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
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 282
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.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
Capt Jeff Schwager, it is not racist when it is true and said by a white dude. Time to be honest and address our fears of change and adaption.
(0)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
Did you mean "fears of change and adaptation"? No, I'm not afraid of change. I would welcome positiive change... like as in:
* people not playing the race card every time they feel challenged by circumstance.
* people accepting responsibility for their actions instead of blaming others for everything wrong that happens in their lives... Maybe it's time to do a little introspecting.
* a return to the vision for this country that our Founding Fathers had -- where all men are created equal. Equal as in equal at the starting line, not the finish line. Like it or not, we are not all the same in terms of our abilities, but we are the same in terms of our worth. We should not expect others to provide for those who, by the choices they make, refuse to provide for themselves... or who, by their actions, force themselves into a state of dependency on others.
* the government spending less than it takes in so that it can pay down the national debt.
Don't know about you, but I don't want to see this country go down the tubes... And in case you hadn't noticed, our obsession with political correctness isn't working out so well...
* people not playing the race card every time they feel challenged by circumstance.
* people accepting responsibility for their actions instead of blaming others for everything wrong that happens in their lives... Maybe it's time to do a little introspecting.
* a return to the vision for this country that our Founding Fathers had -- where all men are created equal. Equal as in equal at the starting line, not the finish line. Like it or not, we are not all the same in terms of our abilities, but we are the same in terms of our worth. We should not expect others to provide for those who, by the choices they make, refuse to provide for themselves... or who, by their actions, force themselves into a state of dependency on others.
* the government spending less than it takes in so that it can pay down the national debt.
Don't know about you, but I don't want to see this country go down the tubes... And in case you hadn't noticed, our obsession with political correctness isn't working out so well...
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
Capt Jeff Schwager our founders set a system of progressive change, the courts and president made laws for Blacks, Women and Now Gay, Lesbians and others to serve all have been for the better. Facts!
(0)
(0)
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?
(0)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
I'm not sure why you believe I'm an atheist because I'm quoting the bible. Perhaps you and I just have different interpretations of "Love thy neighbor as thyself".
(0)
(0)
PFC Chris Hemingway
Cw3 it is customary to tell a person y you voted them down like I explained why I voted you down
(0)
(0)
PFC Chris Hemingway
Did you vote me down because you believe I'm a satan worshipper even though I don't believe in satan or because I insulted your fragile psyche pls tell me.
(0)
(0)
PFC Chris Hemingway
And what do you mean unfair to Christians at least the chaplain corps can help you with your religion they won't even allow a priest or priestess of mine in the corps because we don't have a set religious text
(0)
(0)
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.
(0)
(0)
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.
No, I'm sorry but he is welcome to worship where he wants, but he cannot have these obvious safety violations.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
CW2 Erik Thiesmeyer, I have seen Sikhs in the ARMY since 1974, and some of us do wear beards out the wire, I got lots of pictures that prove that, In fact Mr. Rumsfeld was mad.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
LTC Erik Spike Thiesmeyer, Sr.
The OPTEMPO and requirements of elite units operating on the battlefield are completely different than the uniform standards for the other 99% of military personnel. I too have seen serving Sikhs serving in uniform. One in particular was the never taken seriously and could not deploy because of his religious accommodations. He wore an enormous black turban that couldn't possible fit in an ACH, much less a patrol cap. He simply affixed a flash and his rank to it (also a violation). Soldiers would laugh when he entered a room, thinking it was a joke. He had to be assigned to the CG's staff. What kind of a message does that send? Besides, my point was about SAFETY. If SOF personnel were in an NBC battle space, they'd shave their beards, duh!
(0)
(0)
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?
(0)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
SGT Ronald Audas - Did you read the story? "Rattan wears a fatigue-colored turban, and when he needs to wear a helmet, he puts on a mini-turban underneath it. He says he's gotten a positive response from other officers in training."
(0)
(0)
SGT Ronald Audas
Then make it a standard requirement in the military. I know you guys have a new Army where everyone gets a trophy. In my Army, we operated from a strict code of order.This is not a condemnation of the young man,but of his need to change things to suit himself.I would never go to court to force something I love ( the military )to conform to my rules.I could strap a red bandana to my person and someone somewhere would give me a positive response.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
"His need to change things to suit himself"? You mean, his desire to have ROTC use the same standards that the Army has used for the last five years?
(0)
(0)
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.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
CPL Jesse Jones, Sikh have been in Our Military since I joined in 1974, and the 82nd Airborne would disagree with you. CPL learn and grow because the true worth of a warrior is being flexible.
(1)
(0)
CPL Jesse Jones
All the way CPT Pedro Meza, with all respect Sir, I've served with the Magnificent 82nd Airborne as well as I'm sure yo have. The standards on an everyday basis are beyond high for very strict reasons such as: exiting any aircraft as well as other close encounter type operations. I as well as my 82nd Brethren have absolutely no problems with and race or religion, because through out history we've always been a mixture of all in which formed the "All American" of course. So all in all, in one with long hair would be an absolute risk to themselves and others.
(1)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
CPL Jesse Jones, I have served attached to the 82 and others, they were my body guards. Read up on the Sikhs past service. Remember that our current enemy respect the Sikhs dress so make use of it; stay flexible in combat.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
You do know that Sikhs have been serving, with the turban and beard waivers, for five years now, right?
(0)
(0)
Good for him. It's sad that he had to fight to be free in a "free" country..
(2)
(2)
SA Trevor Borjeson
He wants religious freedoms. That's not a lot to ask for. Our military is primarily Christian. I felt slightly uncomfortable when people questioned my beliefs.. I thought that Jesus was all about loving thy neighbor?
(0)
(0)
SPC Carson S.
He IS free to practice his religion!!! No one is saying that he can't!! But he can practice it without being a soldier!! Let me break it down another way: In the corporate world, appearance is vital. If a guy with tattoos and piercings want a job at a law firm, but the law firm won't hire him because of his appearance, should he then have the right to sue the law firm and force them to take him on as an associate? No one is saying he cannot have tattoos and piercings (just like no one is saying this guy cannot practice his religion), but they are saying that he does not fit the standard for the organization (just like this guy does not meet the standards of the military). This is not a religious freedom issue, this is about the courts stepping over their bounds and forcing an institution to bend to the will of one individual. And that is a scary thought. Where does it end? This should have been handled through military channels, not civilian ones. The standards are standard because they are what everyone is expected to uphold. EVERYONE.
(1)
(0)
SA Trevor Borjeson
Ignorance is bliss I suppose. I don't know how anyone can enjoy life being so judgmental of others, but good luck!
(0)
(1)
SGT Ronald Audas
Damn ! if I had known how unjudgemental the Army is supposed to be,I would have worn cutoff`s and flipflops to our G.I. Inspection while in AIT. We are talking Military standards,not your right to demand that the rules be broken for yourself.
(0)
(0)
Unfortunately I don't see him ever quite being respected if he is to become an officer.
(0)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
PFC (Join to see) You have to respect the rank, you don't have to respect the man. How many NCO's, SNCO's, Warrant Officers and Officers are not respected as individuals, but their rank (and associated authority) is respected?
(0)
(0)
LTC Erik Spike Thiesmeyer, Sr.
As an officer, he would have to enforce standards for uniform and appearance as well as safety. He cannot wear a helmet properly nor could he wear a gas mask. Yet, he'd be responsible for those that must comply with these requirements. Hypocrisy.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
PV2 Steven Apgar, I just retired and have seen Sikh in the ARMY both NCO and Officers since 1974, your ARMY life just started don't assume and do not copy the good old boys here, be better then them you are the future,
(2)
(0)
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
LTC Erik Spike Thiesmeyer, Sr.
It's not about his religion, it's about his desire to follow his religion's tradition of wearing a turban at all times (which also means never cutting his hair) and growing a full beard and never trimming it. He is free to worship in his religion, but his traditions are not compatible with military service. Just as a Wiccan person is free to be Wiccan and serve but they cannot sacrifice farm animals on US Govt. property or carve a pentathlon into their forehead. It's not the religion, it's the trappings thereof.
(1)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
SrA Eric Walker, Facts:One of the earliest Sikh soldiers in the American military was one Bhagat Singh Thind, who although not a U.S. citizen joined the United States Army and served in World War
(0)
(0)
SrA (Join to see)
CPT Pedro Meza I am not sure how that changes what I said. I am not saying anyone shouldn't serve. What I am asking, is that the rules that apply to him, also apply to me. I am asking that everyone have the same regulations. This ruling sets forth that your religion gives you the ability to follow different rules than everyone else. I don't find that fair.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next