Posted on Jun 16, 2015
MAJ Senior Observer   Controller/Trainer
280K
1.82K
769
33
32
1
Iknoor singh 600x400
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
Posted in these groups: World religions 2 ReligionThcapm08l9 ROTCDiversity Diversity
Avatar feed
See Results
Responses: 281
SFC Petroleum Supply Specialist
66
66
0
I believe both parties are wrong. The military is wrong to make this accomdation when no one else has the privilege to do so. He is clearly in the wrong profession if he can not conform to military wear and appearance according to AR 670-1. He can serve our country in other ways.
(66)
Comment
(0)
Sgt Frank Rinchich
Sgt Frank Rinchich
9 y
COL (Join to see) - You are right it don't make the individual less of a soldier. but it does make our military less of a military that our country set rules and regulations for everyone to follow. if they want beards, turbans they would have made that the regulation , but they didn't they made other rules to follow, by everyone, you want to be part of it, follow the rules. Next you will be allowed to wear your favorite hat or tee shirt, then the military will look like he hippies of the 80s.
Maybe when you joined in 78, but not when I joined in 55 we all were clean shaven, same cover same uniform . we look like USA military , not like a hippie. and no one is questioning the Sikhs ability to fight. you seem to be questioning the US soldiers ability to fight because he or she is following the regulations set down for our military.as the old saying goes , you are either with us or against us make your choice,
(0)
Reply
(0)
COL Health Services Plans, Ops, Intelligence, Security,Training
COL (Join to see)
9 y
Sgt Frank Rinchich - I believe the regulations and laws have changed since 1955 and even since 1978, when we entered the military. My preference is that we focus on the ability to fight and win wars not on being all-inclusive for everyone's special interest (religion, gender, orientation, etc.). But, my preference hasn't been followed and we now have laws that conflict with the laws of 1955 (inter-racial marriage, gay marriage, no fault divorce, etc.) and the laws of 1978 (gays in the military, gay spouse benefits, Sikhs wearing turbans instead of patrol caps, etc.). We are rapidly getting away from the art and science of conducting war. We have become a social engineering test lab, where those in leadership positions either desire to weaken our military or are inept. Unfortunately, our next first battle will result in a bloodshed of American might, re-confirming that our focus should be on fighting and winning wars, proving that inequality exists.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Frank Rinchich
Sgt Frank Rinchich
9 y
Col. With all due respect , I would rather look down he line and see our military , same uniform . clean shaven. standing tall and ready and willing to take orders in combat if that Sikhs wants to wear his turban under his helmet I have no objections to that , but when he is in a formation and representing our country I want him to look the part, Sir you can not see a gay, you can see inter racial marriages, you can not see Divorce. you can not see religion which has always been with the military. only difference then and now it is everyone business and not a privet thing. all we have done is make it an open issue. not one of those mentioned changes the way our personnel in uniform look. with what you are say the way things are changing is like saying in 10 years we will be fighting wars in baseball caps, blue jeans puffing on pot. I know that statement is extreme , but it gets my point across, yes we will have change , but that change will be uniform . not on individual bases.
(0)
Reply
(0)
GySgt William Hardy
GySgt William Hardy
9 y
The military, not just the Army, has made accommodations for many over the years. You started your statement on a false premise. As Col Harrison said, Sikhs have served, not only in the US military, but in the British Army for years and played a key role in fighting the Muslims in India and Pakistan. When I attended some intelligence training back in the early 90s, one of my instructors was a Sikh. . . and American Sikh whose father converted to Sikhism when he was still a baby. He grew up in New Mexico. My point being that not all Sikhs come from the Middle East/South Asia. To paraphrase a previous statement, I would rather look down the line and see my brothers who were willing to cover my six I would be to cover theirs, standing tall and willing to give all.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
PV2 Senior Web Designer, Web Team Lead
49
49
0
So does this mean Wiccans can wear a pentacle and carry an athame (knife) while in uniform? I'm all for religious freedom, but sacrificing miltary regulations and discipline for religious freedoms sets a bad precendence.
(49)
Comment
(0)
SSG Human Resources Specialist
SSG (Join to see)
>1 y
SFC Jessie West, Capt. (Dr.) Tejdeep Singh Rattan, a dentist, was able to seal his mask each and every time. His uncle, who was in the Indian Army, said he had no problem with that while was engaged in jungle warfare. "He said he put some Vaseline in his beard, which kept the ticks away, and it sealed every single time." The article is below in which he stated this:
http://www.army.mil/article/36339/sikh-soldiers-allowed-to-serve-retain-their-articles-of-faith

Anyways, it was only 31 years ago in 1984 when DoD did away with the exception to policy for Sikhs.
(8)
Reply
(0)
PO3 Celesta (Fox,Parks) Davis
PO3 Celesta (Fox,Parks) Davis
>1 y
I'm with most everyone here...they know what the rules are when they join. If they don't like the rules, don't join, PAS.
(4)
Reply
(0)
PFC Chris Hemingway
PFC Chris Hemingway
>1 y
Yes to the pentacle 670-1 states you can wear your religious symbol as long as it's a certain size however don't wear the athame that should be with your other ritual gear not your uniform.
(0)
Reply
(0)
PV2 Senior Web Designer, Web Team Lead
PV2 (Join to see)
>1 y
My comments were taken out of context. I realize the proper use of an athame and the wearing of a pentacle for Wiccans but was merely using it for an example.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Ben Keen
48
48
0
This might go against what others think but why is the military making this type of call? What's the point on having standards if some judge or whomever can make a ruling and remove that standard? So what if someone says running is against their religious freedom? Will we see a court ruling saying they can use a scooter instead? What if I didn't want my hair cut when I was at basic? Oh wait I had no choice because it's a standard. Standards are in place for a reason. I've said before in other similar threads, if you choose to be part of the best military in the world, you must be ready to meet and follow the standards set forth. If you don't want to do that then find a job elsewhere.
(48)
Comment
(0)
CMSgt David Allen
CMSgt David Allen
>1 y
Amen brother!
(3)
Reply
(0)
SSG Keith Cashion
SSG Keith Cashion
>1 y
Standards?....Did someone say standards? What are the standards these days? Does the Army still have AR 670-1? I am being extremily sarcastic. The standards have changed so much in the past decade, it can be hard to keep up....wear your hair this way, no wait...you can now have it this way, because this Soldier didn't like the way the regulation was written. Tattoos are always fun...you can have them, then no you can't and oh and by the way you need to show them to you commander so they can take a picture to be put on file. Now let's not forget just the normal wear of the uniform...some of these Soldiers of today actually look like a Bratwurst getting ready to explode out of it's casing. Then there are the ones who have a belt, but do not understand the function of a belt. As to the case that this thread is about, A Federal Judge dictated to the US Army who they could or would let in the Army. Here should be the standard...make military service a requirement for all citizens, like a lot of countries do, and then effect change. Think to many people are trying to make this a Private Benjamin Army.
(3)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close