Posted on Jun 16, 2015
Sikh Wins Court Case To Join ROTC: Is this a victory for religious freedom or did the court go too far?
279K
1.82K
774
33
32
1
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
--
(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
Religion
ROTC
Diversity
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 282
66
66
0
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.
(66)
(0)
Sgt Frank Rinchich
COL (Join to see) - You are right it don't make the individual less of a soldier. but it does make our military less of a military that our country set rules and regulations for everyone to follow. if they want beards, turbans they would have made that the regulation , but they didn't they made other rules to follow, by everyone, you want to be part of it, follow the rules. Next you will be allowed to wear your favorite hat or tee shirt, then the military will look like he hippies of the 80s.
Maybe when you joined in 78, but not when I joined in 55 we all were clean shaven, same cover same uniform . we look like USA military , not like a hippie. and no one is questioning the Sikhs ability to fight. you seem to be questioning the US soldiers ability to fight because he or she is following the regulations set down for our military.as the old saying goes , you are either with us or against us make your choice,
Maybe when you joined in 78, but not when I joined in 55 we all were clean shaven, same cover same uniform . we look like USA military , not like a hippie. and no one is questioning the Sikhs ability to fight. you seem to be questioning the US soldiers ability to fight because he or she is following the regulations set down for our military.as the old saying goes , you are either with us or against us make your choice,
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
Sgt Frank Rinchich - I believe the regulations and laws have changed since 1955 and even since 1978, when we entered the military. My preference is that we focus on the ability to fight and win wars not on being all-inclusive for everyone's special interest (religion, gender, orientation, etc.). But, my preference hasn't been followed and we now have laws that conflict with the laws of 1955 (inter-racial marriage, gay marriage, no fault divorce, etc.) and the laws of 1978 (gays in the military, gay spouse benefits, Sikhs wearing turbans instead of patrol caps, etc.). We are rapidly getting away from the art and science of conducting war. We have become a social engineering test lab, where those in leadership positions either desire to weaken our military or are inept. Unfortunately, our next first battle will result in a bloodshed of American might, re-confirming that our focus should be on fighting and winning wars, proving that inequality exists.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Frank Rinchich
Col. With all due respect , I would rather look down he line and see our military , same uniform . clean shaven. standing tall and ready and willing to take orders in combat if that Sikhs wants to wear his turban under his helmet I have no objections to that , but when he is in a formation and representing our country I want him to look the part, Sir you can not see a gay, you can see inter racial marriages, you can not see Divorce. you can not see religion which has always been with the military. only difference then and now it is everyone business and not a privet thing. all we have done is make it an open issue. not one of those mentioned changes the way our personnel in uniform look. with what you are say the way things are changing is like saying in 10 years we will be fighting wars in baseball caps, blue jeans puffing on pot. I know that statement is extreme , but it gets my point across, yes we will have change , but that change will be uniform . not on individual bases.
(0)
(0)
GySgt William Hardy
The military, not just the Army, has made accommodations for many over the years. You started your statement on a false premise. As Col Harrison said, Sikhs have served, not only in the US military, but in the British Army for years and played a key role in fighting the Muslims in India and Pakistan. When I attended some intelligence training back in the early 90s, one of my instructors was a Sikh. . . and American Sikh whose father converted to Sikhism when he was still a baby. He grew up in New Mexico. My point being that not all Sikhs come from the Middle East/South Asia. To paraphrase a previous statement, I would rather look down the line and see my brothers who were willing to cover my six I would be to cover theirs, standing tall and willing to give all.
(0)
(0)
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.
(49)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SFC Jessie West, Capt. (Dr.) Tejdeep Singh Rattan, a dentist, was able to seal his mask each and every time. His uncle, who was in the Indian Army, said he had no problem with that while was engaged in jungle warfare. "He said he put some Vaseline in his beard, which kept the ticks away, and it sealed every single time." The article is below in which he stated this:
http://www.army.mil/article/36339/sikh-soldiers-allowed-to-serve-retain-their-articles-of-faith
Anyways, it was only 31 years ago in 1984 when DoD did away with the exception to policy for Sikhs.
http://www.army.mil/article/36339/sikh-soldiers-allowed-to-serve-retain-their-articles-of-faith
Anyways, it was only 31 years ago in 1984 when DoD did away with the exception to policy for Sikhs.
Sikh Soldiers allowed to serve, retain their articles of faith
For the first time in 23 years, the U.S. Army is allowing a pair of Sikh Soldiers to keep their hair and beard intact and wear a turban.
(8)
(0)
PO3 Celesta (Fox,Parks) Davis
I'm with most everyone here...they know what the rules are when they join. If they don't like the rules, don't join, PAS.
(4)
(0)
PFC Chris Hemingway
Yes to the pentacle 670-1 states you can wear your religious symbol as long as it's a certain size however don't wear the athame that should be with your other ritual gear not your uniform.
(0)
(0)
PV2 (Join to see)
My comments were taken out of context. I realize the proper use of an athame and the wearing of a pentacle for Wiccans but was merely using it for an example.
(1)
(0)
48
48
0
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.
(48)
(0)
SSG Keith Cashion
Standards?....Did someone say standards? What are the standards these days? Does the Army still have AR 670-1? I am being extremily sarcastic. The standards have changed so much in the past decade, it can be hard to keep up....wear your hair this way, no wait...you can now have it this way, because this Soldier didn't like the way the regulation was written. Tattoos are always fun...you can have them, then no you can't and oh and by the way you need to show them to you commander so they can take a picture to be put on file. Now let's not forget just the normal wear of the uniform...some of these Soldiers of today actually look like a Bratwurst getting ready to explode out of it's casing. Then there are the ones who have a belt, but do not understand the function of a belt. As to the case that this thread is about, A Federal Judge dictated to the US Army who they could or would let in the Army. Here should be the standard...make military service a requirement for all citizens, like a lot of countries do, and then effect change. Think to many people are trying to make this a Private Benjamin Army.
(3)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Gas, Gas, Gas! CPT Pedro Meza COL Jon Thompson SFC Mark Merino MAJ Matthew Arnold Col Joseph Lenertz SMSgt Dr. G. A. Thomas TSgt Kenneth Ellis
(0)
(0)
43
43
0
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.
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.
(43)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Good SEAL on gas masks was a real reason at one time. Delta and UW SF have a bigger priority than uniform appearance. Besides, (lol) they are special even if they have to (if they want to) wear pile caps! SPETZNAZ used to just have distinguishing t-shirts unseen, but had Olympian skills, and mafia morals.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
LTC Bink Romanick - I do not see my first post. Having researched to check my weakening memory, SIkhs are NOT MUSLIM. They are very peaceful until violated. Then they can be deadly. Sikhs treat women EQUALLY,they have been respectful for centuries. Think Bink, you are a LTC try to be right. Thanks.
5th SFG(A) had a Sikh SGT in early '80s who wore turban, group flash w/o rank pinned to it. Forrest Green turban. lol.
5th SFG(A) had a Sikh SGT in early '80s who wore turban, group flash w/o rank pinned to it. Forrest Green turban. lol.
(0)
(0)
41
41
0
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@
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@
(41)
(0)
37
37
0
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.
(37)
(0)
MSgt Mike Brown; MBTI-CP; MA, Ph.D.
Major, thank you for an enlightened response -- sharing your personal experience has made this retired Marine a more-educated man!
(0)
(0)
PO3 Douglass Brian
Exactly, the candidate in question will wear his cover for more hours of the day than anyone else in his class. He will also grow facial hair. Facial hair will interfere with the seal of a gas mask. Facial hair will provide a grip for an opponent in hand to hand combat, a lesson learned by the Romans. Seriously, should we send him packing because he needs a no shave chit? He's not growing a beard to be different, he acknowledges the Creator placed it there for a reason. Can't we just go all out " don't ask, don't tell" on the beard thing?
(0)
(0)
SSG Roger Ayscue
Again, not a problem with him serving....I have a major problem with making everyone else perform and act and live by a different standard...So he wants to serve....Yee Ha! I know diabetics that want to serve...I know fat guys that want to serve...I know people with criminal records and that are illiterate that want to serve....But WAIT! NO NO NO, they can not be in the military...We have standards, Unless you are in a minority religion, Or you are a self-loathing male that wants to have a surgically created vagina implanted and a pair of fake boobs.....THEY have to be allowed to serve, but the...REALLY????
Dear God what has the US Military become in the 10 years since I retired? Openly Gay troopers in uniform kissing other guys, gender reassignment treatments are OK but we can't find funding for dental treatments for dependents?
The purpose of the US Military is to DEFEND the United States of America and our interests...PERIOD. The US Military IS not now nor has it ever been intended to be a Great Social Experiment. It became one in the hands of a Commander in Chief that has neither the knowledge, experience or the balls to make decisions of life and death. Politicians and Political Correctness be damned! The US Military needs to get back to the job it was intended to do before we get our asses handed to it and a bunch of Social Engineers sit and wring their hands and cry.
Dear God what has the US Military become in the 10 years since I retired? Openly Gay troopers in uniform kissing other guys, gender reassignment treatments are OK but we can't find funding for dental treatments for dependents?
The purpose of the US Military is to DEFEND the United States of America and our interests...PERIOD. The US Military IS not now nor has it ever been intended to be a Great Social Experiment. It became one in the hands of a Commander in Chief that has neither the knowledge, experience or the balls to make decisions of life and death. Politicians and Political Correctness be damned! The US Military needs to get back to the job it was intended to do before we get our asses handed to it and a bunch of Social Engineers sit and wring their hands and cry.
(0)
(0)
32
32
0
One standard for everyone. Race, religion, or ethnic background should not play a factor period.
(32)
(0)
TSgt Steven Van Dyken
Absolutely! No one is exceptional. Every one follows the same rules. This has worked very well in our military since its inception, and making exceptions can do nothing but disrupt the cohesiveness of the team!
(2)
(0)
20
20
0
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.
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.
(20)
(0)
16
16
0
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.
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.
(16)
(0)
15
15
0
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...
(15)
(0)
SSG Roger Ayscue
Too Easy Sean,
EVERYONE GETS LONG HAIR AND A BEARD.
By the way, IF someone that can not be happy that they have a Penis, or that they want one but do not have one and require daily shots of something that their body WOULD make all on it's own...IF they were actually what they "Identify as" can serve, then why not diabetics...they serve honorably, and need daily injections to stay leveled out...How about Fat dudes, they serve honorably....How about midgets....they wit easily in most storage compartments, and pygmies have served as Soldiers for centuries.....Imagine how many pygmies you could air drop from a freaking Cessna!
EVERYONE GETS LONG HAIR AND A BEARD.
By the way, IF someone that can not be happy that they have a Penis, or that they want one but do not have one and require daily shots of something that their body WOULD make all on it's own...IF they were actually what they "Identify as" can serve, then why not diabetics...they serve honorably, and need daily injections to stay leveled out...How about Fat dudes, they serve honorably....How about midgets....they wit easily in most storage compartments, and pygmies have served as Soldiers for centuries.....Imagine how many pygmies you could air drop from a freaking Cessna!
(1)
(0)
GySgt William Hardy
My instructor in an intel class was a Sikh, a SSG. I have said it before and I will continue to say it, Sikhism has been around a long time. Sikhs have served honorably as soldiers for centuries, specifically under the British when the British were in South Asia.
Why the hassle? Sikhism (/ˈsɪkɨzəm/; Sikkhī, Punjabi pronunciation: [ˈsɪkːʰiː]), or Sikhi (from Sikh, meaning a disciple, or a learner), is a monotheistic religion that originated in South Asia during the 15th century.[4] The fundamental beliefs of Sikhism include faith in one Creator God, unity and equality of all humankind, engaging in selfless service, striving for social justice, and honest conduct and livelihood while living a householder life.[5][6][7] Sikhism is based on the spiritual teachings of Guru Nanak, the first Guru,[8] and the ten successive Sikh gurus. With over 25 million adherents worldwide, Sikhism is an Indian religion spread out around the world.[9]
I would rather have a Sikh by my side than a Muslim. The Koran instructs it followers to make us (infidels, including the Sikhs) to pay tribute or to be killed. Sikhs believe in unity and equality.
Funny how on another post everyone jumped in protecting the rights of Muslims but here we have a person whose religion is peaceful and everyone seems to want to condemn him.
I would rather serve with 100 Sikhs than a single Muslim who could turn on me in a moment. It has happened before . . . Don't forget the past.
Why the hassle? Sikhism (/ˈsɪkɨzəm/; Sikkhī, Punjabi pronunciation: [ˈsɪkːʰiː]), or Sikhi (from Sikh, meaning a disciple, or a learner), is a monotheistic religion that originated in South Asia during the 15th century.[4] The fundamental beliefs of Sikhism include faith in one Creator God, unity and equality of all humankind, engaging in selfless service, striving for social justice, and honest conduct and livelihood while living a householder life.[5][6][7] Sikhism is based on the spiritual teachings of Guru Nanak, the first Guru,[8] and the ten successive Sikh gurus. With over 25 million adherents worldwide, Sikhism is an Indian religion spread out around the world.[9]
I would rather have a Sikh by my side than a Muslim. The Koran instructs it followers to make us (infidels, including the Sikhs) to pay tribute or to be killed. Sikhs believe in unity and equality.
Funny how on another post everyone jumped in protecting the rights of Muslims but here we have a person whose religion is peaceful and everyone seems to want to condemn him.
I would rather serve with 100 Sikhs than a single Muslim who could turn on me in a moment. It has happened before . . . Don't forget the past.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google