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
Religion
ROTC
Diversity
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 282
14
14
0
Firstly, this is not the first Sikh to serve. I recall a unit adjacent mine during basic had a Sikh in it. Sikhs have a tradition of military service in many countries and a reputation of devoted and ferocious service. U noted a comment about Wiccans, there was a case several years ago in which a service member was permitted to have a split tongue due to an alleged pagan belief. Similarly an USA officer led satanic masses and some provisions were made if I recall as to the hair color. The point is provisions have been made for the entire history of the army, heck, look at some of the uniforms worn by officers, etc. Uniformity is important but is this soldier able to perform the functions of the MOS? This harken to an earlier post about women in combat arms. I will have this Sikh, that woman, or anyone that can tow the line, do the job and back me fully.
(14)
(0)
12
12
0
Personally, I am proud of this young man wanting to serve. I have reached out to him to see if he wants to serve at my HHC as an SMP cadet. His cultural and language skills would serve us well in CA. I also see a lot of ignorance in the responses here. I have another Sikh serving in my airborne battalion (404th CA Bn.) who is a great asset as a doctor. Of course he wears a helmet when jumping or on the range. Who would think that they wear their turbans in a dangerous environment? Ask yourself if you would demand that a Jew remove his yamake (sp?) when he was indoors? Of course not! The world is full of all types and we need to incorporate them into our military which is, after all, a reflection of society.
(12)
(0)
SSG Roger Ayscue
NO SIR, BG (Join to see) I am saying that EVERYONE should be allowed to wear a beard. IF this guy can wear one, and NEVER cut his hair, and the SEALS wear a beard in theater....then why does having a beard on a normal white dude in an infantry unit make him sub-standard?
My point is this...IF this guy can wear a beard and long air and you all sit and applaud, then the reasons that for the 24 years that I was in the US Army were given for the grooming standards are all 100% bullshit. IF you can make an exception for one guy, no matter the reason, then the reason given for the action is bullshit. Beards are not allowed because some guy at some point in the Army, who did not like facial hair, was in a position to ban it, did so.
My point is this...IF this guy can wear a beard and long air and you all sit and applaud, then the reasons that for the 24 years that I was in the US Army were given for the grooming standards are all 100% bullshit. IF you can make an exception for one guy, no matter the reason, then the reason given for the action is bullshit. Beards are not allowed because some guy at some point in the Army, who did not like facial hair, was in a position to ban it, did so.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Don "GUNNY" Miller
BG (Join to see) - Wearing a beard in combat is an entirely different thing as it was more like unshaven than a beard. Not conforming to wearing of the uniform is the issue here. Wearing a soft cover or a boonie hat or a Kevlar helmet is conforming. Wearing a cowboy hat a turban or mickey mouse ears is NOT!
(0)
(0)
BG (Join to see)
Cpl Miller, you are showing more than a little prejudice here. Paratroopers were a maroon beret in garrison, but we would never allow them to wear that on the range or jumping out of a plane. It is the same with his turban, it is only for garrison use. You don't seriously think we violate safety do you? As I stated we have a Sikh doc in my airborne battalion. He wears a Kevlar the same as everyone else when required.
(2)
(0)
12
12
0
SSgt Thomas A Tullis Jr
Sikhs have historically served in many country's military. The British empire had Sikhs and they served exceptionally well. My issue with Sikhs isn't their service but the religious requirements. The US military has rules against outward religious displays in uniform and the rules will require updating to ensure NO religion is given special favor.
(6)
(0)
PO2 Robert Cuminale
No, it was Hindu angry because he felt Ghandi had insulted the faith by allowing the Muslims to have a part in the government before Pakistan was formed.
(0)
(0)
CMSgt David Allen
I don't know where the "transgendered" aspect came in. The person in question is a young man who challenged the Army's standards of dress and appearance in a civilian court of law and won a judgement in his favor. Now the ball's in the Army's court on how to handle it.
(0)
(0)
10
10
0
I wasn't really going to reply to this post since in my mind it's one of those "so what" moments. But then I started to read some other replies. I was an RP (Religious Program Specialist) in the Navy from the beginning. I served with so many Chaplains from so many different faiths. I provided support to my shipmates for their religious needs even when I didn't agree with them. This is a perfect example what what it means to be an American and living by the ideals, and upholding the Constitution. You accept someone else rights or beliefs, just like you would want the to accept yours. Your belief and opinions are just that, yours. If a person can do their job, preform to the standards of the service then why not let them? Since when did the military become so closed minded? As long as the person next to you could do their job, that use to all that mattered. How does this ruling affect, or take away, you rights and freedoms?? Allowances have been made for race, sex, and religion since the birth of the nation. If you can't stand up for someone else rights or freedoms because you don't agree with them, why are you in uniform? Aren't we suppose to stand up for and defend the rights and freedoms of this country??
(10)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
PO2 Kevin O'Connor, you have my respect for your post, the military and the US needs more like you.
(2)
(0)
PO2 Kevin O'Connor
CPT Meza, Thank you for your comments, But my time in the service ended awhile ago, now I'm just a crusty old retired swabby. There are more people out there that talk the same way as do. They just aren't heard because the Few Shout too loud and say outrageous things that the message gets lost in all the bullsh*t flying around.
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
There have been Sikhs in the army since WWI. There are about 12 Sikhs in the army, mostly in medical fields. The Sikhs are noted Muslim killers.
(9)
(0)
SGT Fredrick Ramm
Being first generation, Anglo-Irish-Brit The Sikhs helped us during "Our Darkest Hour" They are fine soldiers
(1)
(0)
CMSgt David Allen
I don't believe anyone is questioning the Sikh's loyalty or warrior ethos. The only question is whether they should conform to military standards of dress and appearance.
(0)
(0)
LTC Bink Romanick
CMSGT Allen the ARs allow Sikh religious accommodation. It should have never gone to to court.
(0)
(0)
SSG Roger Ayscue
Understand, I am not questioning his devotion or any thing like that. I am saying that IF it is OK for him to NOT get a high and stupid ... EVER...and it is OK for him to not shave... EVER...then why not make THAT the standard. Maybe I would like to have a beard and to have hair while I am on leave...the reason I want it is my business. If he can have this and be a good soldier then why can't everyone have long hair and a beard and still be a good soldier.
I am just pointing out that there are some Sacred Cows of military standards that are the favorites of chains of command everywhere...that this guy does not have to worry about. I am talking about having ONE STANDARD...FOR EVERYONE...end of statement.
I am just pointing out that there are some Sacred Cows of military standards that are the favorites of chains of command everywhere...that this guy does not have to worry about. I am talking about having ONE STANDARD...FOR EVERYONE...end of statement.
(2)
(0)
9
9
0
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/21sikhs.html
Why would you not want a group of people that have roots as being loyal, hardened soldiers!
Why would you not want a group of people that have roots as being loyal, hardened soldiers!
Badass of the Week: 21 Sikhs at the Battle of Saragahri
The ultimate list of all badasses past and present.
(9)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
SGT William Howell, you had to play the history card, SGT can't you see we got paranoid people here, true facts scare them.
(3)
(0)
Suspended Profile
I think of the Civil War military, with the Irish Brigade and all of the zouave units in the Union and Confederacy, and their unique adoptions of cultural and religious accoutrements when this comes up. Granted, uniform standards have coalesced along with the National Guard and federalized military, but there was once a tolerance for whole units filled with deviations based on the same things.
I've worn a yarmulke for the greater portion of the last 20 years in uniform. Colonel Goldstein, who recently retired after 40 years in uniform WITH A BEARD, was a sterling example of dedication and duty to troops from all walks of life. I would argue that many people made the same arguments about Jews when they first started accommodating us decades ago, and none of them came to be. Sikhs, like Jews, are a religious minority, but one, like Jews, with long-standing and identifiable practices that are predictable and well-defined. This does not open the floodgates for Wiccans and Jedis that don't have either a tradition or an identified ecclesiastical endorser with the DoD.
I believe that these accommodations, based on the service of existing religious minorities, will yield patriotic service that actual brooks a net positive for the force. E pluribus unum, fellow service members. Our collective ability to reconcile our cultural and religious differences in the interest of our greater good has always been the key ingredient in American exceptionalism.
I've worn a yarmulke for the greater portion of the last 20 years in uniform. Colonel Goldstein, who recently retired after 40 years in uniform WITH A BEARD, was a sterling example of dedication and duty to troops from all walks of life. I would argue that many people made the same arguments about Jews when they first started accommodating us decades ago, and none of them came to be. Sikhs, like Jews, are a religious minority, but one, like Jews, with long-standing and identifiable practices that are predictable and well-defined. This does not open the floodgates for Wiccans and Jedis that don't have either a tradition or an identified ecclesiastical endorser with the DoD.
I believe that these accommodations, based on the service of existing religious minorities, will yield patriotic service that actual brooks a net positive for the force. E pluribus unum, fellow service members. Our collective ability to reconcile our cultural and religious differences in the interest of our greater good has always been the key ingredient in American exceptionalism.
SGT Doc Abel
Sgt Brian Kresge. While I can appreciate your point of view this is not always the case. Remember that asking for accommodations is sometimes not in the best interest of the whole group. Jews face an incredible amount of antisemitism in the U.S. It also happens in the military. Many refuse to wear a Kappah or Tefilin during high holidays. Sometimes it is just better to keep it to yourself and not make a statement about it. Also in regards to saying our religious practices are absolute; take into account that even the IDF will suspend even holidays when neccessary. I have yet to meet a Rabbi knew said it was unforgivable to miss a holiday or not wear a Kappah.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
With respect, I've been an endorsed Jewish Lay Leader for the last 10 years. I've lead services abroad and at home when a rabbinical chaplain has not been present. I've worked closely with the Jewish Welfare Board and the Aleph Institute, and I've been an observant Jewish soldier for the last 20 years. I'm well aware of what Jews face in the United States military, and in the U.S. in general. I also know or am acquainted with nearly all of the rabbinical chaplains across each branch.
The only item you mention that is relevant is the "kippah," (not kappah, not sure what you are talking about), as it is our relevant headgear. This is already provisioned for in AR 670-1, with sizes and colors proscribed. Not sure why someone would wear tefillin, commonly known as phylacteries, on the High Holidays. They are not worn on Shabbos or Yom Tov holidays. Perhaps you meant a tallit, the large prayer shawl. In either case, those are ritual items and not relevant to everyday wear in uniform.
As far as the IDF, Judaism in general has long had a concept of pikuach nefesh, where all but a few commandments can be set aside to save a life or lives. This concept is what governs the IDF. But it is very specific, and as applied in Israel, you would find that this is the rationale behind the IDF. "When necessary." Not just to get along.
For 10% of the American Jewish population who are Orthodox or observant, it *is* an absolute. What you are describing is very often the attitude of Jews who are unaffiliated with a synagogue, ignorant of their customs, or are from more assimilated streams of Judaism like Reform or Conservative, and I say that without negativity towards anyone with the mindset that they should suborn their Jewishness to get along. However, because Orthodox Jews are more likely to be politically conservative and ergo, patriotic, we disproportionately serve in higher numbers than Jews with less observant (or differently observant) backgrounds. This is true, as well, of new rabbinical chaplains, especially now that there is wider latitude for beards.
So I understand what you are saying, but for those of us who are Orthodox or observant, it is not a question of making a "statement." It is a matter of adhering to the commandments of our G-d, which include the fact that we believe an adult Jewish male must cover his head while he is awake and standing.
Finally, I've noted on other posts on this topic that many are concerned about the slippery slope and more libertine practices being introduced to the military. Sikhs and observant Jews both tend to be more politically conservative. We want our religious apparel accommodation, but as groups, tend to be more committed to the old-fashioned ideals of patriotism and service before self than many of the other groups that truly want indulgence for the sake of indulgence.
The only item you mention that is relevant is the "kippah," (not kappah, not sure what you are talking about), as it is our relevant headgear. This is already provisioned for in AR 670-1, with sizes and colors proscribed. Not sure why someone would wear tefillin, commonly known as phylacteries, on the High Holidays. They are not worn on Shabbos or Yom Tov holidays. Perhaps you meant a tallit, the large prayer shawl. In either case, those are ritual items and not relevant to everyday wear in uniform.
As far as the IDF, Judaism in general has long had a concept of pikuach nefesh, where all but a few commandments can be set aside to save a life or lives. This concept is what governs the IDF. But it is very specific, and as applied in Israel, you would find that this is the rationale behind the IDF. "When necessary." Not just to get along.
For 10% of the American Jewish population who are Orthodox or observant, it *is* an absolute. What you are describing is very often the attitude of Jews who are unaffiliated with a synagogue, ignorant of their customs, or are from more assimilated streams of Judaism like Reform or Conservative, and I say that without negativity towards anyone with the mindset that they should suborn their Jewishness to get along. However, because Orthodox Jews are more likely to be politically conservative and ergo, patriotic, we disproportionately serve in higher numbers than Jews with less observant (or differently observant) backgrounds. This is true, as well, of new rabbinical chaplains, especially now that there is wider latitude for beards.
So I understand what you are saying, but for those of us who are Orthodox or observant, it is not a question of making a "statement." It is a matter of adhering to the commandments of our G-d, which include the fact that we believe an adult Jewish male must cover his head while he is awake and standing.
Finally, I've noted on other posts on this topic that many are concerned about the slippery slope and more libertine practices being introduced to the military. Sikhs and observant Jews both tend to be more politically conservative. We want our religious apparel accommodation, but as groups, tend to be more committed to the old-fashioned ideals of patriotism and service before self than many of the other groups that truly want indulgence for the sake of indulgence.
MAJ Matthew Arnold
Thank you for the more complete explanation. While I am not concerned about others' religious practices, I admit I am curious.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
SSG Roger Ayscue
Gentlemen,
I can debate an issue, and to me this is just a debate. I respect every person that has weighed in on this. Major you and I can agree to disagree, and thanks for your point of view. I admit I am old fashioned. I believe that there should be one standard for everyone in everything.
PFC Chris Hemingway I voted you down not because you voted me down nor for the fact that you did not agree with me. Look and see that I think you are the first person I ever voted down. As for you thinking I am an idiot, well Shit, I could tell you to GFY, but what would that prove. Hemingway, I dealt with Enlisted-men like you my entire career, and I KNOW for a fact that you or someone just like you would look at the Squad Leader or Platoon Sergeant and complain "That this guy gets to have a beard, why can't I have one too?" So wander off feeling good about yourself knowing that you called a NCO an Idiot, and then realize just how in the grand scheme I could care less. Private, I am all out of shits to give.
I can debate an issue, and to me this is just a debate. I respect every person that has weighed in on this. Major you and I can agree to disagree, and thanks for your point of view. I admit I am old fashioned. I believe that there should be one standard for everyone in everything.
PFC Chris Hemingway I voted you down not because you voted me down nor for the fact that you did not agree with me. Look and see that I think you are the first person I ever voted down. As for you thinking I am an idiot, well Shit, I could tell you to GFY, but what would that prove. Hemingway, I dealt with Enlisted-men like you my entire career, and I KNOW for a fact that you or someone just like you would look at the Squad Leader or Platoon Sergeant and complain "That this guy gets to have a beard, why can't I have one too?" So wander off feeling good about yourself knowing that you called a NCO an Idiot, and then realize just how in the grand scheme I could care less. Private, I am all out of shits to give.
(0)
(0)
PFC Chris Hemingway
Ssg honestly I wouldn't care that the officer had long hair and a beard I'm all for religious freedoms my religion teaches freedoms for all not just those who follow the religion also I look for whether the officer is a good leader based on what he does and acts not how he looks
(0)
(0)
PFC Chris Hemingway
To be honest my squad leader was so clean cut uniform wise he could have been ocd however his attitude and demeanor was trash he tended to put himself before his men and if you didn't believe what he did he would verbally harass you if you were below him or talk behind your back if you were above him. Actions speak louder than both looks and words in my opinion
(0)
(0)
SGT William Howell
Dude everybody knows beards make you better in combat. Name on SF guy you have seen in combat that does not have one? How can you argue with that?
http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/04/pentagon-study-finds-beards-directly-proportional-to-combat-effectiveness/
http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/04/pentagon-study-finds-beards-directly-proportional-to-combat-effectiveness/
Pentagon Study Finds Soldiers With Beards More Effective In Combat
A Special Forces beard has been standard but many in SF have been angered at a study showing that beards increase combat proficiency for all.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
Other, because he isn't the first Sikh to join the service without cutting his hair or shaving and won't be the last. Really don't understand why this even went to a lawsuit.
(8)
(0)
8
8
0
BRAVO! A nation's army should represent a microcosm of its constituents. The days of white ethnocentrism have expired. If I'm a white, 46 year old, middle class American coming to grips with that notion, surely there are others who can do the same.
Now the weapon, mmmm, I think we can leave that at home.
Now the weapon, mmmm, I think we can leave that at home.
(8)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
SSG (Join to see) You can't make him leave the weapon at home using your logic of this "white ethnocentrism" being over. If he gets his hair and headgear how do you dare deny him the knife. Wait until others start listing their demands. You might then want to reconsider your new found thoughts on this. We have uniforms for a reason. Don't like the regs, have the Army change them.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Your assertion is a bit anecdotal. Any change is best achieved through a give and take compromise. And, the regs will and are changing. One of the quickest ways to changing them is thru the courts. In fact, and this is from first hand experience, that is how most governmental bodies do change; by reacting to legal challenges. That's an inalienable right we share as citizens of a free country.
I was just commenting on how the stress of this change to the organization might have been less if the symbolic weapon were not an approved accoutrement to his uniform. Couldn't you agree that would have been a good compromise and a gesture of acceptance of religious and organizational standards to the reg?
I was just commenting on how the stress of this change to the organization might have been less if the symbolic weapon were not an approved accoutrement to his uniform. Couldn't you agree that would have been a good compromise and a gesture of acceptance of religious and organizational standards to the reg?
(2)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
The weapon in question is a small dagger, conforming with the 3inch blade rule. Soldiers carry multi-tools and buck knives in uniform daily.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google