More of the Sikh debate
We talked the other day about the Army capitulating to Captain Simratpal Singh and they’re allowing him serve with his beard and his turban. Well, The Becket Fund writes to tell us that there are three more Sikhs in the wings who have filed a lawsuit so they can serve in uniform. Specialist Kanwar Singh, Specialist Harpal Singh, and Private Arjan Ghotra are scheduled to go through Basic Combat Training next month and without special dispensation, they’ll have to shave to begin their training.
“The Army’s delays leave Sikh soldiers uncertain about their future for months on end,”?said [Eric Baxter, senior counsel at Becket].?“In the meantime, they are often treated like second-class soldiers. The Army needs to stop sending the message that religious minorities are not welcome in the military.”
I don’t think the Army is sending that message at all. They’ve caved every time. The gas chamber just might weed these guys out, though. And, I’m sure the Army is is going on a case-by-case basis.
Category: Army News
I’m sikh of this debate. Sorry, but I’m first with that.
They’re not Soldiers yet. They’re still “enlistees”.
But I reckon it ain’t my problem…
Have at it Lars.
Religious minorities”… Fuck them. It’s the United States Army. There are uniform and appearance standards for everyone. If they can’t comply, don’ join.
Word.
If a witch enlists do she get to keep her toads? Because “religious freedom”.
How the hell do you get a helmet on over a turban? Do they get to keep their kirpan too? I hate to ask this – how do the Brits deal with their Ghurkas?
Someone in DC seems to become confused about what an army is for. WTF, over?
how do the Brits deal with their Ghurkas
By pointing them at the enemy and staying out of the way.
With a shave and a hair cut its a honor for them to serve the British/queen.
Um, the Gurkha regiments are of Nepalese origin. I don’t believe there are very many Sikhs among that group.
Why it’s for social experimentation of course. War fighting, breaking things and killing people are just an unfortunate side effect ….can’t wait to see what the social engineers have to say about women in burkhas with all the combat arms slots that are now opening up. This is getting interesting. (said no one ever).
The toads would probably be okay, because they’re dried.
After a point, sarcasm becomes silly. Helmet over a turban, indeed. Why not find out what the Sikhs think will work? Do they have a viable plan to address pertinent questions? How WILL they wear a gas mask with their facial hair? Make them do it, and then if they can do it, develop the regs to cover what they do. If they can’t, then I believe the rule is the Army’s needs take precedence, am I right?
Someone is confused.
The Army is a arm of the country which protects the rights of American citizens. Whether you want to argue that the Army’s mission includes other countries is not germane here. At it’s core, the military is to protect the rights of citizens – all it’s citizens – and that includes the religious rights of the Sikh faith.
For those saying “what does a Sikh do with a gas mask?” for years in the Army a person teaching the wearing of gas masks and other CW suits was a Sikh. Maybe we should ask him how that played out.
It wasn’t until the 1980’s that Sikhs were suddenly told they could not serve in the military. Prior to that, they served with honor, distinction and the same love of the US as anyone here has.
The question is not “what is changing now?” but rather “what changed in the 1980’s that saw Sikhs be banned from the military.?”
Two other points…… 1) the religious accommodation doesn’t last. When a Sikh changes postings, they have to apply for the accommodation again. On its face that shows the policy banning Sikhs from serving is arbitrary. (In fact, a Sikh dentist served in Afghanistan at a forward operating base, was recommended for a Bronze Star and when he returned to the US, cannot get approval to attend a dental school at Fort Bragg. So in a combat zone he was allowed to serve, but in the safer confines of the continental US, he cannot.) 2) The fact that the Sikh must shave in order to go through basic training seems to say the Sikh must violate their religious beliefs before they can seek an accommodation for their religious beliefs. That just doesn’t fly in any way. (It is also arguable that not allowing them to go through basic violates the Army’s policies on religious accommodations which requires the accommodation be given if the “accommodation would not adversely affect mission accomplishment.”
The Army should rightfully lose this one.
Actually, the Army doesn’t exist to protect the rights of American citizens, but to protect and fight for the nation. The courts are there to protect our rights.
That being said, we should mirror (to am extent) the same rights that the general population is afforded but we should jeopardize mission readiness (which includes morale) to accommodate every individual’s desire. I actually support the Sikhs in this case but the precedent it will set will open the barn doors to all kinds of interesting things.
Edit- should NOT jepordize. ..
“It wasn’t until the 1980’s that Sikhs were suddenly told they could not serve in the military.”
Sikhs were never told that they could not serve, suddenly or otherwise. The issue was the wholesale ban on beards. There is no evidence whatsoever that the regulation targeted Sikhs but they certainly were affected by the ban, as were certain Jews and all others who were not clean shaven for non-medical reasons. Additionally, there was a grandfather clause so that no one who was in service before a date certain was booted.
Meritorious Bronze star, I assume.
Kind of hard for a dentist on a FOB to get a real one.
You do realize all Fobbits E-7 and above get a bronze star as a end of tour award, right?
The BSM awarded for service traditionally has been nothing more than a combat-zone equivalent of a MSM. If someone who served in a bona fide combat zone and faced some personal risk from enemy action (IDF counts) and did MSM-level work, I’ve got no problem with that.
I do have a bit of a problem with those in places that were “combat zone” in name only (Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain) and who faced zero personal risk of getting hurt by enemy action getting combat decorations. That’s precisely why DoD changed policy in 2004 and allowed award of non-combat decorations within a combat zone for duty that was deemed “noncombat service”.
Unfortunately, that too predictably has been abused. I know personally of 2 cases where an left theater with a CAB – and a noncombat decoration. Based on anecdotal reports concerning the same parent command, they were hardly the only such individuals screwed over by that command.
Actually, I believe the Federal courts have already addressed this issue – definitively – in Employment Division v. Smith.
Bottom line: while government employers have the authority to accommodate otherwise unlawful acts performed due to religious beliefs, they are not required to do so. Willfully refusing to conform to uniform standards is a violation of the UCMJ, Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation).
The Constitution specifically empowers Congress (Article I Section 8) to prescribe “Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”. The UCMJ is Federal law, and does precisely that.
The Army “rolled over” here for political reasons. They had firm legal grounds to tell Sikhs (and any other religious group): “Sorry – rules are rules; you don’t get to ‘pick and choose’ which apply to you personally. If you’re not willing to shave, then don’t join. Those are your choices.”
“If a witch enlists do she get to keep her toads? Because “religious freedom”. ”
Col Haring already did join and then retired. We are unaware of if her toads stayed at home or accompanied her.
I would give up a four day pass in Bangkok to see them in the CS chamber. I don’t think their religion is going to protect them from a non sealed M40 pro mask.
p.s I hope in ends up on YouTube.
P.P.s run with it Lars.
Seems like putting on a gas mask isn’t an issue.
https://www.google.com/search?q=sikh+in+a+gas+chamber&tbm=isch&imgil=aL3qoeCRT2Us6M%253A%253BcW9pBjOuAJoqXM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.pinterest.com%25252Fagill28%25252Fsikhism-my-religion%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=aL3qoeCRT2Us6M%253A%252CcW9pBjOuAJoqXM%252C_&usg=__qSpRqvpqGmyozdtL6xnv9UULKdI%3D&biw=1280&bih=899&ved=0ahUKEwiLt8GNwPjLAhWJJR4KHexpBX4QyjcIKA&ei=CzYEV8uFPInLeOzTlfAH#imgrc=Ojk_47-HXa_m8M%3A
I see our man donning an M40 pro-mask.
But his headgear in under the seal on his forehead preventing the face blank from sealing correctly. Their is a difference between doing it and doing it correctly.
NO/GO = KIA whether or not it offends somebody’s religion/beliefs. Its not their choice to compromise the missions success.
Or, worse (from a mission perspective) – the individual is rendered WIA by the agent vice KIA. Now they have to be evaced, deconned, and treated.
Old rule of thumb: it takes 1 person to care for a KIA. It takes about 4 to evac and care for a WIA.
My guess is that a substantial number with ill-fitting masks would survive, but require evac and extensive care. You do the math.
I work for the usps and just about everyday I get customers asking me for US passport aps in a foreign language…fml
Tened aplicacion de pasaporte?
Me no speaka engleess.
When in Rome, do as the Romans do…..or…GET THE HELL OUT OF ROME!
I don’t think their religion is going to protect them from being targeted by sharpshooters in the field.
For Sikh’s sake! What the Sikh is going on in my Army?
Seriously though, if I’m an enemy marksman looking for a target and what pops up first in my sights is a turban or the highest Kevlar I ever saw…bummer being a Sikh then!
Ridiculous.
I can’t wait until the Muslims start with this shit, it’s going to be wild.
Can restrict speech, firearm rights, ect, but don’t you dare tell some asshat that thinks facial hair defines their religious salvation that shit isn’t going to fly when they know full damn well the standards before joining.
FFS grow a pair DoD.
Let us assume, for a moment, that I practice a religion with no affection for facial hair. Let us also assume that I am in the Army and wish to grow a beard. If I am told that I can’t, I’d point to the Sikh next to me and ask why he can. If the explanation has anything to do with his religion, isn’t the Army, in essence, denying me the same privilege of a beard because of my religion?
No, because your religion does not have as one of its very basic beliefs that you do not shave body hair.
It isn’t your religious beliefs that are driving the desire to grow a beard.
But, it is precisely because of my religion that I am being prevented from a privilege provided to others.
The Army has differentiated uniform standards based on religious preference, which, in itself, is inherently discriminatory.
Sorry, but that doesn’t make a bit of sense. Freedom of Religion doesn’t mean you get to demand that you get to wear or dress a certain way, because someone else’s religion does.
Be like demanding that your employer provide you with a device/accommodation meant for a handicapped person to perform their job, when you do not have that handicap but one of your co-workers does.
It is not a privilege, it is an accommodation to them. One that can be removed at any time. Unlike in the civilian world where we would never even dare to…
Not the first Sikh to have served wearing a beard and turban by the way.
Actually, it makes perfect sense. In one case, a person is being allowed to perform an otherwise illegal act because they belong to a particular religious group. In the other, a member of a different religious group is denied the right to perform the same unlawful act solely on religious grounds – e.g., that their religion does not require it.
As I note above, the issue was settled in Employment Division v. Smith (1990). It is within the power of government employers to grant such exceptions. They are not required to do so.
Equality means equality. Exceptions such as this are by definition NOT equal treatment under law.
rb you said, “Sorry, but that doesn’t make a bit of sense. Freedom of Religion doesn’t mean you get to demand that you get to wear or dress a certain way, because someone else’s religion does.”
But if I change that to “because someone else’s religion does not” then everything changes? There has been a lot of talk on TAH about women in the infantry and no changes to the standards. I am not an expert on the law or regulations but from my perspective if you are going to hold women to that same standard as men then you should should hold Sikhs to the same standard and the rest of the people in that unit.
I agree with Bobo’s point about accommodation, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander … und so weiter. “Accommodation” is just PC pandering.
That was the same problem that I had as an Infantry officer when the discussion of female integration first started about 4 years ago, without the discussion of changing APFT standards. It was going to be difficult for me to explain to the 18 year old male 11B who ran his 2 miles in 16 minutes that he was a no-go while the 18 year old female 11B who ran next to him the whole time was on her way to a getting her Army Physical Fitness Badge.
I have been torn on this debate. This is not something new though, it was always within the ability of a command to authorize beards based on Religious Beliefs.
Part of me says that when we enter the military, we abandon much of our freedoms in order to serve.
Freedom of Religion should not be among those things. We should be free to believe, and practice our faith within reason. A reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs is not going to end our military as we know it.
Shit, we scream about the assholes who are constantly attacking any displays of Christianity on here… Are we being a bit disingenuous? We rightfully criticize them, as there targets are almost always Christian. Yet here we are demanding that a Sikh not be afforded the same levels of protection for his religious beliefs.
A beard, and a turban… it will not stop him from being an effective leader. If it does, it comes off, or he leaves the Service. That is the accommodation he was given.
Your argument might have merit if we still had compulsory military service. Since 1973, virtually all military service has been voluntary.
There is no “right to serve”. One can only serve if one qualifies and is willing to do so. Willfully refusing to obey existing military regulations is IMO evidence that one is not willing to serve unless they receive “special treatment”. It is the military – not the individual – that has the authority to determine whether such “special treatment” will be granted.
Displaying a Bible or a Torah will not get you killed on the battlefield. Not having a properly fitted mask due to a beard just might get you killed on the battlefield. Big diff there.
Now if we could just apply all this logic to bakers and florists….
How many Sikh firefighters are there in the US?
You do have to admit, his headgear does look a darn site more professional than the pizza hat beret.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/04/us/sikh-army-captain-simratpal-singh-beard-turban/index.html
Sikhs have been serving in many of our allies armies for years while wearing helmets and gas masks. There are more important things to worry about.
The “Itchy & Scratchy” Show
So how is this gonna work out when everybody in Army shows up unshaven on Monday morning? And says its a Sikh thing so stop harassing me or I will file a E.O complaint and destroy your carrier.
Or, no CSM I did not shave today and I don’t need a new razor.
I remember a white Sikh soldier at Ft. Benning back in 1979 [I think he was white — he was definitely Sikh]. Since Sikh soldiers will be permitted to wear beards, they will also NEED to have the following “K5”:
Kachhera: Loose undergarment
Kanga: Wooden comb
Kara: Iron/steel bangle worn on the right wrist.
Kes: Uncut hair
Kirpan: Ceremonial short sword/dagger
I remember reading a long time ago that an Army/Sikh agreement was reached [forgot by whom] allowing a photograph of the kirpan to substitute for a real sword.
As to the turban, I’ve seen *many* civilian Sikhs wear either a head towel, or a very small turban called Keski, vice the the traditional large turban with a forward “point”. Perhaps the “small turban” could be required for military Sikhs. [Google Image search of “sikh turban us military” shows what I’m speaking of.]
====
Now:
What about the OTHER Indians? Why cannot American Indian soldiers wear an eagle feather and long hair in braids? I’d say they have a stronger right to their religious requirements (such as long hair and coup feathers) in our Army than do Sikhs. After all, “Indians” have served in the US Army — mostly as scouts — since the 1800s (not counting the 1st Cherokee Mounted Rifles aka the “Cherokee Braves” who fought in uniform for the Confederate States of America).
Perhaps limiting the feathers to a single tail feather:
a) Straight up sigifies platoon sergeant/platoon leader (ya don’t get one for being an NDN typewriter repairman).
b) Horizontal for a combat tour [red spot for killing an enemy up close and personal-like].
c) Feather died red worn if qualified for the Purple Heart.
d) A warbonnet if you steal 50 head of horses from the enemy like the late-lamented Joseph Medicine Crow did in WWII. [Okay, I’m joking here.]
^^^*DYED*^^^ … not “died”.
Sheesh — talk about Freudian brassiers.
One more friggen’ time:
https://www.google.com/search?q=special+forces+in+afghanistan,+beard&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj35bHOkvPLAhWrxIMKHUhzDeoQsAQIHA&biw=1600&bih=775
Everyone bitching like a jilted Prom Queen, above, explain this shit, or GTFO.