:19:45 -0400

It's really not a concern to me. Not closely related: I saw a guy in Kuwait wearing a camouflaged kilt. I asked him if he was born in Scotland. He said, "No." I asked why he is wearing a kilt. He mentioned every notable Scotsman in history and claimed to be related to each of them. His story was so ridiculous, I just sat back down without a word. Do the Scots even wear combat kilts? I find it silly that an American Soldier would wear one even if he IS related to any Scotsman. I have no problem with real Sikhs wearing a turban.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 16 at 2015 2:21 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 14:21:56 -0400

Next will be kilts.

Response by CPL Donald Pelton made Jun 16 at 2015 2:29 PM

CPL Donald Pelton — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 14:29:41 -0400

They forbid our troops from saying Jesus' s name out loud in a Christian ceremony or express their beliefs . WTF is wrong with the Pentagon. No Moral, no unit cohesion, no brotherhood can be gained by individualism. I don't get it. Makes me ashamed of what our military has become.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 2:57 PM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 14:57:11 -0400

The ruling here bothers me. This sets a precedent that the military can discriminate on the basis of religion. I am all for changing the rules. If these standards aren't affecting the mission, why can't everyone use these standards? Why are you only getting special rules because you have a certain religion
I suppose my point is, if you are going to change the rules, change the regulation for everyone. Someone shouldn't get different rules based on religion.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 3:04 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:04:03 -0400

This is ridiculous and inappropriate to our regulations. You either conform to uniform requirements within the regulations or you don;t serve. We have regulations for a reason- if you allow this you must allow for all people to serve to be able to wear a beard and different covers. the reasoning behind this regulation is for dress and appearance, personal hygiene, & chemical warfare gas mask requirements. Conforming to this based on religion is wrong. Don't get me wrong I would love to have my bard and serve, but I am not allowed t do so as I conform to our regulations. So what is next- we allow people with religious believes such as white supremacy with swastika tattoos to serve and have them - that is what there religion is- is it not?

Response by SFC Terry Murphy made Jun 16 at 2015 3:11 PM

SFC Terry Murphy — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:11:41 -0400

I don't care, but when he can't seal his protective mask, then he can be kicked out for being unable to meet the standards.

Response by SPC Dr. Ernest Rockwell made Jun 16 at 2015 4:06 PM

SPC Dr. Ernest Rockwell — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:06:33 -0400

Some of you might want to educate yourselves on the Sikhs' record of military service in the British Empire, independent India, and elsewhere. Despite comprising a mere 2% of the Indian population, they have consistently represented 20% or more of the armed forces, and many of the nation's top officers are Sikh. The idea that the uniform makes the soldier is ridiculous. Our special forces and others routinely wear beards and grow their hair long in theater. What is the problem with providing Sikhs the right to do so, albeit on a regular basis? In there religion, men MUST wear the 5 Ks, which include the beard and long hair, and the turban has essentially become the 6th requirement of physical appearance. Your argument for tradition for the sake of tradition is foolhardy and flies in the face of logic and the changing demographics of our country. Such thinking also borders on violating freedom of religion. Yes, military service is voluntary, but such selfless service should not be denied to people simply because they don't fit the stereotype long associated with the American service member.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Jun 16 at 2015 4:07 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:07:35 -0400

By definition, the Army is a discriminatory organization. You have to meet certain qualifications to join and stay in. It is not open to everyone nor should it be. This could open a Pandora's box of questions and I wonder where it will stop. While I applaud the willingness to serve, I am not sure this is in the best interest of the Army. We could end up with a formation of Soldiers that all look different based on their religious beliefs. Who enforces the standards if they are not clear or not even there? My two cents worth!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 4:43 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:43:39 -0400

Note that this says he may join ROTC, it does not say serve in the military. I dont know if a judge has any say on the matter of actual military service, wouldn't that have to go thru JAG? The regs on facial hair are for allowing proper wear and fit of the gas mask, along with the fact that no individual should be standing out. How would he wear a Kevlar? Would he even be deployable?

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Jun 16 at 2015 4:52 PM

MAJ Matthew Arnold — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:52:50 -0400

Into the Way-back machine, early in my army career (late 1970s) we had Sikhs in the army. I went to jump school with a man who was a Sikh. He was, it seemed to me, a devoted Sikh, and a devoted professional soldier. My life was enriched by getting to know him. And, anyone who got to know him would never question his loyalty to the USA. Back then, I thought it was a mistake to make Sikhs chose between their traditions and their army. I am guessing many, many service men and women have traditions that they would not like to have to chose between them and the army. They would prefer to do both. Sikhs have a long and proud tradition of military service to the country in which they live. I am glad to see Sikhs back in the army.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 4:58 PM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:58:51 -0400

The uniform is a respected outfit that makes us all look...well....uniform. We're one team, fighting one mission, for one nation. If you change the uniform for every individual feeling or action then the uniform loses it's meaning and it's symbolism. As he's ROTC I don't find it to be much of a issue however I would be against such a thing in the regular military.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 5:17 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 17:17:06 -0400

Questions regarding the fitting of this prospective future Leader's protective gear aside, I am happy for him, and happy whenever these days the Federal Courts side with the protection of religious freedoms in the Armed Forces. Religious freedoms in the military are under unprecedented assault from all directions. If this case helps keep the wolves at bay for the majority Christian believers in uniform, I am all for it. Let Mikey Weinstien and his Military Religious Freedom Foundation choke on this guys beliefs for awhile!

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 16 at 2015 5:24 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 17:24:31 -0400

There have been Sikhs in the army since WWI. There are about 12 Sikhs in the army, mostly in medical fields. The Sikhs are noted Muslim killers.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 5:44 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 17:44:41 -0400

Unfortunately I don't see him ever quite being respected if he is to become an officer.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 5:48 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 17:48:15 -0400

Welcome him with open arms! There's enough negativity, judgment and hate in this world! Let's be a part of the CHANGE!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 6:03 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:03:27 -0400

I understand if you have a religion that says you have to wear this, etc., however when you decide that you want to join the military you understand that there are requirements based on your appearance.

Rules should not be changed for anything, aside maybe health reasons.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 6:08 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:08:57 -0400

I see no issues with this at all. A few years back I had a Sikh Soldier in my company. He was allowed to conform to his faith. The issue (and attendant a$$-pain for me) was the Army had no regulations governing an exception to policy regarding the grooming standards... Because of this, he had to get a local exception to policy every time he PCS'ed at the GO level. He came to my compan ystraight after basic and eventually deployed to Afghanistan where he served honorably. Even to his deployment we were going back and forth with legal about the exception to policy. The Army needs to rule one way or another so this doesn't continue to be an issue...

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Jun 16 at 2015 6:11 PM

TSgt Joshua Copeland — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:11:17 -0400

Other, because he isn't the first Sikh to join the service without cutting his hair or shaving and won't be the last. Really don't understand why this even went to a lawsuit.

Response by SPC Ryan D. made Jun 16 at 2015 6:56 PM

SPC Ryan D. — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:56:12 -0400

Special operation groups allow exceptions to the rule to further the mission on a routine basis. They allow modified uniforms and the growing of facial hair based on the cultural expectation in their operational theaters.

This is no different. We should welcome this allowance. Who knows how beneficial this man may be to our military going forward. We need to start being more open to beneficial change instead of resisting it because of the 'thats how it used to be' mentality.

The world is not flat folks. Change your socks, drink some water, and be open to change.

Response by SFC Clark Adams made Jun 16 at 2015 7:32 PM

SFC Clark Adams — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 19:32:48 -0400

What does uniform mean? Why do military personnel complete Basic Combat Training? Why should there be any standards in any area of military service?

Response by SA Trevor Borjeson made Jun 16 at 2015 8:12 PM

SA Trevor Borjeson — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 20:12:14 -0400

Good for him. It's sad that he had to fight to be free in a "free" country..

Response by CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 8:42 PM

CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 20:42:34 -0400

This seems to be one of those rock and a hard place issues. As for the accommodation, the Constitution protects his right to freely practice his religion. Furthermore, his religious standards pre-date our Constitution. So I can understand how A judge would feel compelled to rule in this manner.

However, if I am reading these other posts correctly, the main complaint is not that we should not let him practice his religion, but that the established standards of an organization should not be changed for one person (a minority might be a better word choice here).

I have to say that I can see the merits of both sides of the argument, but I think this is and will be a relatively quiet issue in our ranks as soon as this thread dies down. So much for the doom and gloom "what other doors does this open up" argument. Issues will still be handled on a case-by-case basis and the vast majority of those will not make the news. Let's keep our heads people.

Response by CPL Jesse Jones made Jun 16 at 2015 8:56 PM

CPL Jesse Jones — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 20:56:52 -0400

This is highly irregular for the tradition of our military, in which will definitely have many negative repercussions from basic to A.I.T and God forbid he goes 82nd Airborne, because I think they'll change his mind on a constant basis.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Jun 16 at 2015 9:09 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 21:09:55 -0400

I think this political correctness is road apples! I'm glad I'm retired and don't have to deal with this junk any more. There's a reason the Army had standards, and I said had, I guess the Army will lower their standards for anything now.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 9:11 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 21:11:46 -0400

I don't think we should accommodate anyone. I think they need to change the supplemented DODI 1300.17 WHICH States "Accommodation of Religious Practices within the Military Services". Approval for exceptions to policy are done on a case by case basis.

Just my $0.02

Response by CPT Topher Murphy made Jun 16 at 2015 9:18 PM

CPT Topher Murphy — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 21:18:24 -0400

Nothing new we had them in my OBC class in 2010. The guy did well and had no issues. He did everything required of him.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Jun 16 at 2015 9:18 PM

SGM Matthew Quick — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 21:18:40 -0400

Very unfortunate decision...especially when it's coming from someone who's never served.

"In her ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson said, "It is difficult to see how accommodating plaintiff's religious exercise would do greater damage to the Army's compelling interests in uniformity, discipline, credibility, unit cohesion, and training than the tens of thousands of medical shaving profiles the Army has already granted."

HOWEVER...Judge (Amy Berman Jackson): Lawsuit in Petraeus scandal can proceed
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/sep/15/judge-lawsuit-in-petraeus-scandal-can-proceed/

Judge: Lawsuit in Petraeus scandal can proceed

A federal judge says a Tampa, Florida, woman can pursue her lawsuit alleging that the government invaded her privacy in the scandal over former CIA director David Petraeus.

Response by SCPO Donald Johnson made Jun 16 at 2015 9:33 PM

SCPO Donald Johnson — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 21:33:49 -0400

The

Response by SPC Christopher Covington made Jun 16 at 2015 10:03 PM

SPC Christopher Covington — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 22:03:07 -0400

What are these people thinking? It's too simple. Adhere to the standards, you're free to practice your faith, whatever it may be, on your time. This isn't even a matter of accommodating a Soldier. This kid is a friggin college student! So between him and some judge in New York, the U.S. Army must change its policy on uniform and appearance standards, while everyone else must adhere to them. So because a Christian or Jew or Buddhist ISNT a Sikh, they must adhere to the standards. As for the shaving profiles, I'm pretty sure those are given for medical reasons, not because someone feels they shouldn't have to adhere to the standards of an organization THEY volunteered to join in the first place. ACLU/Al Sharpton/Eric Holder much?

Response by LTC Erik Spike Thiesmeyer, Sr. made Jun 16 at 2015 10:08 PM

LTC Erik Spike Thiesmeyer, Sr. — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 22:08:34 -0400

These accommodations (wearing a turban and having facial hair) are not compatible with military service. Period. He cannot properly wear headgear, either the uniform caps, or any protective helmet. How would he drive a tank, fly a helicopter, or shoot his weapon on the rifle range? With a beard, his gas mask would NEVER fit correctly.

No, I'm sorry but he is welcome to worship where he wants, but he cannot have these obvious safety violations.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 10:21 PM

CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 22:21:13 -0400

Does the Judge who made this ruling know her hsitory about our Armed Services and about one loses their civil identity once he or she volunteer for our Armed Forces? I have a recommendation, let her handle the Marine's case of unjustice or justice with his conviction of his crimes against humanity, whom will wipe the slate clean. I had an associate that used to work with me was murdered at Fort Hood, Texas by an Officer of the Army Medical Corps. Is this Justice? Ask his wife and children. JK

Response by SGT Timothy Rocheleau made Jun 16 at 2015 10:29 PM

SGT Timothy Rocheleau — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 22:29:31 -0400

Regs are regs I say. But then again, I'm not a federal court judge. If you want something bad enough enough you typically conform to the rules and laws that are in place to become what ever it is you want to be. This sue over every little thing that hurts your little girl feelings is ridiculous. But then again, the military has always made religious accommodations, it's just that no one really challenged the rules. I remember a full blooded Cherokee telling us all that if he really wanted to force the issue he could have his hair long if he wanted to because it was part of his religion. He didn't push the issue because he didn't follow his religion to the letter of his religious beliefs.

Response by PO2 Steven Erickson made Jun 16 at 2015 10:47 PM

PO2 Steven Erickson — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 22:47:30 -0400

I promise to serve my country unconditionally!

But... I have this teeny weeny list of conditions here that shouldn't be a big deal, OK?

Oh... Yeah... and I have to have my chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream on Saturday night at bedtime. It's REALLY IMPORTANT to my personal identity as an overweight old guy.

Response by SFC Stef T made Jun 16 at 2015 10:54 PM

SFC Stef T — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 22:54:22 -0400

The military today (all services) is completely lost with customs, courtesy, and discipline. The idea is for everyone to be the same and not one individual or individuals stand out. You train to fight not pray. Give the soldiers of today to us old guys and we will show them what it's like to be in the real military of old. If you wouldn't mind keep the brown nosing politicians in Washington, D.C. while we put the military back together for you. Once were done don't let them slip back to the military they are today. With all these religious favors you do for the soldier of today it is a wonder they get anything done!!

Response by SGT Jason Weisbrich made Jun 16 at 2015 10:56 PM

SGT Jason Weisbrich — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 22:56:40 -0400

Personally I find this court ruling to be complete garbage. You enlist and agree to be bound by all military regulations like AR 670-1. They would not cave to Christian religious norms, so why is this different? This is another prime example of our legal system under the current administration selectively choosing what to enforce according to the political climate.

Response by SSG John Erny made Jun 16 at 2015 11:06 PM

SSG John Erny — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 23:06:53 -0400

If the perception is that you a party to a privileged group then the current political environment is against you. If you are a party to a group that is considered less fortunate then the courts will rule on your side; this being despite the fact that some minority religions are anti gay, anti women, and do not tolerate other religions.

American soldiers once wore beards, this stopped in WWI when chemical warfare became an issue; one cannot get a proper seal on a gas mask with a beard. Should others have to put their lives at risk while some one is doing the dying cock roach after a dose of VX agent?
Soldiers of that area also shaved their heads and beards to control fleas which were a major problem in trench warfare. I was told in a history class that even after WWII that the old WWI trenches were still infested with fleas.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2015 11:50 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Jun 2015 23:50:12 -0400

No. You conform to the military, the military doesn't conform to you. If he wishes to serve the country that he loves, there are other avenues. Ones that don't compromise the integrity of the whole for the needs of the few.

Response by COL Jeff Williams made Jun 17 at 2015 12:19 AM

COL Jeff Williams — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 00:19:21 -0400

We let or tolerate SOF wearing beards, so why not?

Response by SSG Donald Mceuen made Jun 17 at 2015 12:57 AM

SSG Donald Mceuen — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 00:57:46 -0400

As a service member he needs to follow the dress code that is set by the military.
With him getting by with his uniform changes why the hell can't other troops
change there uniform to what they say is there religion.
I am sorry he needs to wear the uniform correctly or find another way to serve
our great nation. This could open a whole lot shit thats not needed at this time.

Response by SFC Joseph Weber made Jun 17 at 2015 1:50 AM

SFC Joseph Weber — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 01:50:11 -0400

He wants to serve his country. Who cares if he wears a turban and does not shave. Instead of these single court cases the DOD should allow all Sikhs to join and look at any other religious or cultural thing that would open up the ranks to more patriotic Americans. And for those who suddenly want to wear a colander on their head or smoke dope because of religion, we know you are bullshitting.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 2:00 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 02:00:12 -0400

So in order to get "exception to policy" you have to go through a lot of paperwork and patience. We all have that right, actually. I graduated OBC with a dentist who, I believe, is still serving. I personally like the idea of uniformity, but Sikhs having uniform modifications don't break my heart. Religious preferences are made for many. Jews are allowed to wear the yamaka in uniform. This isn't new.

Response by SGT Paul Muenkel made Jun 17 at 2015 5:36 AM

SGT Paul Muenkel — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 05:36:51 -0400

Sikhs have served for years and have been permitted their beards. In the mid 70s it was accepted that a carrying a picture of a knife would fulfill their religious obligations. Apparently that has now changed.

Response by COL Korey Jackson made Jun 17 at 2015 6:11 AM

COL Korey Jackson — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 06:11:59 -0400

Sikhs have long served in the U.S. Army with religious accommodations. This was the correct decision by the Federal judge.

A potential future military intelligence officer who currently speaks four languages, including Urdu? That sounds pretty good to me.

I extend best wishes to Iknoor Singh's future endeavors.

Response by MSG Greg Kelly made Jun 17 at 2015 7:19 AM

MSG Greg Kelly — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 07:19:13 -0400

The military has these rules and regulations for a reason so lets see how smug he is in the gas chamber. This is another throat punch to the military lets beat up on select groups while doing stupid things for others. And worse this person knows he should not be there in way he is a joke and he should be ashamed

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 7:31 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 07:31:34 -0400

The year 1961. An airman was granted a wavier to grow a beard because his hometown was celebrating a centennial.

Waivers are NOT something new.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 7:32 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 07:32:52 -0400

Now what worries me most is that a court said what would impact military readiness. He should of went threw the normal waver process and left it in normal channels or conformed to army standards. The courts are not in a position to determine military readiness and military standards.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 7:58 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 07:58:02 -0400

The first Amendment protects the right of the individual to practice their religion. However in the military community the rights of the individual are second to the fundamental requirement for obedience and discipline. This is the concept that the "needs of service" are greater than the "desires and interests of the individual". The Department of Defense already has a Religious Accommodations Policy and the short answer given those guidelines is that, "A request for religious accommodations should be approved unless it interferes with the mission." Regulations: Directive 1300.17, February 10, 2009.

British Army examines plans to create a Sikh regiment

Armed Forces minister Mark Francois says unit would inherit many of the 'proud traditions of Sikh regiments' from the Army's past

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 8:40 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 08:40:45 -0400

Religious accomidations have been around for quite sometime. As long as he abides by the accomidations that are provided there is nothing wrong. We allow troops to walk around with Shaving Waivers for no reason, but laziness, and people are up in arms over this? Yes, I know there are some troops that need shaving waivers.

Response by MSG Morgan Fiszel, CPCM, CFCM made Jun 17 at 2015 9:04 AM

MSG Morgan Fiszel, CPCM, CFCM — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 09:04:11 -0400

Before you know it he will be in here reading this.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 10:13 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:13:50 -0400

What ever happen to uniformity in the ranks. I'm all for religous freedoms, becuase I serve to defend them, but damn. What if, I felt it was my religious right to carry a concealed firearm in uniform, becuase I feel persecuted as a Christian? It is after all my 2nd amendment right, just like this guy carring a knife and wearing what ever he wants. For the record, I believe the only personnel that should be authorized to demonstrate their religious preferance in uniform should be Chaplians, and even then it shouldn't be an overt demostration. A badge would be fine.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 10:15 AM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:15:35 -0400

Anyone who wants to serve should be allowed to serve.
But the Army also has standards.
What we should look at are the standards.
If the standards, in this case shaving, are flexible, and they're not only flexible in religion, shaving profiles too, then maybe the standard needs to be revised.

I do not think religious persons should be given special treatment. We should allow religious practices that don't hinder the Armies mission, or good order and discipline.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jun 17 at 2015 11:05 AM

COL Charles Williams — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:05:15 -0400

I guess I am a dinosaur.

First of all, I know this is not a first or a new topic. But, I am interested in seeing if I am out of touch, or not...

- Yes, I know we make provisions for religious items (AR 600-20 Para 5-6), garments, as well as other areas too. Heck, over 25 years ago, I saw an SF Sergeant First Class, in uniform, with a Green Turban, flash, and crest. So, again, I know this is not a new topic. This is what the AR (currently says - excerpt):

(g) Religious headgear may be worn while in uniform if the headgear meets the following criteria:
1. The religious headgear is subdued in color (generally black, brown, green, dark or Navy blue, or a combination of these colors).
2. The religious headgear is of a style and size that can be completely covered by standard military headgear.
3. The religious headgear bears no writing, symbols, or pictures.
4. Wear of the religious headgear does not interfere with the wear or proper functioning of protective clothing or equipment.
5. Religious headgear that meets these criteria is authorized irrespective of the faith group from which it originates.
6. Religious headgear will not be worn in place of military headgear under circumstances when the wear of military headgear is required (for example, when the Soldier is outside or required to wear headgear indoors for a special
purpose).

(5) Grooming practices. The Army’s grooming standards are contained in AR 670–1. Religious-based exceptions to policy previously given Soldiers under the provisions of this regulation prior to 1 January 1986 continue in effect as long as the affected Soldiers remain otherwise qualified for retention. However, Soldiers previously granted authority to wear unshorn hair, unshorn beard, or permanent religious jewelry prior to 1 January 1986 will not be assigned PCS or TDY out of CONUS due to health and safety considerations.

- That said, I also believe being a Soldier (Sailor, Airmen, Marine) is about assimilating, surrendering some of your individuality and individual freedoms, and becoming part of the team. As a leader, our number one job is to model the standard, and what right looks like. I am not sure how you can lead, if you expect to have a different standard for you... Again, that is from my lens.

- While I value individual freedom, liberty, and choice, I also believe the standards of the organization come before your personal preferences. I also believe in the volunteer military, and that if you don't like the rules and regulations, you can find another place to make your mark.

Response by SPC Ben Cedeno made Jun 17 at 2015 11:55 AM

SPC Ben Cedeno — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:55:48 -0400

The best way in my opinion to settle most of if not all these issues is to keep sending "these people" to the chamber so they understand why we have rules in place. You can't properly seal a mask with a beard.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Jun 17 at 2015 12:16 PM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 12:16:39 -0400

Does military Service place any demands on us that go beyond working at Walmart? We depend on common bonds and teamwork, subordinating self to unit. If you are not willing to subordinate yourself, you are not fit for military service. He may be a wonderfully nice guy. But if he requires the unit, the Service, and the entire DoD to bend to his religion or philosophy or whatever self-defining behavior, he is not what we need.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 12:25 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 12:25:34 -0400

Army Regulations are subordinate to the US Constitution. Despite the experience of the last few decades, the US Army has a longer history Sikhs serving in war and peace with religious paraphernalia intact (since World War I) than it has had the current broad (but waiverable) ban on beards.

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Jun 17 at 2015 12:30 PM

Maj Mike Sciales — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 12:30:26 -0400

This is a smart move. Face it, we don't have a military force today like we did in Vietnam or Korea or WW II. We engage in asymmetrical warfare and we need to develop a robust intelligence system that utilizes our greatest resource -- our incredibly diverse population. We have people from everywhere on the planet and honestly, you just cannot rely on local agents you hire for intel, much better to have your own people on the ground, especially if they are people familiar with the culture and languages. I don't care if he has a beard, so many of our enemies today do and I want a man or woman who looks like them, talks like them, knows them and can operate amongst them and is a US citizen. I'd take working with a smart guy in a beard in a turban over some dumb-ass hillbilly/redneck/ghetto troop who can't understand or speak English and doesn't bother to understand a foreign culture but loves to shoot a rifle. We need smart capable guys, we have plenty of "muscle" already.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 12:40 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 12:40:32 -0400

This is old stuff--military has long made select religious accommodations, including for Sikhs...might be the first time for HS ROTC, but the services do have precedent.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 12:42 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 12:42:32 -0400

The way I see it the military is continuing to be an ALL VOLUNTEER force. Our requirements are secretive, they are also very public. With this said my personal view is it takes a hack at the force. We all play by the rules when it comes to dress and appearance. Prior to joining I sported some facial hair in which I was mildly attached too and not to mention a faddish hair doo, I wanted to be apart of the best military force on the face of the Earth so I sacrificed that to join. I get that this is a little different since it pertains to faith, but it isn't that much different because this young man is not being forced to join.

I feel that service to country requires certain personal sacrifices, and in this case if he wanted to join he should conform to the regs. If he doesn't because he holds his faith strong enough there are other avenues he can serve our country, from civil service, Red Cross, and all the other organizations out there that are supporting the cause, the warfighters, and so on. just my .02 though. I think that it is referred to as 2 cents because its not enough to buy anything or make a serious difference.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Jun 17 at 2015 12:47 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 12:47:18 -0400

I will say that the court went too far. So now every single person who has a religious, sexual, or other type of need will be given their preferences?
This is not conducive to good order and discipline because your saying that if you have a proven difference you can behave according to your preferences rather than the rules and regulations of the service.
While I do respect everyone's personal ideologies, they also have to respect military rules and regulations if they desire to serve.

Response by CH (MAJ) Thomas Conner made Jun 17 at 2015 12:49 PM

CH (MAJ) Thomas Conner — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 12:49:33 -0400

The court went too far! There is a rationale for regulations as they relate to facial hair and the length of hair on the head. Regarding carrying a sharp knife, lay it aside until you deploy. Our society has become so PC we have become stupid! Either conform or find another way to serve!

Response by SPC Larry Boutwell made Jun 17 at 2015 1:02 PM

SPC Larry Boutwell — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:02:41 -0400

Love how the army is becoming do what ever the fuck you want....soooo happy im a veteran......

Response by SGT Ronald Audas made Jun 17 at 2015 1:02 PM

SGT Ronald Audas — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:02:44 -0400

The military has had restrictions since day one. Height,weight,disabilities,etc.These restrictions are for the welfare of all service personel.Either you have a rule for all,or you have no rule. I, for one ,am very disappointed with our military.We have removed ourselves from being an elite force to be reckoned with ,to a catch all club.This is not about an accepted religion.This is about every body gets a trophy.Next we will only take in people that eat liver. That immediately washes me out.I mean no disrespect,but it has to stop somewhere. I don`t want to be in a firefight and look around and my battle buddy is rubbing his elbows with dirt because it`s his religion.

Response by SFC Collin McMillion made Jun 17 at 2015 1:15 PM

SFC Collin McMillion — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:15:57 -0400

In my opinion, definitely went way too far. Our rules and policies have been in place far to long to start bending and breaking them now. Reguardless of the flac I receive, I would not serve with this individual. WE ARE STILL AMERICA, at least for now!

Response by SPC Larry Boutwell made Jun 17 at 2015 1:23 PM

SPC Larry Boutwell — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:23:57 -0400

How loud do you have to scream promask before they unfuck this??? Wtf is wrong with our leadership these days? Im all for equality i even like Indians....i just got my a.a.s. and there was three of them in class with me great guys ....only eat veggies.....but regulations are there for a reason.....hope he doesn't encounter any chemical attacks.....

Response by SGT Thomas Lucken made Jun 17 at 2015 1:29 PM

SGT Thomas Lucken — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:29:45 -0400

Sikhs in the past were some tough warriors! :-)

Response by CPL John C. made Jun 17 at 2015 1:35 PM

CPL John C. — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:35:12 -0400

Sikh are good fighters if they get gassed and die due to their faith the so be it. They will have fought with pride and Honor. It should not be a issue.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 1:41 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:41:48 -0400

Sure, give him the victory, but allow him to attend OCS and prove himself, but drop him for failure to adapt.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 1:57 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:57:59 -0400

Not a big news to me. I have seen Sikhs in the army. There was a Sikh doctor(CPT) at Womack Army Medical Center at Fort Bragg when I was there. He deployed to Afghanistan. There a Jewish kid with a skull cap in my Battery in basic training at Fort Sill. As a future Rastafarian I see nothing wrong with this.

Response by CPL John C. made Jun 17 at 2015 1:59 PM

CPL John C. — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 13:59:09 -0400

The issue is how he looks. The bs about NBC, is false, Helmets, and any other BS. The fact is Sikh's make fine to great fighters, they serve the brit empire, india, with honor Yet here we have the same B.S. he don't look pretty. I never cared for that line of thought. to me it was Can he Fight. Had a range NCO order me to shoot in a proper (pretty boy) way on a qual range, started missing easy shot since the position was wrong. Called the Top over (even though he was a busted top.) He was a top. told him the Sit, he asked if i could still qual? And to go for it. Rather have a shooter then a non-shooting Army poster boy. I'd Rather have a sihk warrior then a pretty boy pog.

Response by SFC Steven Steingiesser made Jun 17 at 2015 2:02 PM

SFC Steven Steingiesser — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:02:55 -0400

I have no problem with them changing the policy to allow people who add to the military to be able to serve. There is nothing sacred to the uniform, so little so that I am about to wear my 4th camouflage pattern since joining. Why stop one with strong personal convictions from joining? Though personally I hope the start changing the grooming standards. Garrison combat beards for everyone.

Response by SGT Robert Hawks made Jun 17 at 2015 2:09 PM

SGT Robert Hawks — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:09:51 -0400

This is ridiculous Another example of political correctness.

Response by MSgt Thomas Baydala made Jun 17 at 2015 2:10 PM

MSgt Thomas Baydala — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:10:09 -0400

It should be left up to the joint chiefs not to politicians or for that matter appointed/elected judges.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Jun 17 at 2015 2:20 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:20:08 -0400

This is an ROTC program, right? I don't think it's quite the same as setting military policy, even if it makes no sense whatsoever. ROTC is not a club. If he has no chance of a commission, he shouldn't even be there.

Response by SFC David Pope, MBA made Jun 17 at 2015 2:20 PM

SFC David Pope, MBA — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:20:35 -0400

I only have one problem. The fact that he carries a sharp knife. Nobody except law enforcement is allowed to carry a knife or any form of weapon into a Federal facility. Was he allowed to carry a knife at school? As far as his hair and turban, if he is able to accommodate a Kevlar helmet I have no problems. His turban would need to be in cohesion with his uniform.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 17 at 2015 2:21 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:21:35 -0400

Response by CPL Bryan Claeys made Jun 17 at 2015 2:34 PM

CPL Bryan Claeys — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:34:12 -0400

I am not against infringing upon constitutional rights by any means but when you're a service member you forfeit certain rights when you sign your contract. You can't speak out publicly against the commander in chief etc. So either adhere to all of the AR's or don't join. Point blank period.

Response by CW3 Susan Burkholder made Jun 17 at 2015 2:38 PM

CW3 Susan Burkholder — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:38:20 -0400

It is incredibly unfair to Christians. I could never wear a cross necklace when I was in the service. Why is it ok for a Sikh to display his religion visibly in uniform and Christians can not?

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Jun 17 at 2015 2:46 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:46:18 -0400

Capt Jeff Schwager, the courts and presidents have been setting military policy since our beginning, otherwise us white Christian men do not change; sad to say we have to be forced to adapt for the better.

Response by MCPO Keith Kaui made Jun 17 at 2015 2:51 PM

MCPO Keith Kaui — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:51:20 -0400

Wow! This is the United States Military not some social experiment. So if he is wearing a turban how does that look for uniformity and professionalism? Carrying a weapon (knife) in the work place, is that OK while others are not able too? The whole religion excuse is being abused by all faiths and we should be careful with how the military moves forward with this.

Response by Sgt W Hibshman made Jun 17 at 2015 2:52 PM

Sgt W Hibshman — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:52:49 -0400

The Sikh student is asking to be allowed to participate in an Officer Candidate program which would prepare him to "possibly" be commissioned. ROTC members are not active duty; merely candidates. If there are other Sikh serving on active duty, then the Armed Forces have already vetted the issue and this decision must pertain specifically to the ROTC. An example of the dragon outrunning its' tail.

Response by SPC Ward Taber made Jun 17 at 2015 2:54 PM

SPC Ward Taber — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:54:33 -0400

I have no problem with him being part of the military but he should be held to the SAME standards and dress codes as everyone else.

Response by Sgt Spencer Sikder made Jun 17 at 2015 3:00 PM

Sgt Spencer Sikder — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:00:47 -0400

I am puzzled why it ended up in court in the first place. Army has allowed Sikh's appearance to comply with their religion.

Response by PO2 Kevin O'Connor made Jun 17 at 2015 3:02 PM

PO2 Kevin O'Connor — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:02:17 -0400

I wasn't really going to reply to this post since in my mind it's one of those "so what" moments. But then I started to read some other replies. I was an RP (Religious Program Specialist) in the Navy from the beginning. I served with so many Chaplains from so many different faiths. I provided support to my shipmates for their religious needs even when I didn't agree with them. This is a perfect example what what it means to be an American and living by the ideals, and upholding the Constitution. You accept someone else rights or beliefs, just like you would want the to accept yours. Your belief and opinions are just that, yours. If a person can do their job, preform to the standards of the service then why not let them? Since when did the military become so closed minded? As long as the person next to you could do their job, that use to all that mattered. How does this ruling affect, or take away, you rights and freedoms?? Allowances have been made for race, sex, and religion since the birth of the nation. If you can't stand up for someone else rights or freedoms because you don't agree with them, why are you in uniform? Aren't we suppose to stand up for and defend the rights and freedoms of this country??

Response by SFC David Pope, MBA made Jun 17 at 2015 3:02 PM

SFC David Pope, MBA — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:02:42 -0400

As a Mormon in the Army I was made fun of and somewhat persecuted by those in my unit, until several of our higher ranking NCO's turned out to be Mormon as well. Most of the comments I have read on this topic is about uniform, military customs and dress codes. If anyone here studies military history you will find that many of the things you consider as tradition are fairly new. The military is changing every day. The one constant thing is change in our lives. We have excluded people from serving their country because we have a perception of what a soldier should be. I have been fortunate to have worked with many foreign militaries over my years in service, and see how they operate. We have the greatest military force in the world, but we need to adapt new ways if we want to improve what we have. The Sikhs have been know for many centuries as great warriors, and being very dedicated to the armies they fight for. The military gets rid of soldiers all the time for dress and appearance, whether they can pass a physical training test or not. Body mass seems to be the big issue, and how we look. This is not Cosmopolitan, this is the United States Military. I have seen soldiers who followed every guideline the service had, and even scored 300 on their PT test, and get booted because the body fat was .05% over their requirement. The military needs to change, and stop holding on to some customs because we want to look pretty. These arguments were made about women serving in the military 6 decades ago, and look how far they have come. Although it should be farther by now. The good ole boy military is in the days of past. We need a military that can perform in the 21st century and not hold on to the 19th century.

Response by PO2 Nick Faragasso made Jun 17 at 2015 3:08 PM

PO2 Nick Faragasso — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:08:00 -0400

This is crazy, the ultimate reason for the military is defense....there is a need for discipline and conformity.....that is part of the military! It helps in combat to distinguish your troops from others.....The PC thing is going to far!!!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 3:09 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:09:16 -0400

I think they blended the rules a lot on this one many people have religious believes that say they should be able to wear dreds and that's still band to this day

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Jun 17 at 2015 3:11 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:11:55 -0400

MAJ Paul Hoiland, would you have asked if it was a so called Christian demanding that all must swore an oath on the bible. This is not about religious freedom is about serving and not about the false belief policies that are in place to ensure the good order and discipline of the whole, it is about using common sense.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 3:14 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:14:14 -0400

And yet this is still banned

Response by Sgt Frank Rinchich made Jun 17 at 2015 3:23 PM

Sgt Frank Rinchich — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:23:42 -0400

This is BS, we are giving our country away bit by bit might as well give the military away also. When I was active we had our religious faith stamped on our dog tag, that's enough religious freedom in the military. We are a fighting , killing machine. not there to save souls.

Response by TSgt Steven Van Dyken made Jun 17 at 2015 3:42 PM

TSgt Steven Van Dyken — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:42:25 -0400

This is ridiculous. Almost every individual in the military has given up something important to them in order to assimilate. The military has no desire to keep this individual from practicing his faith, but why can't he do that while confirming to military standards? The regulations are in place for a reason, and everyone must have the same standard.

Response by Sgt Jay Jones made Jun 17 at 2015 3:50 PM

Sgt Jay Jones — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:50:20 -0400

I am all for freedom of religion. It is one of the founding principles of our country as well as our constitution. However, when a person makes the "choice" to serve our country we are agreeing to come under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. This code calls for certain conduct and standards. To allow exemptions to those standards undermine the effectiveness of the Military. The military takes a broad approach to our religious freedoms, but not to the detriment of good militants effectiveness and discipline. So, to answer the original question, No!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 3:51 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:51:36 -0400

2. The religious headgear is of a style and size that can be completely covered by standard military headgear.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

6. Religious headgear will not be worn in place of military headgear under circumstances when the wear of military headgear is required (for example, when the Soldier is outside or required to wear headgear indoors for a special
purpose).

I mean, there lies the answer, right?? Just like some unfortunates want to re-write the Constitution to meet their needs... lets re-write 670-1

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Jun 17 at 2015 3:53 PM

SPC David Hannaman — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:53:00 -0400

The court went to far in this ruling, again placing the interests of a single individual over the policies that are in place to ensure the good order and discipline of the whole.

I thought the whole idea of a uniform was to promote uniformity. There's a place for religious individuality... Last line of your dog tags.

Response by CW3 Arthur Petty made Jun 17 at 2015 3:54 PM

CW3 Arthur Petty — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:54:36 -0400

I am a retired veteran and I can not fathom how any one could possibly coocieve in their farthest stretch of imagination how anyone could allow someone to challenge and overcome the discipline of our military. This indiividual is a human being and there is nothing about his religion which can assure anyone that he will not one day decide to use that weapon to settle an argument or forcibly expresws his views. Members of our military have trained, fought and died to preserve our liberty. The US military has certain rules which should not be ignored becauuse this individual wants to join our military, if he will be allowed to preserve certain rules of his religion. His religion should not be allowed to dictate to us. I was a drill sergeant at one time, and I can see some problems with a drill sergeant trying to train an armed recruit, with several hair violations. This entire idea is ludicrous. If tis person is allowed to proceed, I believe many other recruits will file petitions for what they believe is right.

Response by MSgt Paul Anderson made Jun 17 at 2015 3:55 PM

MSgt Paul Anderson — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:55:23 -0400

During any field training, hygene is going to be a problem. Is he going to get a kevlar cover for his turban?
Seriously. It is an ALL volunteer force. Make him comply with the regs or boot his butt out.

Response by CW2 John Brookins made Jun 17 at 2015 3:56 PM

CW2 John Brookins — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:56:50 -0400

I don’t see a major issue with this. The military has many rules that don’t have much to do with fighting abilities. That said wearing long hair, while I don’t like it myself and short hair is certainly more manageable in the field is no big deal. Women can have long hair so what’s up with that? Beards? Again I don’t see much of an issue there. The excuse about the Pro-mask, well I’ve operated in them and frankly if you actually find yourself needing a Pro-mask in a field environment you’re pretty hosed already. That thing will not stay sealed while conducting operations other than running away slowly and carefully. The knife, hell we should all be wearing sharp knives.

My only issue is that it should not be a religious issue but a common sense issue where we attract and keep the very best warriors. Appearance standards should certainly be about a neat and professional appearance and not hinder the ability of the soldier to do the job.

Now I do think generally, soldiers with a clean shave, neat haircut and no tattoos looks better in uniform but that’s just a personal preference. Heck, I’ll work with “Rasta Joe”, if he can put rounds on target.

A neat and professional appearance is important to the “good order and morale”, but that standard can be met with Hair, beards, and knives for EVERYONE.

Response by SSgt Dale W. made Jun 17 at 2015 4:06 PM

SSgt Dale W. — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:06:02 -0400

I don't see how this situation fits into any of the narrow categories the poll choices describe.
Sikh's have served in the US Armed forces for at least the last one hundred years and have been allowed to retain turban, beard, etc. to conform with their faith. The lawsuit was brought because current regulations allow application for waiver after the service member has joined, but does not allow for application of waiver prior to joining. If the lawsuit route had not been followed by Iknoor Singh, he would have had to do away with the beard, turban, hair, kurpan, etc. which is forbidden: " The initiate is required to wear the physical symbols of a Khalsa at all times as well as follow the Khalsa Code of Conduct." http://www.sikhs.org/khalsa.htm So, ultimately, I see this as a means to allow him to serve, the same way many of us have found ways to overcome obstacles or objections that may have precluded us to serve.

Many of the responses I have read speak of conformity. Those of you that have tats, do you all have the same ones? Why not? Others have spoken about the slippery slope...been there, done that, i.e. women fighter pilots, women in infantry units, etc. Korea era and earlier, the armed forces were going to fall apart if mixed color units were allowed. From my perspective, it has always been and always will be a question of can the person do the job expected and required of him/her/it?

Sometimes you just have to color outside the lines.

Sikhism Religion of the Sikh People

Who and What is a Khalsa? "He who keeps alight the unquenchable torch of truth, and never swerves from the thought of One God; he who has full love and confidence in God and does not put his faith, even by mistake, in fasting or the graves of Muslim saints, Hindu crematoriums, or Jogis places of sepulchre; he who recognises the One God and no pilgrimages, alms-giving, non-destruction of life, penances, or austerities; and in whose heart the...

Response by SFC Jeff L. made Jun 17 at 2015 4:07 PM

SFC Jeff L. — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:07:19 -0400

meh

Response by PFC Scott Sanders made Jun 17 at 2015 4:11 PM

PFC Scott Sanders — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:11:17 -0400

The strength of the United States Armed Forces has historically been in the fact that we are the best trained, most disciplined fighting force to ever exist. To achieve this we are taught, quite extensively and rigorously, that there is no room for individualism. Basic Training is designed to strip away our individual identities and turn us into "Soldiers", "Marines", "Seamen", or "Airmen". We run drills to the point that every person knows what to do without thinking about it with everyone learning and doing the same thing. By the time we leave basic, everyone is working together as one. There are standards in place to dictate how the uniforms are to be worn. Appearance and hygiene are strictly regulated, as are nearly every other aspect of how we present ourselves, both in and out of uniform. Discipline takes on a new meaning to anyone who is now or has ever served in the US Armed Forces. Joining the military is not meant to be just a job, but a way of life.

If someone truly wants to serve their country, they should be willing to make the sacrifices that every other person before them made. The courts should have no say in the enlistment process since it is a personal choice. If you truly want to serve, then you do whatever is necessary to make it happen. Learn that you are part of a bigger entity and let your individualism go. If your beliefs, either religious or personal, prevent you from doing that, then accept the fact that you will most likely do more harm than good and walk away. Because when the military stops being a uniform body moving in unison and acting to achieve a common goal, then it becomes something else entirely.

Response by CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar made Jun 17 at 2015 4:26 PM

CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:26:07 -0400

1) The military is not an organization whose purpose is social engineering, social experimentation or any other airy- fairy politically correct stupidity. Its purpose is to fight battles and win wars. Anything that impairs the military in that purpose should not be permitted for that very reason. There are very good reasons for the military requiring short hair. One is sanitation; the other is that any head injury or wound is going to take longer to treat because the head will have to be shaven – minutes lost doing that could be the difference between life and death plus there augmented infection factor in such a head wound with long hair. Aside from that how is he going to wear a steel helmet with that turban?

2) There is no longer any draft so his participation is voluntary and like any “club” you join you abide by the rules or you are not a member period.

3) I certainly would not want to be in a fox hole with him – he is more likely to be wounded because of his lack of helmet leaving my position‘s firepower reduced by 50% to say nothing of the lice etc. due to his long hair.

Response by SFC Henry Bartosik made Jun 17 at 2015 4:29 PM

SFC Henry Bartosik — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:29:28 -0400

This has no real merit.

the regulation was changed over 2 years ago for a medical officer (Sikh) who joined our army. Permitting him to wear his turban and beard according to his religious practices.

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Jun 17 at 2015 4:32 PM

SGT Rick Ash — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:32:38 -0400

This may seem right to many, I look forward to seeing the results. But I think it goes a bit far, even though the exception is on a basis of religious beliefs. How will he manage to keep his hair clean and how much of an issue will facial hair cause for a gas mask? I don't remember the regulations around knives but I suspect they call for a folding knife less than 3 & 1/2's closed and what he is carrying a permanently open blade in a sheath.

Will his turban qualify as a cover and wouldn't it need to be camouflage in order to blend in with his surroundings?

We all know the rules of warfare and that a wounded soldier takes 2 other men/women to carry him/her which drastically reduces the efficiency of a small squad. A leaky gas mask will cause any Sikh to be incapacitated.

Maybe in the Air Force or Navy but not in the Army or God Forbid, the U.S.M.C. !

Response by SGT Fredrick Ramm made Jun 17 at 2015 4:32 PM

SGT Fredrick Ramm — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:32:56 -0400

Oh, I guess the subject was roses! Any way, does any one out there remember a fellow soldier? who worked as a clerk at The Ferris Barracks, Erlangen, (then) West Germany Main Post Office circa 1971. He was a member of a certain Native American Tribe and had quite long hair. OK, I know there is gas mask fitting problems and due to the chaos of combat, it is wise to have every body, on your side, to have the same uniform. But, really I'm curious about him and what bearing and/or situation he may have had on this case?

Response by CSM Ed Dougherty made Jun 17 at 2015 4:41 PM

CSM Ed Dougherty — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:41:35 -0400

I thought this was settled 30+ years ago, when Sikh's were allowed to wear their turbans while serving. Sikhs are, traditionally , great soldiers and have served with great honor.

Response by SFC Don Ward made Jun 17 at 2015 4:47 PM

SFC Don Ward — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:47:36 -0400

Some of you people are so completely intolernat. You are comppletley willing to accept somethings that should be completely unacceptable, yet cannot accept someone's religon

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jun 17 at 2015 4:47 PM

PO1 John Miller — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:47:37 -0400

This is not about religious freedom, this is about favoritism. I can't wear long hair and a beard but this guy can because he's Sikh? Rules are there for a reason, not for convenience.

Response by SGT Ronald Minick made Jun 17 at 2015 4:55 PM

SGT Ronald Minick — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 16:55:20 -0400

This is satire, right? This is a joke, right?

Response by PO3 Bob Walsh made Jun 17 at 2015 5:03 PM

PO3 Bob Walsh — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:03:00 -0400

7 Sep 2012 ... US military judge orders forced shaving of Nidal Hasan, ruling his beard is not covered by laws protecting religious freedom.
This Judge was removed from the trial. So much for regulations, although he did have the pleasure of having a forced shaving. The NYPD was monitoring Islamic Religious Services and found many of them to be a hot bed of Anti American preaching. This was stopped by Mayor deBlosio, as profiling.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 5:08 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:08:27 -0400

I can sum my feelings up with one simple sentence. "Everyone in the Military or wanting to join the military should have and follow the same standards."

Response by Cpl Rc Layne made Jun 17 at 2015 5:22 PM

Cpl Rc Layne — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:22:23 -0400

Personally I don't think it is appropriate. He is going to benefit from serving, but can't perform the same as everyone else, such as wearing a gas mask.

Response by MAJ Karen Shive made Jun 17 at 2015 5:40 PM

MAJ Karen Shive — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:40:13 -0400

Going to have a hard time dealing a gas mask

Response by SGT Ricky Young made Jun 17 at 2015 5:44 PM

SGT Ricky Young — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:44:10 -0400

I believe that the court has gone to far. The military is losing its ability shape our future soldiers with the discipline they need. We were once a military that adhered to hair cut and uniform policies. These policies were put in place train soldiers to pay attention detail. Seems that there is if you don't like it take it to court and change it. How has this action actually help further following orders. Yes I agree that one has the right to serve but to change a policy for one religion and not another. We are not a religion, We are Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines. Discipline keeps our attention, inconsistency breeds chaos. I find this a weakness and questionable ability to follow orders. If put in command will he be able to follow orders that he is given without questioning his superiors. The military is not cut out for everyone, if you can serve with the rules in place may it not for him. There has been a degrade in the military as recent years. There are better battles to be fought such as why military personnel has to use food stamps to feed their families. If you don't like the rules find a different game.

Response by SCPO Lee Pradia made Jun 17 at 2015 5:52 PM

SCPO Lee Pradia — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:52:14 -0400

Why make concessions for some and not all? The regular Army allowed others to enlist and get commissioned, why not Army ROTC at the University the man was attending. The court ruled based on others that were allowed to enlist and obtain commissions. This is not the 1940's, time for the Armed forces to equal society. Remember when Blacks could only be cooks and stewards? Women not allowed on ships, in combat, fighter planes? Gays? Times are changing, time to catch up.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 5:57 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:57:59 -0400

What difference does it make anymore? A beard and turban are the least of our problems. Look on the bright side, eventually there will be no more daily shaving for anyone who claims a religious exemption.

Response by PO2 Brian Nordstrom made Jun 17 at 2015 6:02 PM

PO2 Brian Nordstrom — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:02:00 -0400

No join us as we are or go!

Response by 1SG Joe Burgess made Jun 17 at 2015 6:22 PM

1SG Joe Burgess — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:22:13 -0400

If he want to wear a turban, and facial hair without medical reasons, he should join a military other than the United States of America. What is next? Why not just abolish the regulations that pertains to the wearing of the uniform and military appearance, and just let anyone come as they please? Why not allow members to just wear blue jeans and tennis shoes if they please? Really, this have absolutely nothing to do with religion. I would love to see him seal his gas mask wearing a turban and all that facial hair. Rules and regulations are made to be adhered to. I wonder how many member of the court that made this ruling served? They got it wrong!

Response by PO1 Allen Y. made Jun 17 at 2015 6:25 PM

PO1 Allen Y. — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:25:29 -0400

The military is a voluntary entity. If you do not agree with the rules and regulations. DON'T JOIN! Things are much more simple than we, as a nation, make them.

Response by PO1 Aaron Baltosser made Jun 17 at 2015 6:41 PM

PO1 Aaron Baltosser — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:41:42 -0400

What an absolute miscarriage of justice. Even in the basic regulations you will find restrictions on how ladies wear their hair. Anything that prevents their services cover in a proper manner is strictly prohibited. Facial hair is a trait of an undisciplined service member with the exception of a PFB case. There is zero value in having the military structure bend to the will of a single individual using a different set of special consideration rules. Whenever you apply one rule for an individual, and a different set for the rest n an organization, you set yourself up for failure. This was a leadership failure in the court, and hopefully will be overturned on an appeal. With the Sikh faith there is one more interesting rub. Anyone in a BEQ or in his case a BOQ is restricted from having a knife over a certain length. In his case that regulation would have to be ignored as well since it is considered part of the faith and must be in his possession. Good grief Charlie Brown!

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jun 17 at 2015 6:49 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:49:57 -0400

I don't think the civilian courts have standing in setting military policy.

"[W]e have repeatedly held that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society. Our review of military regulations challenged on First Amendment grounds is far more deferential than constitutional review of similar laws or regulations designed for civilian society.’

The Court held that the military was the best judge of whether a particular regulation was proper and that courts are ‘ill-equipped to determine the impact upon discipline that any particular intrusion upon military authority might have."
- Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986)

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/military-speech

Military speech | First Amendment Center – news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press,...

When the subject of this article came up during a conversation with a friend and military veteran, he laughed and said he could write the article himself. He said he would simply write “The First Amendment and the Military … it doesn’t apply.”

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 7:08 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:08:40 -0400

I don't see the problem, especially since the active duty Army already has several Sikhs, complete with beard and turban waivers.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 7:35 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:35:11 -0400

I view this as a positive step forward.
Two reasons.
First, I think this is a good step towards allowing a mustache that doesn't resemble Hitler's and possibly beards for all in the future.
Second, people with beards can now serve as a warning to others in a chemical/biological environment. If people with beards keep dropping, the agent has not dispersed sufficiently to remove the protective mask.
This is a win for everybody.

Response by PO3 Douglass Brian made Jun 17 at 2015 8:14 PM

PO3 Douglass Brian — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 20:14:12 -0400

FFS, he wants to be in the Army and carry a knife. He wants to defend the country he and I call home. WTF is wrong with a warrior carrying a knife? Guy has a headcover, some units allow beards. In the broader scope, I fail to see how this is a problem. Have yet to meet the first Sikh with values or standards that caused me any concern. Green light this guy, in battle, uniforms get destroyed and vary by region and season. Perform a personal cranial rectal extraction and shift your worry to the mudslims, or be bitches and submit. lets get a grip.

Response by MAJ James Woods made Jun 17 at 2015 8:18 PM

MAJ James Woods — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 20:18:20 -0400

Everyone is crying military regulations and good discipline and order but let us all remember the standards during early days of the Army. Beards and mustaches were worn with pride in the Union Army. The tradition of shaving and lily arts cuts came around as the U.S. Culture changed in the 20th century...the Army needs to look professional like a business. Add NBC threat and masks were less effective with facial hair. But if we are a military that protects freedom including religious freedom then this should be a non issue. The Sikh serve in the military in their home country; why shouldn't an American with Sikh ties not be allowed to do the same? Or an immigrant wanting citizenship through service. I'm good with this if he displays professional conduct and live up to the Army creed. Some of our best looking soldiers fail to do that.

Response by GySgt William Hardy made Jun 17 at 2015 8:45 PM

GySgt William Hardy — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 20:45:14 -0400

Sikhs are far removed from the other religions of their area of the world. They have a long tradition of being soldiers and served the British Empire honorably for a long time. They are not Muslims, which many people believe.

Response by SFC Carey Cox made Jun 17 at 2015 9:16 PM

SFC Carey Cox — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 21:16:22 -0400

I agree with some of the previous commenters. The army is a team. Everyone that joins gives up some kind of freedom. I can understand the hair but I draw the line on the sharp knife. How does a senior NCO tell his subordinates not to carry knifes around on their belts in public but he is allowed to. My religious upbringing taught that the Sabbath is on Saturday because it is the last day of the week on calendars. Did I use that as an excuse? No , I did not and I just went on Sunday in the field or on deployments. I am glad to be retired. I saw the army steadily decline and its policies like this that is doing it.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 9:22 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 21:22:43 -0400

Getting into ROTC does not result in a commission or entry into the military. Also, we have had Sikhs in our ranks for years. In the 1980s they actually wore turbans. Today, they don't because the uniform policy is the same for everyone.

Response by SFC Danny Skidmore made Jun 17 at 2015 9:36 PM

SFC Danny Skidmore — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 21:36:33 -0400

If judges had the correct answer America would not need a standing Military. The American Military Training is the best in the world. We have had over 200 years to get it right. We have our own Judicial system. Now a Federal Judge is smarter - not. If cadet Singh is now in the Army ROTC he will find himself an Army of One. All his fellow students will shun him and there is not a Federal Court that can fix that.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 9:36 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 21:36:55 -0400

I can't count the number of people I've know who 1) wouldn't/couldn't join because they had some issue that would not conform to regulation; 2) served their initial contract and ETSed for the same reason; or 3) were forced out, sometimes under charges, for non-conforming behavior or appearance that was perfectly sane and legitimate outside the military. The military is a special, non-democratic part of our Republic where human rights are suspended in order to allow us to effectively defend the rights of our citizens. In other words, they don't get to kill people and destroy their stuff and we do, but they get to have beards, pierce things, etc, and we don't. It has to be that way or we become ineffective. It's just another case of changing the standard that makes us unified and strong in order to make a few people happy.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 17 at 2015 9:44 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 21:44:23 -0400

Now it's official. All 3 branches of our government are trying to give our country away.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jun 17 at 2015 9:52 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 21:52:50 -0400

There should have been no court case as the ARs allow the beard and turban for Sikhs. The cadet command obviously wanted to make it difficult for this young man.

As far as the courts are concerned , yes, they have authority to interpret law concerning the military as well as every other aspect of ggovernment.

Herman Cain really?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2015 10:20 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 22:20:12 -0400

NO...plain and simple. Too many judges are getting away with legislating from the bench.

Response by SSG Todd Lysfjord made Jun 17 at 2015 10:40 PM

SSG Todd Lysfjord — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 22:40:54 -0400

The individual requesting the privilege to join the military should adhere to its standards and traditions...not the other way around.

Response by SSG Todd Lysfjord made Jun 17 at 2015 10:52 PM

SSG Todd Lysfjord — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 22:52:30 -0400

You should be honored to get the privilege of adhering to the traditions and standards of our military by serving ...not the other way around!

Response by PO1 Rick Duff made Jun 17 at 2015 11:07 PM

PO1 Rick Duff — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 23:07:38 -0400

It CANT be a win for freedom of religion when jackwagons are court martialing a chaplain for doing HIS JOB!

Response by SSG Van Henson made Jun 17 at 2015 11:30 PM

SSG Van Henson — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 23:30:47 -0400

It seems to me that the judge and most everyone else has missed a more important point. He will be non-deployable to any conflict where Chemical/Biological weapons have a potential to be used.

Response by CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2015 12:13 AM

CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 00:13:24 -0400

Someone look up the word "uniform" in the dictionary and get back to me...

I knew what the Air Force required of my physical appearance before I joined. Which is why I had a tatto cut out of my neck just to join. It was "above my collar bone," which wasn't allowed. I did what I had too to fit in to the UNIFORM policy. I'm a religious person, but I also am a member of the military. I didn't feel the need to compromise one for the other. But then again, my religion doesn't tell me not to shave or to keep my head covered. If we begin to allow this, but we aren't allowing excessive tattoos, piercing, etc., the we are hypocrites.

Response by SPC David Sulley made Jun 18 at 2015 12:23 AM

SPC David Sulley — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 00:23:44 -0400

This is a load of crap, if love this country and you want to JOIN the Armed Forces, your not drafted anymore then FOLLOW THE UCMJ JACKASS. David Sulley 24G U.S.Army 81-85

Response by CW4 Abdulaziz Bulling made Jun 18 at 2015 3:57 AM

CW4 Abdulaziz Bulling — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 03:57:48 -0400

My platoon sergeant and section chief back in 1973 was then SSG Paramjit Sibia, who a 24M Vulcan air defense system mechanic while keeping his beard and long hair and wearing a drab olive-green turban. I later met him again back in 1992 at Redstone Arsenal as a SGM. Sibia was an outstanding soldier, leader, and mentor. And I can say that I am a better solider and person for knowing him. He was profiled in a 1976 article in SOLDIERS magazine.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2015 5:16 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 05:16:17 -0400

Can he affix a gas mask in case of NBC attack and maintain a seal? Not likely. I don't think someone's religious preferences should take precedence over their ability to serve effectively. If he's going for a commission, he should know better. I see him as being less interested in actually serving the Army as he is in making a statement for his faith. That's all well and good when it's not potentially damaging the combat readiness of whatever unit he's attached to, especially if he has the talent of knowing so many languages. If he truly was interested in serving for altruistic purposes, he would understand that his faith will make concessions to serve the greater good.

Response by 1SG Harold Piet made Jun 18 at 2015 5:25 AM

1SG Harold Piet — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 05:25:48 -0400

This is as stupid as the rest of the decisions they have been making lately. Transgender, gay rights, christian bashing.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2015 6:20 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 06:20:58 -0400

I can't believe this is even an argument. Who cares if he has a beard? Who cares about "bending the rules"? I'll tell you who, people who like being in other people's business because it makes them feel important. People who don't use logic or facts or know the true history of the army outside of the romantic version you hear about at official functions. Guess what the army has always been changing. Guess what beards are allowed in the majority of world militarys and are a part of our military tradition for the majority of our history. If you think beards are allowed for SOF because it helps them blend in you are stupid. Grow a beard look in the mirror and guess what you won't look like a pashtun. If you think you can't have a beard because of CBRN threats you are dumb because I don't even have a gas mask issued to me to put on and a gas mask does not seal on your flipping face any way.

Response by SGT Alan Simmons made Jun 18 at 2015 6:39 AM

SGT Alan Simmons — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 06:39:48 -0400

Now it has been some time since I was in basic training, but I remember a drill sergeant telling us that the reason that the U.S. Army had decided to go to a clean-shaven requirement was not just for the uniformity and appearance issues, but because of one fact that was learned during both WWI and WWII and during subsequent testing throughout the Cold War- the gas mask/protective masks do not create an air-tight seal in the presence of facial hair.

He may have won his victory to wear facial hair, but if our troops ever are faced with the prospect of biological/chemical agents, I wonder how many troops we will needlessly lose because they wanted a beard...

Response by PO2 Leon Sikes made Jun 18 at 2015 7:42 AM

PO2 Leon Sikes — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 07:42:22 -0400

well, just another show of how stupid our officials are getting in this political correctness. if one person is allowed then it should be good for all. why do u need uniform then,I'm sure someone will come along and say it against their religious freedom to wear uniform. i don't think the USA is going to have much of a future. it once was a great nation but it slowly falling to shit.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Jun 18 at 2015 8:27 AM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 08:27:31 -0400

- Soldiers are supposed to nest within the Army culture, not the other way around.
- Courts are supposed to defer to an organization's subject matter expertise unless a law is broken or a defined process is not followed. Neither is true in this case. It is not the place of the court to substitute their own opinion for the organization's.
- I have a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms but this right is restricted and regulated on most military bases. How is a religious belief to carry a knife greater than a Constitutional right to bear arms? I don't get it.
- Serving within the military is a privilege, not a right. Rights are treated differently within the cour system than are privileges. What this court did is essentially to redefine military service as a right. If that is the case then 50 year olds have a right to join the military, physically handicapped people (blind, deaf, etc) have a right to join the military, and convicted felons have a right to join the military.
- I must assume that Judge Amy Berman has previously served in the military since she evidently is such an expert on what does and does not diminish a person's ability to serve.
-

Response by GySgt William Hardy made Jun 18 at 2015 8:28 AM

GySgt William Hardy — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 08:28:34 -0400

I believe that the 51% represented above needs to do some research. Sikhs have served, and served honorably for a century or so in the American Army. Many have made it career and have retired. It is my opinion that this is getting blown out of proportion because of the War on Terror. It's like too many are looking for any reason to stir the pot. This is not an issue of being able to meet combat standards such as sealing a gas mask. This has never been the issue. Overcoming prejudiced is.

Response by PO1 Joel Ford made Jun 18 at 2015 8:35 AM

PO1 Joel Ford — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 08:35:33 -0400

I guess he could be an "army of one. " Isn't (part of) the point of standards to ensure uniformity? I am staunch supporter of religious freedom--but serving in the armed forces is not a right. It is a both a privilege and a burden. It would be very different if, say, he were being forcibly drafted. In that case, clearly his religious convictions should be given priority. But in an all-volunteer force?? Doesn't make much sense to me!

Response by SSG Jason Allen made Jun 18 at 2015 9:25 AM

SSG Jason Allen — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 09:25:09 -0400

The uniform standards are clearly spelled out in AR 670-1. Today too many people want to be a part of something but they scream and yell that their rights are being violated by the traditions and standards that have been in place for years. Serving in the United States military is not about any one religion. I had to wear my cross necklace tucked in at all times while I was in uniform. This double standard should not be allowed. This is not a victory for religious freedom and Sikh if you really want to "serve" this country you love so much then show us you can serve for all religions and put on the uniform like everyone else.

Response by Sgt Bobby Armentrout made Jun 18 at 2015 10:00 AM

Sgt Bobby Armentrout — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 10:00:48 -0400

If the man can't (or won't) conform to the Army's standards, he is incapable of meeting the requirements. Period. The first duty incumbent upon a leader is to place his mission ahead of himself. Clearly any person who will not conform to rules and regulations is demonstrating their unwillingness to do that.

Response by A1C Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2015 10:17 AM

A1C Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 10:17:06 -0400

this is ridiculous. If you can not adhere to the rules and regulations of AR 670-1 then why should we make an exception because of faith. The military as a whole must look uniform and the same, it has nothing to do with religion but everything with rule discipline and regulation. This decision is going way to far and will eventually weaken the force structure. The regulation states the reason why we cannot have beards is it can hinder the way our ppe will fit. If that is true then his beard will get in the way of his gas mask and helmet straps and will become a casualty during an event where he will need a gas mask. This is like saying let a Taliban member in because of religious freedom they have the right to there opinion. what ever happened to being American and protect our interests rather than being weak and politically correct?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2015 10:39 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 10:39:14 -0400

My opinion is that when you sign over to join the army, you signed over knowing what you are going to do and what simple standards you have to keep when you join.(I say simple as in common knowledge of clean cut and shaven). If your religion conflicts with the discipline and standards with the military do not join, it's as simple as that. If you can use your religion as a scapegoat from following the standards, don't bother joining.

Response by SSG Adam Beyard made Jun 18 at 2015 11:02 AM

SSG Adam Beyard — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:02:54 -0400

What I believe is that the Army standards, and requirements are just that. Yes its too far. Call it what you want but yes way too fucking far.

Response by MSgt Michael Lane made Jun 18 at 2015 11:03 AM

MSgt Michael Lane — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:03:19 -0400

Yes this is an overreach by the court. In recent years there has been an organized movement to remove religion for the military. My issue with this case is strait up he will be a distraction wherever he goes if you want to serve in the military you do so like everyone else, you cut your hair, shave, and maintain your uniform like everyone else. The military is not the place for special; if you want to be special do something else.

Response by LTC Peter Hartman made Jun 18 at 2015 11:03 AM

LTC Peter Hartman — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:03:44 -0400

The military opened the door for this by changing its policy to allow for religious accommodations to the dress code.

Response by SPC Stephen Bartlett made Jun 18 at 2015 11:23 AM

SPC Stephen Bartlett — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:23:13 -0400

One code, for everyone, that's it ! Just like our government, our military has become a joke!

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2015 11:35 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:35:59 -0400

I'm going to create a religion that one of the pillars of the faith is that I have to have a goatee and cannot shave it off.

Response by Cpl Don "GUNNY" Miller made Jun 18 at 2015 11:52 AM

Cpl Don "GUNNY" Miller — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:52:12 -0400

Conform Assimilate or forget it!

Response by AB Charles Norris made Jun 18 at 2015 12:03 PM

AB Charles Norris — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 12:03:49 -0400

This is absolute crap. If he wants to join the military he needs to adhere to the guidelines and not change them. This isn't being backwards or intolerant. Once this happens people are going to try and change everything else and there will be no order in the military anymore.

Response by PFC Alex Rivers made Jun 18 at 2015 12:21 PM

PFC Alex Rivers — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 12:21:02 -0400

Unpopular opinion incoming.
I say good for him in seeking out what he truly wants to do without sacrificing his faith/beliefs.

Response by COL John Power made Jun 18 at 2015 12:29 PM

COL John Power — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 12:29:21 -0400

The court wasn't making rules about a single individual. We have had military members of the Sikh faith in the Army for years and they were permitted to avoid the uniform appearance standards. I expect this is the first officer candidate. I am generally not in favor of this approach. There are any number of circumstances where certain attire and appearance are conditions of employment. I see this as just another. There are reasons for uniform standards. If those reasons make sense the courts, with no meaningful frame of reference, should stay out of it. It isn't their job to make such decisions and this judge simply got it wrong. Happens all the time. Hopefully the decision will be appealed and overturned. Probably came from the district in San Francisco!

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2015 12:30 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 12:30:41 -0400

I'm all for you practicing your religion as a military member, so long as it adheres to uniforms regulations and the UCMJ. You join the military, and you're apart of something much greater than yourself. You give up the freedoms of self expression for the most part, including beards and long hair. Lord knows I'd love to grow my beard again, but what I serve for is much greater than that. Let him in within regs, or boot him.

Response by BG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2015 1:03 PM

BG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 13:03:03 -0400

Personally, I am proud of this young man wanting to serve. I have reached out to him to see if he wants to serve at my HHC as an SMP cadet. His cultural and language skills would serve us well in CA. I also see a lot of ignorance in the responses here. I have another Sikh serving in my airborne battalion (404th CA Bn.) who is a great asset as a doctor. Of course he wears a helmet when jumping or on the range. Who would think that they wear their turbans in a dangerous environment? Ask yourself if you would demand that a Jew remove his yamake (sp?) when he was indoors? Of course not! The world is full of all types and we need to incorporate them into our military which is, after all, a reflection of society.

Response by CPT Regina Osirus made Jun 18 at 2015 2:21 PM

CPT Regina Osirus — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:21:13 -0400

This case speaks very loud of where America is as a Country.

Response by PO1 Jorge Schulz made Jun 18 at 2015 4:31 PM

PO1 Jorge Schulz — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:31:33 -0400

I do not see it as an issue, when the sun never set on the British empire many of the colonies that were loyal to the flag and country served as specialized units and did a dam good job when it came to fighting for the nation. As long we support the American believes in freedom and our goals as a nation and these individuals are willing to protect that from foreign and domestic I do not see an issue. If this individual was trying to convert everyone into his religion by coercion or force then yes I see a problem. If this fella serves honorably more power to him.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2015 4:34 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:34:38 -0400

What about an Amish soldier?

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2015 5:36 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:36:51 -0400

You change regs for one religion, you'll end up having to change more for others as well. It makes no sense to allow this into our military. If you want to join then you must adhere to the same standards every man or woman has adhered to for the last 240 years.

Response by MGySgt Christian MacMillan made Jun 18 at 2015 5:52 PM

MGySgt Christian MacMillan — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:52:56 -0400

One more example of "I want to serve my country but only on my terms." Let me guess - the judge deciding the case never served either....right? Probably never heard of good order and discipline. There's a reason why less than1% of the population chooses to serve....standards and rules. Then again maybe I'm just some old Marine that's not in tune with current culture.

Response by SGT Ronald Minick made Jun 18 at 2015 6:00 PM

SGT Ronald Minick — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 18:00:50 -0400

We must never sacrifice discipline, standards and obligation to our country to which we swore to defend for political correctness. This Gentlemen took an oath to adhere to our standard....

Response by MSgt Keith Hebert made Jun 18 at 2015 8:56 PM

MSgt Keith Hebert — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 20:56:20 -0400

Question regarding all this
Are the Sikh that are on active in deployable positions and if so how do they handle that aspect of it

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2015 9:38 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:38:36 -0400

This isn't the first Sikh to serve. I had the honor to serve with one who was a trauma/er doctor. Hands DOWN one of the best doc I've ever worked with. I know for a fact many of our brothers and sisters in uniform are still alive as a direct result of him. He was proud to serve and embodied the army values. All around fantastic soldier and very patriotic.
I say we can use more soldiers like that regardless of their religion.

Response by SFC Jeffrey Couch made Jun 18 at 2015 11:01 PM

SFC Jeffrey Couch — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 23:01:57 -0400

All I have to say is 670-1 next they will want pink beret's I just don't get it I guess I was taught old school army

Response by SGT Carla Harper made Jun 18 at 2015 11:47 PM

SGT Carla Harper — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 23:47:59 -0400

If he loves this country so much as he claims then he would be willing to make the sacrifices that are part of serving in the United States Armed Forces. If he is not willing to cut his hair, shave his face and leave the knife at home and be happy with the one he's issued that he should not be allowed to serve.

I'm all for religious freedom but this is crossing the line between church and state. Plus if you want to join than you know what is required of you and if you can't hack it then you need to find some boy scout outfit to join and leave the military to those of us that are willing to do what it takes.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2015 1:14 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Jun 2015 01:14:03 -0400

Man, the times, they are a changing. When I went in I didn't shave yet. My DI took care of that by making me dry shave my peach fuzz. Now, they're going to allow special treatment to this guy so they won't get any flak about his religion and culture. He's going to have a mighty hot head during his 10 mile runs. Why the hell does he need to carry a knife on him? Let's bend all the damned rules for everyone and let our military be a free for all weirdos. I'm glad as hell IM not in anymore. I couldn't take this crap very long. I'd end up with a dishonorable and in jail. Things like this are what makes our Army Strong, Army Wrong.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2015 4:29 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Jun 2015 04:29:15 -0400

One more concession to placate to one person's feelings. It was ridiculous when that chaplain did it years ago and it's just as ludicrous now. It shouldn't have gone to court in the first place. The US Military has service specific rules and regulations, period. This is the wedge to open the door to pick and choose but, the US Army is not an a la carte organization.

Response by SPC Kevin Campbell Lopez made Jun 19 at 2015 9:21 AM

SPC Kevin Campbell Lopez — Fri, 19 Jun 2015 09:21:07 -0400

Sikhs have a long history in the U.S. Army, dating all the way back to WWI. Though, I'm not saying they deserve special treatment, this issue should be treated as a religious issue, not political.

Response by A1C Ken Tiedeman made Jun 19 at 2015 12:43 PM

A1C Ken Tiedeman — Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:43:47 -0400

Also sets a precedent re: the 1st Amendment "The Congress shall enact no law regarding the establishment of a religion..." I also agree with the second comment. If Christians and Jews are not going to be allowed to express their religious affiliations with a Cross or Star Of David, members of other faiiths should not ballowed to express theirs similarly.

Response by SFC Rodrick Carter made Jun 19 at 2015 6:03 PM

SFC Rodrick Carter — Fri, 19 Jun 2015 18:03:36 -0400

When we start entertaining these types of types of things we have to be careful what type of doors we are opening up. I guess some people don't understand when something is just not for you.

Response by SFC Dennis Yancy made Jun 19 at 2015 6:44 PM

SFC Dennis Yancy — Fri, 19 Jun 2015 18:44:45 -0400

Just wait till he has to go into gas chamber.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2015 8:00 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:00:31 -0400

Should be interesting seeing an officer with a beard, long hair, and a turban trying to uphold grooming standards of his subordinates. "Do as I say, not as I do". There will be a lot of respect there.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Jun 19 at 2015 9:05 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Fri, 19 Jun 2015 21:05:27 -0400

I have to update my opinion I posted the other day as I have been schooled with regards to Sikh service members. They are already serving and have been doing so for quite some time so I have to wonder why this kid felt the need to sue to enroll in the ROTC program. A little bit of research should have sufficed for this young man to find the information he needed to properly enroll without all of the attention.
I'm wondering if there is a bigger agenda somewhere out there, yeah I know I sound paranoid, but it does make you wonder what this kids end game is, especially now knowing that there is no issue with a Sikh serving.

Response by MSgt Aaron Brite made Jun 19 at 2015 10:22 PM

MSgt Aaron Brite — Fri, 19 Jun 2015 22:22:52 -0400

Really a Sikh has to sue to join ROTC when Sikhs have served in our military for a long time. Really?

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2015 9:33 AM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 20 Jun 2015 09:33:58 -0400

As a Sikh, I feel that religion shouldn't matter as long as he is volunteering to serve in the USAF. His turban/beard shouldn't impede his ability to join. This is a big win for religious freedom.

Response by PFC Chris Hemingway made Jun 20 at 2015 12:27 PM

PFC Chris Hemingway — Sat, 20 Jun 2015 12:27:36 -0400

Again I say we Americans are so uptight about rules and regulations it's not funny I myself look to the character of the person and what I know of Sikhs is that they are loyal and faithful and courageous warriors

Response by SGT Christina Wilder made Jun 20 at 2015 12:36 PM

SGT Christina Wilder — Sat, 20 Jun 2015 12:36:08 -0400

Conform to standards or choose something else.

Response by CPO Gregory Smith made Jun 20 at 2015 1:01 PM

CPO Gregory Smith — Sat, 20 Jun 2015 13:01:09 -0400

I don't see the issue with this. If his faith requires it and is un bending on the issue so be it. My faith requires men to have beards as well, however, we can request dispensation for certain reasons such as as police, military, fire rescue and such. When I was in I followed the regulations. Since I retired I grew my beard back. My faith is rooted in my belief in Christ not my outward appearance. As for NBC/CBR concerns; when was the last time any of you found yourselves in a NBC environment outside of training???

Response by SGT Suraj Dave made Jun 20 at 2015 8:22 PM

SGT Suraj Dave — Sat, 20 Jun 2015 20:22:23 -0400

So you're telling me, if a soldier gets "Sikh" on his dogtag's, he can get away with not shaving and getting haircuts? If I was still in, I would jump on this folks. Those weekly haircuts add up and get expensive after a while.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 20 at 2015 9:00 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 20 Jun 2015 21:00:45 -0400

If he has the courage to fight for the right to serve our country, that is enough for me welcome him into our ranks with open arms. Good Luck, Cadet!

Response by SPC Anne Miller made Jun 21 at 2015 7:32 AM

SPC Anne Miller — Sun, 21 Jun 2015 07:32:55 -0400

I believe for his intended MOS, this was a good call.

Response by Sgt Lew Dunham made Jun 21 at 2015 7:44 AM

Sgt Lew Dunham — Sun, 21 Jun 2015 07:44:56 -0400

shouldn't that be written "too far?"

Response by PO1 Michael Fullmer made Jun 21 at 2015 8:55 AM

PO1 Michael Fullmer — Sun, 21 Jun 2015 08:55:38 -0400

EVERYONE is expected to give up SOME freedom upon enlisting. This individual is not being restricted from practicing his religious beliefs, he is simply being asked to do it without a beard or turban. In my unqualified opinion, I believe the judge went to far and I hope it, if appealed, will be overturned.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Jun 21 at 2015 6:50 PM

SN Greg Wright — Sun, 21 Jun 2015 18:50:21 -0400

For what it's worth, I don't think this guy ever makes it to active duty, and if he does, he'll have to conform. Being an ROTC cadet isn't the same thing as being in a firefight -- how's he gonna wear his helmet, etc...

PC crap has gone too far, however. The only religious accommodation that should be made *to the uniforms!* are the insignia of chaplains. Period.

Response by MAJ Keira Brennan made Jun 21 at 2015 11:57 PM

MAJ Keira Brennan — Sun, 21 Jun 2015 23:57:10 -0400

I thought this issue had been ruled with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhs_in_the_United_States_military (YES I HATE CITING WIKI)

Sikhs in the United States military - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There have been Sikhs in the United States military as far back as World War I. Sikhs have served through all subsequent wars up until the present day. Since the 1980s, observant Sikhs have faced difficulty in serving due to a discontinuation of exemptions to uniform standards which previously allowed Sikhs to maintain their religiously-mandated beards and turbans while in uniform.

Response by SSG Martin Reyna made Jun 22 at 2015 5:07 AM

SSG Martin Reyna — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 05:07:06 -0400

Policy is Policy. If deployed and attacked with a gas, how will he seal his gas mask? Will the army be to blame for not providing the proper gear?

Response by SSG Kenneth Lanning made Jun 22 at 2015 12:43 PM

SSG Kenneth Lanning — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 12:43:34 -0400

We have standards for a reason. We need to stop lowering the bar - if someone doesn't meet the standards, they should not be allowed in.

Response by CW2 Maurice Squires made Jun 22 at 2015 8:21 PM

CW2 Maurice Squires — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:21:36 -0400

This is an all volunteer Army so if you want to join you should have to follow same rules as everyone else.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jun 22 at 2015 10:54 PM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 22:54:26 -0400

I have a great question here....

I am Scottish by ethnicity. I want to be allowed to wear my KILT with my Dress Blue Jacket, as part of my Uniform.

I am NOT, Contrary to Popular Belief an "Anglo" I am a CELT and I demand an accommodation to wear a KILT in Uniform....Yeah right, I'll keep you informed as to how that works for me.

Glad I am retired.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 23 at 2015 1:07 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 01:07:38 -0400

My concern is applicability and where the line will be drawn. There are also religions that have significant followings that practice the taking of mind altering psychedelic drugs as part of worship (Rastafarians, Native Americans, Native Latin Americans) Will the army change that policy as well? What about ritual piercings, tattoos, scarring etc. Will dred locks be permitted? How about Christians who take vow of Nazerene and refuse to cut their hair? Will that be allowed? I am not trying to be a negative nelly. Where will the line be drawn? Will it be decided as this was, through litigation alone? Christians have reportedly been corrected and disciplined for having bibles or crosses displayed. The same tolerance must be extended to perceived majority as perceived or actual (smaller population (minority).

Response by SGT Kevin McCourt made Jun 23 at 2015 6:33 PM

SGT Kevin McCourt — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 18:33:41 -0400

He is not the first Sikh in uniform. Accommodations have been made before. This should have never escalated to the courts.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 10:34 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:34:29 -0400

So because he is not Jewish you guys and girls are throwing a fit? Hey major why don't you make an article about Jewish serving the u.s army and yet they get to wear haneka? Well you are sir are racist and I'm not afraid to call someone on it. Tip my hat for you hero

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 10:39 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:39:56 -0400

You didn't had respond. Hahahahaha thanks for deleting my comment

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2015 11:39 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:39:13 -0400

Everyone should be held to the grooming standards that are written.

Response by SSG Don Day Sr. made Jun 24 at 2015 3:36 PM

SSG Don Day Sr. — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:36:17 -0400

If he is allowed and this transfers to active duty then yes, it would cause some problems with some of the protective gear that is worn. As far as the knife, if it is within current law to wear it then I see no problem.

Response by SPC Scott Krolak made Jun 24 at 2015 3:49 PM

SPC Scott Krolak — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:49:12 -0400

The British have had Sikhs serve for over a 100 years. They figured out how to be inclusive so why can't we?

Response by SPC Scott Krolak made Jun 24 at 2015 3:50 PM

SPC Scott Krolak — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:50:43 -0400

The British have had Sikhs serve for over a 100 years. They figured out how to be inclusive so why can't we?

Response by Cpl Christopher Kelley made Jun 24 at 2015 4:11 PM

Cpl Christopher Kelley — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:11:43 -0400

This is just going too far in the realm of political correctness. If he wants to practice his religious freedom, do so in an environment that is conducive to him doing so. Period. The US military should never bend it's rules to appease anyone, there's a reason those rules are in place.

Response by SGT Richard Ellis made Jun 24 at 2015 5:24 PM

SGT Richard Ellis — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 17:24:16 -0400

Let him serve proudly. But he has to adhere to the regulations in place. especially uniform regulations. My religion says that I'm not supposed to exercise, but I still had to, as well as take and pass the APFT every year. Another rule of my religion is to smoke a cigarette every 15 minutes of the day, and ya can't do that hardly anywhere in the military any more. Where is my religious freedom?

Response by SSG Bryan Van Hoose made Jun 24 at 2015 7:52 PM

SSG Bryan Van Hoose — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 19:52:16 -0400

The military has gotten soft. Rules and regulations exist for a reason and if this man wants to play soldier, he should follow the rules like I had to. I wasn't allowed to grow a beard, I wasn't allowed to wear a turban, bringing religion into a profession where people are expected to be the SAME regardless of ethnicity or religion only serves to stir the pot.

Response by PO1 Clyde Plunkett made Jun 25 at 2015 10:20 AM

PO1 Clyde Plunkett — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 10:20:45 -0400

I am Austrian born my brother Indian & our wives also from out USA both parents & step parents were essentially spooks for US Gov. so I have been exposed to various military forces / religions & cultures etc.... The Sikh is one group that I believe should be granted the waiver especially if they wished to be actual combatant positions.
The waiver would allow a group that due to religion is extremely well suited for the military and unlike Islam that has specific tenant that makes Islam untenable with the US Constitution & Bill of rights and therefore anti-American.
Look at their History from formation of 1st regiment 1 Aug 1846 thru WWII then 1990's early 2000's they were essentially dropped from British Military however now the British Military is considering bringing them back in despite the waiver needed for knife & hair/turban because they are an asset. { they are like the Spartan they will take on totally untenable odds such as 21 Sikhs in Spartan style again 10,000 Afghans solders {Battle of Saragarhi} for the British.
Do not know if there are enough Sikhs in the USA wanting to join to make even a full company but because of their attitude / culture I would like to see an entire regiment of Sikh and in battle would definitely like to have one my side next to me.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jun 25 at 2015 8:50 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Thu, 25 Jun 2015 20:50:53 -0400

No one is batting eye with this Sikh and when a Christian person wants to display a verse somewhere, people lose their minds.

Response by LCpl Todd Houston made Jun 27 at 2015 4:02 AM

LCpl Todd Houston — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 04:02:58 -0400

Simply put, this judge is a F_ _ _nut!! My religion states I need to smoke weed and eat potato chips and ice cream all day, I should still be allowed in despite my unsat, nasty, fat self that is way out of shape. Not all soldiers can guard the tomb of the unknowns. Not all Marines can serve on embassy duty or perform in the silent drill team at 8th and I. Not all sailors can be seals. WHY? Because there are requirements, that's why. This judge should have to kneel in the corner with her law books over her head saying, " I won't be stupid anymore" She needs to do this until I get tired of watching her or I finish eating my ice cream, whichever comes first.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2015 12:12 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:12:57 -0400

On any given deployment it seems like they extend the policy allowing anyone supporting any type of special ops to grow facial hair - culture shock if you arent used to it.

Response by SSG Sean Gallagher made Jul 1 at 2015 10:38 AM

SSG Sean Gallagher — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 10:38:59 -0400

It's bullshit.

Response by Capt Pat Thomason made Jul 2 at 2015 2:31 PM

Capt Pat Thomason — Thu, 02 Jul 2015 14:31:46 -0400

Can Christians openly wear crosses? Can Jews grow beards and openly wear the star of David? Nope. Was I allowed to wear any facial hair other than a mustache that if in regs looked like a Hitler mustache? Nope. Couldn't get a seal on my oxygen mask or gas mask with facial hair. Are they also going to be forced to make a "Dark Helmet" sized helmet for this guy? Can I display a Christian flag on my quarters on base? Nope. Can gays display gay pride flags on their on-base quarters? Yep. Our politically correct idiot politicians and their cadre of progressive lawyers are destroying our military by creating "protected classes" both in society and in our nation. There should be ONE set of standards in the military for all. No different standards for men and women or different races and religions, and standards NOT lowered to meet quotas or accommodate specific groups. Meet the standards? Welcome aboard. Don't meet the standards? Burger King is still hiring.

Response by SR Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 5 at 2015 10:43 PM

SR Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 22:43:09 -0400

I know that, in AIT, there was an individual that walked around with either an ACU-patterned or olive drab turban on. My PLT Sergeants said that he was the only guy in the US Military to wear one. Honestly, I think that he was a foreign service member (as I was trained on Fort Huachuca; there were a lot of foreign officers being trained there) but this exception has been made before regardless.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2015 4:04 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Jul 2015 04:04:23 -0400

Did I join the military ? Or did I join a corporation that changes the rules to suit people's wants ?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 6:47 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 06:47:14 -0400

ARR, I be agreein' with religious freedom! Maybe someday soon they will let me wear my Holy Colander.

Response by MSgt Steve Hansen made Jul 10 at 2015 8:16 PM

MSgt Steve Hansen — Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:16:22 -0400

We are a pussified nation! What other country's military would allow this? Go back to your country and join their military.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 15 at 2015 2:13 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 02:13:48 -0400

Personally, I disagree with religious accommodation. But, if you are a soldier, you swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution and it's Common Law System. You also are professionals. So, I agree with the courts on the facts and circumstances after reading it. It is legally fair.

The Court found that the defendants failed to show application of Army Regulations (Iknoor Singh v. John McNugh, 2015, pg. 2)

The army did make it's case (morale , order ,etc.) (pg 15)

He asked to enroll in ROTC not "enlist" and "enlist" is ambiguous(Iknoor Singh v. John McNugh, 2015, pg. 20)

His beliefs are sincerely held by both the Army and the courts (pg .22)

Religious Freedom and Restoration Act applies to the Army (pg 23) .

Iknoor Singh v. John McNughet al, District Ct, Civ. Action. No 14-1906 (2015)
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2014cv1906-46

Response by MAJ Karen Shive made Jul 17 at 2015 2:35 AM

MAJ Karen Shive — Fri, 17 Jul 2015 02:35:35 -0400

When I first saw this I thought why? I've read numerous comments (definitely not all) and I have a different perspective. His interest is in Military Intelligence, speaks more languages than I ever will and these skills will be an asset. There's precedence as well as a strong cultural service for the Sikhs in support of our nations interests. It just makes sense. Some field officers sported pics proving that beards aren't as detrimental as we've been taught and I've learned about beard friendly protective gear to boot. It's a win win.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Jul 23 at 2015 10:38 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 22:38:17 -0400

He should have the opportunity just like all other American citizens.

Response by SSgt Terry P. made Aug 6 at 2015 6:44 PM

SSgt Terry P. — Thu, 06 Aug 2015 18:44:13 -0400

This is simply ludicrous.A person supposedly to become an officer and doesn't respect the policies or regulations?

Response by MSgt Erik Copp made Aug 7 at 2015 8:12 PM

MSgt Erik Copp — Fri, 07 Aug 2015 20:12:51 -0400

Just made us weaker.

Response by Sgt David G Duchesneau made Aug 12 at 2015 2:45 PM

Sgt David G Duchesneau — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:45:49 -0400

An Army Jurdge did this? WTF-OVER!

Response by SPC Joshua Heath made Aug 12 at 2015 4:27 PM

SPC Joshua Heath — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:27:39 -0400

I think our country and our military is well served by Sikhs, and I think it is a small allowance for Sikhs to be allowed to serve and adhere to the requirements of their faith.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2015 8:02 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:02:01 -0400

I think religious freedom is great and should be afford to all, but the standard should not be modified for a few. The allowance of different head gear and facial hair is the reason why so many Soldiers question orders. When we have ruling like this it teach anyone that disagree with regulation to question it, carrying over into questioning any and everything. I feel if you want to joint the military comply with uniform and appearance regulations, if it violates your religion beliefs them maybe the military is not your calling

Response by PO1 Shahida Marmol made Aug 13 at 2015 9:55 PM

PO1 Shahida Marmol — Thu, 13 Aug 2015 21:55:41 -0400

This is a volunteer service. There are rules and policies in place. You want to join? Follow the rules and policies. You don't want to follow, don't join.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 14 at 2015 5:38 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 14 Aug 2015 17:38:09 -0400

I don't know how religious symbols are being removed but this guy wants to be the fish that swims against the school of fish.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Aug 24 at 2015 12:48 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Mon, 24 Aug 2015 12:48:15 -0400

There are already Sikhs in uniform. Rabbis in the military have had beards and Kippot/Yarmulkes (the skullcap) in uniform for years. I myself wore one my last tour, and I wasn't a chaplain...

There is room for accommodation of religious practices in the military, as long as they don't prevent the wearing of headgear such as combat helmets or face masks in case of fire or CBR attack...

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2015 8:16 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:16:02 -0400

but if i have a two o'clock shadow I'm wrong

Response by SSG Leo Bell made Aug 28 at 2015 8:26 AM

SSG Leo Bell — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:26:38 -0400

I don't think it is right to change the rules for this. Let's look at this closely. They said something about shaving profiles. Okay yes they have allot of people in the military with shaving profiles which I think is bull. Cause if you need a shaving profile so you don't have to shave only give it for a short time till the bumps or whatever problem goes away. I'm a black male an I never got a shaving profile I just used alcohol to keep the bumps away. Now I know the want a chaplain in ever religion and I know they have Jewish rabbis with beards. I can see that but to wear a turban and to get to have long hair. No way. With the turban you would not be able to wear you head gear. Then with the long hair what do you give him the regs the the female soldiers have where he has to keep it off his collar and up in a bun. This just sounds crazy. If I'm wrong here someone please let me know. I will say he can serve and I would have a problem with it but he could have a low cut neatly kept beard but that's it.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2015 8:59 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:59:21 -0400

I think this can be addressed from a non-religious point of view.

The central problem is that "we" want to find answers that cater to individual needs in every case...this is impossible. No matter what decisions we make as an organization, someone...somewhere, will take offense, look for a loop-hole, and try to use the system to make a statement or garner publicity.

That said; there exists several excellent military precedents for just such issues, and the most practical question to ask isn't whether or not this is a "religious freedom" issue, but whether or not this is a discipline and standards issue.

Some "identities" divide...other unite...some are too powerful not to take notice of.

The British Army historically inculcated the national dress or martial heritage of her colonies into military uniform; think of the Highlanders and the Indian regiments. Perhaps the USA has grown enough in international influence and power that there's a point to be made for UNITS taking their collective identity from similar sources (I've always thought American "Highland" units would be pretty cool on parade).

However, this raises too many questions to be practical. For it to work, you would have to be able to outfit entire regiments, if not divisions the same. Would a Christian or Muslim solider wear the ceremonial dress of a "Sikh" regiment if so assigned? What if we decided to have an entire regiment wearing the Afghan pawkul? What about a regiment of soldiers in the spodik or kippah? What are the ramifications if a "Sikh" regiment's home station is located somewhere in the country where these images evoke the wrong impressions?

To my mind, this is a "slippery slope" that ends in a breakdown of basic discipline. Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, Hindus and a plethora of other ethnic/religious identities have served in the uniform of their county without protest for decades...each finding their own way to honor cultural/faith principles concurrently. How many of us wore a cross on a chain under our uniform?

Don't misunderstand me...If what I understand of the Sikh is true, I'm certain this officer candidate would be a great addition to the Army. However, he should understand that as a leader, he should represent his soldiers more than himself. If his convictions do not allow putting aside the ceremonial dress of his faith, then I would apply the same logic I used in an early discussion regarding "pagan" symbols on the uniform.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2015 9:43 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Aug 2015 09:43:19 -0400

So when can I grow my beard?

Response by MAJ Michael Bressler made Aug 29 at 2015 12:17 AM

MAJ Michael Bressler — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 00:17:14 -0400

You got to be kidding me!!

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 29 at 2015 12:56 AM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Aug 2015 00:56:24 -0400

Sikhs are neither Hindus nor Muslims that you find in Southwest Asia. These are the really good guys and allowances should be made for them. Sikhism is one of the largest religions in the world, and is truly a peaceful one if there ever was.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 19 at 2015 8:53 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 19 Sep 2015 20:53:19 -0400

This is not the first time this conseccion has been made for a Sikh. I believe the last time was in 2005 or 2006. I encourage everyone to look these guys up though. They have a long history of honorable performances in battles, much like the Spartans from ancient Greece. I would love a platoon of the guys or guys like them because I know we would accomplish the mission at all cost.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2015 12:34 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Oct 2015 12:34:07 -0400

The standard is the standard. It is only biased if it grants additional benefits to some. I am troubled because that is what this seems to be. How can you have multiple sets of rules within an military? Where will the line be drawn? Will the Army allow Rastafarians to smoke marijuana as is a major form of their worship? The military can only reasonably navigate this by refusing to bend an demanding conformity with a standard that is religion neutral, gender neutral, sexual irritation neutral Etc. If we ignore this obvious truth it will be at our peril.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Oct 25 at 2015 1:56 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Sun, 25 Oct 2015 13:56:58 -0400

I don't know. But he can't wear or oxygen mask or helm it. so he cannot be part of an air crew. Or go into combat.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 25 at 2015 2:14 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:14:43 -0400

A federal judge has once again failed the military in order to push their personal agenda. If you want to join the Army, follow their rules. We are a volunteer force...if you don't like the rules, don't volunteer! If you want to help, apply for a GS civilian Chaplain position...otherwise shave your damn face and follow orders like the rest of us.

Response by MSgt Scott Hoppe made Nov 10 at 2015 8:14 AM

MSgt Scott Hoppe — Tue, 10 Nov 2015 08:14:56 -0500

Conform to the standards, not conforming the standard to meet the individual. If you can't play by the rules and guidelines set and followed by everyone else we don't need you.

Response by CW3 Michael Hamlin made Nov 20 at 2015 8:52 AM

CW3 Michael Hamlin — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 08:52:23 -0500

Send him into the gas chamber, see if he wants to keep his beard then.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2016 4:06 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:06:44 -0500

Sorry. Respect the religion, but unless everyone can do whatever they want, no free college money. The Army is not designed to allow exceptions to regulation and policy. I can't even believe this was considered. He can go get a job as a civilian that supports the Army, if he wants to serve. Time for me to retire. Can't wait. Transgendered Soldiers, women in the infantry, what next?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2016 4:12 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:12:51 -0500

There should be a regulation that requires him to use a reflective belt in his turban.

Response by MAJ David Kline made Feb 3 at 2016 8:22 AM

MAJ David Kline — Wed, 03 Feb 2016 08:22:15 -0500

I'd like to be in the gas chamber when his mask doesn't seal properly.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 5 at 2016 1:21 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 13:21:43 -0500

Sikhs have a long and distinguished history of being warriors. I welcome that he would like to be part of the United States military. However I do not like the fact that he will only do it on his terms, religious or not. We are all the same, Army Green. No one should et special treatment for any reason

Response by SGT James Murphy made Feb 6 at 2016 5:40 PM

SGT James Murphy — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 17:40:00 -0500

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge;

Separation of Church and State is a violation of US Code Law Volume 1 David Barton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w95QtxurqbQ&index=2&list=PLxqqo6Ofo2W4MCAQgr89PfFTcWO75-oA3

Separation of Church and State A violation of US Code of Law Volume 1

The removal of God, and Godly precepts, the moral Code of Nature's God, and Nature's laws via the separation of church and state from our local Schools, from...

Response by CPL Sharon Fahey made Apr 9 at 2016 12:39 PM

CPL Sharon Fahey — Sat, 09 Apr 2016 12:39:40 -0400

So while Christians have to remove crosses because they offend and Jews have to settle for whatever the Army decides its willing to do, ie, more kosher MRE, essential rabbis in combat areas especially over the dead, etc, it seems that religious freedom is only given if politically correct.

Response by GySgt Carl Rumbolo made Apr 9 at 2016 1:28 PM

GySgt Carl Rumbolo — Sat, 09 Apr 2016 13:28:05 -0400

No it is a victory for common sense - other nations (like you know India, have Sikh serving without an issue - the chemical warfare gear issue is a freaking smoke screen. I have been to India on business a fair number of times. One of my business associates is a Sikh who was a Major - he had no issues with a gas mask - it worked just fine.

Response by SPC Bradly Martin made Jun 18 at 2020 3:10 AM

SPC Bradly Martin — Thu, 18 Jun 2020 03:10:35 -0400

Lets just all vote for the new army motto
“We dO wHaTeVeR wE wAnT”

Response by SPC Bradly Martin made Nov 23 at 2020 9:04 AM

SPC Bradly Martin — Mon, 23 Nov 2020 09:04:46 -0500

This is disgusting.
UNIFORMITY??????