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?
284K
1.82K
759
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: 278
0
0
0
0
0
0
Conform to the standards, not conforming the standard to meet the individual. If you can't play by the rules and guidelines set and followed by everyone else we don't need you.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
A federal judge has once again failed the military in order to push their personal agenda. If you want to join the Army, follow their rules. We are a volunteer force...if you don't like the rules, don't volunteer! If you want to help, apply for a GS civilian Chaplain position...otherwise shave your damn face and follow orders like the rest of us.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I don't know. But he can't wear or oxygen mask or helm it. so he cannot be part of an air crew. Or go into combat.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The standard is the standard. It is only biased if it grants additional benefits to some. I am troubled because that is what this seems to be. How can you have multiple sets of rules within an military? Where will the line be drawn? Will the Army allow Rastafarians to smoke marijuana as is a major form of their worship? The military can only reasonably navigate this by refusing to bend an demanding conformity with a standard that is religion neutral, gender neutral, sexual irritation neutral Etc. If we ignore this obvious truth it will be at our peril.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This is not the first time this conseccion has been made for a Sikh. I believe the last time was in 2005 or 2006. I encourage everyone to look these guys up though. They have a long history of honorable performances in battles, much like the Spartans from ancient Greece. I would love a platoon of the guys or guys like them because I know we would accomplish the mission at all cost.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I think this can be addressed from a non-religious point of view.
The central problem is that "we" want to find answers that cater to individual needs in every case...this is impossible. No matter what decisions we make as an organization, someone...somewhere, will take offense, look for a loop-hole, and try to use the system to make a statement or garner publicity.
That said; there exists several excellent military precedents for just such issues, and the most practical question to ask isn't whether or not this is a "religious freedom" issue, but whether or not this is a discipline and standards issue.
Some "identities" divide...other unite...some are too powerful not to take notice of.
The British Army historically inculcated the national dress or martial heritage of her colonies into military uniform; think of the Highlanders and the Indian regiments. Perhaps the USA has grown enough in international influence and power that there's a point to be made for UNITS taking their collective identity from similar sources (I've always thought American "Highland" units would be pretty cool on parade).
However, this raises too many questions to be practical. For it to work, you would have to be able to outfit entire regiments, if not divisions the same. Would a Christian or Muslim solider wear the ceremonial dress of a "Sikh" regiment if so assigned? What if we decided to have an entire regiment wearing the Afghan pawkul? What about a regiment of soldiers in the spodik or kippah? What are the ramifications if a "Sikh" regiment's home station is located somewhere in the country where these images evoke the wrong impressions?
To my mind, this is a "slippery slope" that ends in a breakdown of basic discipline. Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, Hindus and a plethora of other ethnic/religious identities have served in the uniform of their county without protest for decades...each finding their own way to honor cultural/faith principles concurrently. How many of us wore a cross on a chain under our uniform?
Don't misunderstand me...If what I understand of the Sikh is true, I'm certain this officer candidate would be a great addition to the Army. However, he should understand that as a leader, he should represent his soldiers more than himself. If his convictions do not allow putting aside the ceremonial dress of his faith, then I would apply the same logic I used in an early discussion regarding "pagan" symbols on the uniform.
The central problem is that "we" want to find answers that cater to individual needs in every case...this is impossible. No matter what decisions we make as an organization, someone...somewhere, will take offense, look for a loop-hole, and try to use the system to make a statement or garner publicity.
That said; there exists several excellent military precedents for just such issues, and the most practical question to ask isn't whether or not this is a "religious freedom" issue, but whether or not this is a discipline and standards issue.
Some "identities" divide...other unite...some are too powerful not to take notice of.
The British Army historically inculcated the national dress or martial heritage of her colonies into military uniform; think of the Highlanders and the Indian regiments. Perhaps the USA has grown enough in international influence and power that there's a point to be made for UNITS taking their collective identity from similar sources (I've always thought American "Highland" units would be pretty cool on parade).
However, this raises too many questions to be practical. For it to work, you would have to be able to outfit entire regiments, if not divisions the same. Would a Christian or Muslim solider wear the ceremonial dress of a "Sikh" regiment if so assigned? What if we decided to have an entire regiment wearing the Afghan pawkul? What about a regiment of soldiers in the spodik or kippah? What are the ramifications if a "Sikh" regiment's home station is located somewhere in the country where these images evoke the wrong impressions?
To my mind, this is a "slippery slope" that ends in a breakdown of basic discipline. Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, Hindus and a plethora of other ethnic/religious identities have served in the uniform of their county without protest for decades...each finding their own way to honor cultural/faith principles concurrently. How many of us wore a cross on a chain under our uniform?
Don't misunderstand me...If what I understand of the Sikh is true, I'm certain this officer candidate would be a great addition to the Army. However, he should understand that as a leader, he should represent his soldiers more than himself. If his convictions do not allow putting aside the ceremonial dress of his faith, then I would apply the same logic I used in an early discussion regarding "pagan" symbols on the uniform.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I don't think it is right to change the rules for this. Let's look at this closely. They said something about shaving profiles. Okay yes they have allot of people in the military with shaving profiles which I think is bull. Cause if you need a shaving profile so you don't have to shave only give it for a short time till the bumps or whatever problem goes away. I'm a black male an I never got a shaving profile I just used alcohol to keep the bumps away. Now I know the want a chaplain in ever religion and I know they have Jewish rabbis with beards. I can see that but to wear a turban and to get to have long hair. No way. With the turban you would not be able to wear you head gear. Then with the long hair what do you give him the regs the the female soldiers have where he has to keep it off his collar and up in a bun. This just sounds crazy. If I'm wrong here someone please let me know. I will say he can serve and I would have a problem with it but he could have a low cut neatly kept beard but that's it.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google