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
Someone look up the word "uniform" in the dictionary and get back to me...
I knew what the Air Force required of my physical appearance before I joined. Which is why I had a tatto cut out of my neck just to join. It was "above my collar bone," which wasn't allowed. I did what I had too to fit in to the UNIFORM policy. I'm a religious person, but I also am a member of the military. I didn't feel the need to compromise one for the other. But then again, my religion doesn't tell me not to shave or to keep my head covered. If we begin to allow this, but we aren't allowing excessive tattoos, piercing, etc., the we are hypocrites.
I knew what the Air Force required of my physical appearance before I joined. Which is why I had a tatto cut out of my neck just to join. It was "above my collar bone," which wasn't allowed. I did what I had too to fit in to the UNIFORM policy. I'm a religious person, but I also am a member of the military. I didn't feel the need to compromise one for the other. But then again, my religion doesn't tell me not to shave or to keep my head covered. If we begin to allow this, but we aren't allowing excessive tattoos, piercing, etc., the we are hypocrites.
(1)
(0)
Now it's official. All 3 branches of our government are trying to give our country away.
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
Yes, it sure would be a tragedy to allow someone from a different cultural and religious background, who speaks four languages, to serve in the military.
(0)
(0)
If judges had the correct answer America would not need a standing Military. The American Military Training is the best in the world. We have had over 200 years to get it right. We have our own Judicial system. Now a Federal Judge is smarter - not. If cadet Singh is now in the Army ROTC he will find himself an Army of One. All his fellow students will shun him and there is not a Federal Court that can fix that.
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
We may have had 200 years to get it right, but we've only had about 30 years of enforcing the no beard rules. There are at least three other Sikhs on active duty, BTW...so he'll at least be an army of four.
(0)
(0)
Getting into ROTC does not result in a commission or entry into the military. Also, we have had Sikhs in our ranks for years. In the 1980s they actually wore turbans. Today, they don't because the uniform policy is the same for everyone.
(1)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
SFC Mark Merino - I'm not understanding your comment. Fraternization deals with a relationship between a superior and subordinate that results in favoritism. It does not include an association between two uniform members without preferential treatment.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
SFC Mark Merino - For taking a picture? So every commander I've ever had is guilty of fraternization for taking the squadron photo with all the enlisted members of the squadron?
(0)
(0)
I agree with some of the previous commenters. The army is a team. Everyone that joins gives up some kind of freedom. I can understand the hair but I draw the line on the sharp knife. How does a senior NCO tell his subordinates not to carry knifes around on their belts in public but he is allowed to. My religious upbringing taught that the Sabbath is on Saturday because it is the last day of the week on calendars. Did I use that as an excuse? No , I did not and I just went on Sunday in the field or on deployments. I am glad to be retired. I saw the army steadily decline and its policies like this that is doing it.
(1)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
SFC Carey Cox, did the Army have a rule against carrying a knife? I know tons of Army guys that carry a benchmade (or equiv.) both in uniform and in civvies with no issues.
(3)
(0)
(0)
(0)
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
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)
Read This Next