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
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
SSG Donald Mceuen
I guess when he gose down you let him die so he can go to his higher power
with his head wrap. I have faith in my beard but i shaved it off when i went in
and grew it back when i got out. I am sorry but no higher power is going to
send you to the bad place for not having a beard and wearing a head dress.
So all-n-all he needs to comply or stand down...
with his head wrap. I have faith in my beard but i shaved it off when i went in
and grew it back when i got out. I am sorry but no higher power is going to
send you to the bad place for not having a beard and wearing a head dress.
So all-n-all he needs to comply or stand down...
(0)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
That's what sets apart a nation of laws from mob rule...the law sticks up for people who are less fortunate.
(1)
(0)
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.
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
Well, since the Army has been allowing other Sikhs to serve (again) since 2010, I'm not sure why this ROTC detachment felt the need to disregard the regs on religious accommodations.
(0)
(0)
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
(1)
(0)
Maj Mike Sciales
You can't blame a Sikh for what a deranged Muslim physician did. That's like blaming the Jews for Killing Christ. IN re beards -- we have a long history of allowing beards, so I don't get your point.
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
We allowed beards (and Sikhs) for much more of our history than we've prohibited them.
(0)
(0)
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
Just my $0.02
(1)
(0)
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.
(1)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
SGM Mikel Dawson, your right, they had standards that allowed it till shortly after you came in (grandfathered all existing folks who didn't retire till as late as 2009 as a Col). It was only in the mid 80's did they change it. So really, it is just lowering it back to what it was back in the "old army".
(1)
(0)
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
Well, since there's already several serving on active duty, and since the Army policy was to let them keep the beard and turban up until 1984, I don't see the issue.
(1)
(0)
What does uniform mean? Why do military personnel complete Basic Combat Training? Why should there be any standards in any area of military service?
(1)
(0)
Welcome him with open arms! There's enough negativity, judgment and hate in this world! Let's be a part of the CHANGE!
(2)
(1)
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.
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
GySgt William Hardy
The modifications are for the turban and hair, and not about whether or not a soldier can seat his gas mask. I do not know of any Sikh who had that problem. My instructor in my MI course didn't have any problems with any military standard and only sought exemption to shaving, haircuts, and wearing the turban. Since Sikhs are a well established religion, an exemption can be made.
I really don't understand what the fuss is about. Sikhs have served in the US military for a long time. This isn't something new. The Sikh soldier I had as an instructor was from New Mexico. His father had converted to Sikhism before he was born and he grew up a Sikh. I would not stop him from serving his country. By the way, he was a career soldier.
I really don't understand what the fuss is about. Sikhs have served in the US military for a long time. This isn't something new. The Sikh soldier I had as an instructor was from New Mexico. His father had converted to Sikhism before he was born and he grew up a Sikh. I would not stop him from serving his country. By the way, he was a career soldier.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next