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
The uniform is a respected outfit that makes us all look...well....uniform. We're one team, fighting one mission, for one nation. If you change the uniform for every individual feeling or action then the uniform loses it's meaning and it's symbolism. As he's ROTC I don't find it to be much of a issue however I would be against such a thing in the regular military.
(3)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
And that is where you are wrong SrA (Join to see), each branch of service has tons of exception to policy and waivers for thousands of reasons! And you are not government property, that is an urban legend.
(2)
(0)
SrA (Join to see)
TSgt Joshua Copeland - We'll have to agree to disagree then. I'm not wrong either. You can just go off and have your own opinion (cause that's all it is).
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
SrA (Join to see) - So, every person on a shaving waiver should also be asked to leave, right?
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
It's really not a concern to me. Not closely related: I saw a guy in Kuwait wearing a camouflaged kilt. I asked him if he was born in Scotland. He said, "No." I asked why he is wearing a kilt. He mentioned every notable Scotsman in history and claimed to be related to each of them. His story was so ridiculous, I just sat back down without a word. Do the Scots even wear combat kilts? I find it silly that an American Soldier would wear one even if he IS related to any Scotsman. I have no problem with real Sikhs wearing a turban.
(3)
(0)
SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA
Well chief, I am Chilean born, current US Citizen...and my grandmother came off the boat from Scotland.
So I do wear the Kilt, and no, there is no such a thing as combat kilts, but there are plenty of current units that do wear the Kilt as part of their uniform.
We have the Royal Highlanders (The Black Watch), the Canadian Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, The Royal Australian Regiment.
And believe it or not, during the Civil War, there were the 79th New York Highlanders wearing kilts.
The Air Force has a bagpipe band, the US Naval Academy has a bagpipe band, the Citadel has one, the VMI has one, etc.
So I do wear the Kilt, and no, there is no such a thing as combat kilts, but there are plenty of current units that do wear the Kilt as part of their uniform.
We have the Royal Highlanders (The Black Watch), the Canadian Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, The Royal Australian Regiment.
And believe it or not, during the Civil War, there were the 79th New York Highlanders wearing kilts.
The Air Force has a bagpipe band, the US Naval Academy has a bagpipe band, the Citadel has one, the VMI has one, etc.
(1)
(0)
PO2 Robert Cuminale
Go to YouTube for the annual procession for the Queen's birthday. The Scottish Guard was there last year but not the two years prior. They were in Iraq and they weren't wearing Kilts. The British like custom dress uniforms for their units. The House Cavalry, The Irish Guard, etc all have different dress uniforms. Lord Raglan invented the raglan sleeve in his design for his troop. While you're there catch some of the Tattoos which are very popular. Last year's Netherlands's Tattoo was the best as always. Not much of an Army but a Hell of a marching band.
(0)
(0)
I would never salute that. Sorry, it offends me, especially since we hear so much hegemony against the Christian faith here.
(3)
(0)
CMSgt David Allen
We post our opinions not to degrade each other's, but to open a dialogue to promote a better understanding of the issues. Derogatory statements and slinging epitaphs don't help unite us in a common cause.
(2)
(0)
CMSgt David Allen
Damned right I would if he was in uniform. Remember the lesson we were taught in boot camp. Respect the rank, even if you don't respect the person wearing it.
(0)
(0)
I see too many in the future citing this case as reason that they should be able to present themselves however they want. Will we next see camo buddhist robes?
(3)
(0)
SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA
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."
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
You have a good point on the shaving profiles. Plus, in the SOF community dudes have beards on pretty much every deployment. So no there is no real good reason for the whole no beards thing. And don't quote the whole PRO-MASK BS. That was true like 20-30 years ago, but today, with the masks we have, you can get a seal even with a beard. As long as you dont have a viking beard that can be braided to your knees.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
But those are the best kind of beards, SFC (Join to see). I'm sure they'll be put in the regs just as soon as Nordic battle axes are allowed.
(0)
(0)
This one is kind of tough. On one hand congrats for the religious freedom to this guy, but on the other it shows something wrong. It doesn't show the military precision and "looking like the group" that the rest of the military has to do.
I believe there will be two problems that end up stemming from this. First, the fact that when the military goes into chemical gear, the smooth face is for a correct seal of the mask, a beard will hamper that situation thus making him more of a liability than an asset. Second, a lot of military members could go as far as creating religions or lying, saying it is against their religion to shave their heads or to take out their lip rings. This opens the door for all military members to take advantage of and start exercising "religious freedoms" to just do what they want to break protocol and proper wear of the uniform.
My own take is it just looks tacky to have a full beard in a military uniform when you are used to the person in the uniform looking clean cut and like the rest of the group.
I believe there will be two problems that end up stemming from this. First, the fact that when the military goes into chemical gear, the smooth face is for a correct seal of the mask, a beard will hamper that situation thus making him more of a liability than an asset. Second, a lot of military members could go as far as creating religions or lying, saying it is against their religion to shave their heads or to take out their lip rings. This opens the door for all military members to take advantage of and start exercising "religious freedoms" to just do what they want to break protocol and proper wear of the uniform.
My own take is it just looks tacky to have a full beard in a military uniform when you are used to the person in the uniform looking clean cut and like the rest of the group.
(3)
(0)
SrA Johnathan Kropke
SSgt (Join to see) That is kind of funny. I was thinking of the spaghetti monster religion where they have to dress like a pirate. I do know of the jedi religion, it is actually really funny that it exists.
(0)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
SrA Johnathan Kropke, there are straightforward, rational legal standards which could be applied to preclude servicemembers creating "religious" beliefs to justify grooming choices -- just look at the IRS' criteria for qualifying as a church for tax-exemption purposes (Is there a unifying doctrine? Are there other members? Does the membership meet regularly?) or the criteria used for evaluating conscientious-objector status.
As to the beard looking tacky, that really seems to be a personal-grooming preference along the same lines as the old paratroop dislike for facial hair. I note that the Navy seems to have reverted to accepting neatly groomed facial hair with no apparent loss in discipline or cleanliness.
As to the beard looking tacky, that really seems to be a personal-grooming preference along the same lines as the old paratroop dislike for facial hair. I note that the Navy seems to have reverted to accepting neatly groomed facial hair with no apparent loss in discipline or cleanliness.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Sure hope he has an understanding that the beard/Turban may have to go if deployed to an area with the potential for chemical warfare. So long as he's willing to take it off in combat, good with me. (don't think the Kevlar helmet would be difficult for him to put on when bullets start flying)
(2)
(0)
SrA Johnathan Kropke
1LT William Clardy Yes the tacky part is a personal belief, I stated that was my take on the subject.
As for the legal standards, yes there are legal standards, but what I was saying is legal standards dictate that hair cannot be more than 1 1/4" in bulk on the top of your head and 1/8" on the side, at least for air force, and for the ABU/ACU uniform that the authorized ABU/ACU hat will be worn with the uniform. Both of these straight forward legal standards are being broken, if that can be allowed then I could see someone getting a nose ring legal to stay in while in uniform. Also, just take the spaghetti monster religion example I stated in a comment, the U.S recognizes this as a legal religion, thus if anyone in the military is in this religion I can see them making the case that they must be allowed to dress like a pirate on a specific day, even if in uniform, because if they do not it is against their religion.
What this guy is doing in MY OPINION, is that he is breaking our straight forward legal standards applied to all military personnel, and getting what he wants for religious freedoms.
As for the legal standards, yes there are legal standards, but what I was saying is legal standards dictate that hair cannot be more than 1 1/4" in bulk on the top of your head and 1/8" on the side, at least for air force, and for the ABU/ACU uniform that the authorized ABU/ACU hat will be worn with the uniform. Both of these straight forward legal standards are being broken, if that can be allowed then I could see someone getting a nose ring legal to stay in while in uniform. Also, just take the spaghetti monster religion example I stated in a comment, the U.S recognizes this as a legal religion, thus if anyone in the military is in this religion I can see them making the case that they must be allowed to dress like a pirate on a specific day, even if in uniform, because if they do not it is against their religion.
What this guy is doing in MY OPINION, is that he is breaking our straight forward legal standards applied to all military personnel, and getting what he wants for religious freedoms.
(1)
(0)
Much too far!
"The Uniform" is the key element in military identity. Not only does it represent the character of each branch, it is the one thing that gives a true sense of visual unity, you belong when you wear one. To make such an allowance based on a personal choice such as religion first dishonors the code of the uniform, it also undermines the unity of those who wear it. It becomes a visual identifier that says, "We are in the same military, but we are not the same."
Let this man practice his faith as he wishes, just as I do as a Christian, this is why we ultimately wear that uniform, to protect our liberty to make those choices. As a member of the military elite, I expect him to conform to military process, discipline, uniform code, duty, esprit de corp and honor like all good soldiers do!
"The Uniform" is the key element in military identity. Not only does it represent the character of each branch, it is the one thing that gives a true sense of visual unity, you belong when you wear one. To make such an allowance based on a personal choice such as religion first dishonors the code of the uniform, it also undermines the unity of those who wear it. It becomes a visual identifier that says, "We are in the same military, but we are not the same."
Let this man practice his faith as he wishes, just as I do as a Christian, this is why we ultimately wear that uniform, to protect our liberty to make those choices. As a member of the military elite, I expect him to conform to military process, discipline, uniform code, duty, esprit de corp and honor like all good soldiers do!
(3)
(0)
Suspended Profile
There are already Sikhs in uniform. Rabbis in the military have had beards and Kippot/Yarmulkes (the skullcap) in uniform for years. I myself wore one my last tour, and I wasn't a chaplain...
There is room for accommodation of religious practices in the military, as long as they don't prevent the wearing of headgear such as combat helmets or face masks in case of fire or CBR attack...
There is room for accommodation of religious practices in the military, as long as they don't prevent the wearing of headgear such as combat helmets or face masks in case of fire or CBR attack...
I think religious freedom is great and should be afford to all, but the standard should not be modified for a few. The allowance of different head gear and facial hair is the reason why so many Soldiers question orders. When we have ruling like this it teach anyone that disagree with regulation to question it, carrying over into questioning any and everything. I feel if you want to joint the military comply with uniform and appearance regulations, if it violates your religion beliefs them maybe the military is not your calling
(2)
(0)
He is not the first Sikh in uniform. Accommodations have been made before. This should have never escalated to the courts.
(2)
(0)
As a Sikh, I feel that religion shouldn't matter as long as he is volunteering to serve in the USAF. His turban/beard shouldn't impede his ability to join. This is a big win for religious freedom.
(2)
(0)
SSG Bryan Van Hoose
It's a victory for sure, but, and I mean BUT, if it were ANY other ethnicity trying to get a little freedom it gets shut down. Because of you know, REASONS. There are double standards everywhere, stay in long enough and you will see it.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next