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?
280K
1.82K
759
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: 278
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.
(1)
(0)
I don't see the problem, especially since the active duty Army already has several Sikhs, complete with beard and turban waivers.
(1)
(0)
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
"[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
![](https://d26horl2n8pviu.cloudfront.net/link_data_pictures/images/000/016/178/qrc/small-text.png?1443045440)
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.”
(1)
(0)
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."
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
If they have an actual medical issue with severe skin problems then it is justified, but I have seen many people abuse this profile. So I do believe there should be stricter policies in place to prevent abuse of the profile . I have no problem with religious freedom or equal rights and believe if your an American or wanting to become one then you should have every right to join the military, I have many friends who are earning their citizenship through the military, what I can tell you from what I've seen is that you do not come across many people with full beards in the military unless in a rare occasion its command approved as part of a temporary medical treatment . A lot of people don't believe that beards are an issue for protective masks in chemical environments but I beg to differ as you cannot have a complete seal on the mask if you have a beard and if somehow you could it would require more effort which equals more time donning you're gear which could possibly cost you you're life in an emergency situation. Also as more and more standards change to accommodate people's wants and needs don't be surprised to see more people fighting to change their appearance or the uniform they wear because of their beliefs and before we know it the military does not have a standard on you're appearance or the uniform you wear. So we might as well accommodate changes for the Wiccan religion or how about satanism...
(0)
(0)
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
So, we should deny his ability to join ROTC, even though we have allowed exceptions to policy for Sikhs serving on active duty?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125142736
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125142736
(0)
(0)
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar
Very well said! The military is not just a "job" it is a calling. It is the only profession whose exercise thereof requires the killing of other human beings, either directly or indirectly. In conjuction with that it is the only profession that requires it's practitioners also to put their lives on the line.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
At the risk of sounding like a broken record in this thread...why would we not allow this young man to join ROTC when we have allowed others of his faith to join the active duty military? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125142736
(0)
(0)
Read This Next