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
762
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: 279
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.
(1)
(0)
No one is batting eye with this Sikh and when a Christian person wants to display a verse somewhere, people lose their minds.
(1)
(0)
A1C Ken Tiedeman
Amen to that! Where's the balance? Where's the"tolerance"? Why are other cultures being given place over ours? What happened to the rule of law? What happened to the Code of Military Conduct? Apparently, it applies to everyone EXCEPT to those who object. With this kind of "leadership" the country is definitely on the fast track to destruction.
(0)
(0)
SGT Jason Weisbrich
Sadly the administration sits idly by as this kind of nonsense pervades. Sadly the military leadership has allowed the court to dictate policy where it has no jurisdiction. UCMJ was created by Congress and it is therefore only the prerogative of congress to amend or abolish such laws. Again with the overreaching of powers which has been indicative of this administration.
(0)
(0)
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.
(1)
(0)
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?
(1)
(0)
SGT Richard Ellis
SrA Mandy Mendez, Have you ever been to my church?
Don't assume that you know every religion in the world.
Don't assume that you know every religion in the world.
(0)
(0)
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.
(1)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
CPL Kelley, Do you know what those rules are? The true reason for those rules? When they were originally implemented?
(1)
(0)
Cpl Christopher Kelley
No, of course not. I don't know anything about military rules, traditions or anything else for that matter. I am just a lowly Marine
(0)
(0)
SPC Adam Kuykendall
I know the reason for no beards is simple. Do wants gas masks to seal, a clean shaven face supports the seal. I still have more respect for Sikh's than Muslims, and I know they were fierce fighters in the British Army. Let him alone, and let him prove his mettle.
(0)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
CPL Kelly, I believe that you are being either facetious or sarcastic, but I am trying to make a point. Concerning the Navy, here is a prime example of what I am referring to -
In 1981, CNO Adm. Thomas Hayward sought to institute “Pride in Professionalism” by tightening regulations even further. No one under the rank of petty officer 3rd class was permitted to have a beard, nor were officers of “special authority or highly visible positions.”
The razor finally dropped in 1984 when CNO Adm. James D. Watkins banned all beards. The concern that a sailor with a beard would not be able to gain a proper seals with his emergency breathing apparatus frequently was given as the reason. However, the blunt-speaking Secretary John Lehman said that it was simply due to aesthetics. Lehman said that master chiefs had been complaining that beards made the Navy look “extremely un-uniform” so it was decided that having clean-shaven sailors would bring “a general sharpening of appearance.” Moustaches were allowed, but could not extend beyond the upper lip line.
In 1981, CNO Adm. Thomas Hayward sought to institute “Pride in Professionalism” by tightening regulations even further. No one under the rank of petty officer 3rd class was permitted to have a beard, nor were officers of “special authority or highly visible positions.”
The razor finally dropped in 1984 when CNO Adm. James D. Watkins banned all beards. The concern that a sailor with a beard would not be able to gain a proper seals with his emergency breathing apparatus frequently was given as the reason. However, the blunt-speaking Secretary John Lehman said that it was simply due to aesthetics. Lehman said that master chiefs had been complaining that beards made the Navy look “extremely un-uniform” so it was decided that having clean-shaven sailors would bring “a general sharpening of appearance.” Moustaches were allowed, but could not extend beyond the upper lip line.
(0)
(0)
The British have had Sikhs serve for over a 100 years. They figured out how to be inclusive so why can't we?
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
CPT Quentin von Éfáns-Taráfdar
Because the British had an empire to maintain thus they had to use native troops . The US has no such empire.
(0)
(0)
SPC Dr. Ernest Rockwell
SSG Bryan Van Hoose - That's odd. The Orthodox Jews in Israel have been sealing their masks just fine for decades...with beards. Next excuse?
(2)
(0)
SSG Bryan Van Hoose
Well there Dr, it's one of the RULES AND REGULATIONS set forth by the military, further, our POS mask will not seal with a beard, grow one and try it or shut up. I don't give two flying @$^%$@'s what Israeli's have been doing for decades, this discussion isn't about them, it's about why we should even allow an exception to the rule. I'm retired now and don't care if he is active duty or not, rules are rules and the OP asked why it was a big deal. Stay in your lane.
(0)
(1)
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).
(1)
(0)
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
I knew I liked you for a reason! My mom was born in Edinburgh and she was a Burns-Newton! Awesome Laddy!
(0)
(0)
This is an all volunteer Army so if you want to join you should have to follow same rules as everyone else.
(1)
(0)
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.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next