http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/15/us.sikhs.military/index.html?eref=rss_t...
By Joe Sterling
CNN
(CNN) -- For Capt. Kamaljit Singh Kalsi, a doctor, and 2nd Lt. Tejdeep Singh Rattan, a dentist, this is a hill worth fighting for.
1 of 2 These two U.S. military recruits of the Sikh faith are challenging an Army order that they remove their turbans and cut their unshorn hair and beards when they report for active duty in July.
In Sikhism, which originated in northwestern India, the turban and unshorn hair are articles of faith and can't be removed.
But the U.S. military says there are times when the military cannot accommodate certain religious practices, "such as when those religious observations would interfere with the wear of proper military headgear or protective clothing or equipment."
"It doesn't make sense to me, especially in these hard times," Kalsi told CNN. "The military is hurting for professionals. They need doctors, they need nurses."
Aided by the Sikh Coalition, a national civil rights group, and a law firm, the men have filed requests that their religious needs be accommodated. They have filed appeals with their immediate superiors and complaints with the inspectors general of the Army and the Pentagon.
The Sikh Coalition said Kalsi and Rattan had been assured that when they were recruited to join the Army's Health Professions Scholarship that their unshorn hair and turbans "would not be a problem."
"Both men were both recruited and commissioned -- with their Sikh articles of faith -- during their respective first years of medical and dental school (2001 and 2006) through the Army's Health Professions Scholarship Program.
"Both are concluding their training and are slated to begin active duty in July 2009. However, the U.S. Army is now disputing their ability to serve with their Sikh identity intact," the Sikh Coalition said in an April 14 letter addressed to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Amardeep Singh, the head of the Sikh Coalition, told CNN that the issue at hand involves observant Sikhs, not those Sikh-Americans who entered the military after removing their turbans and shaving their beards and hair.
The issue is all-important for the roughly 500,000-strong American Sikh community, which faced hostility after the September 11, 2001, attacks, when people associated them with al Qaeda terrorists because their turbans and beards resembled the militants' appearance.
"The perception is still there," said Singh. "We're sort of still feeling it."
He said surveys -- including one done recently in Queens, New York, where children reported being on the receiving end of verbal and physical abuse -- chronicle the problems Sikhs face.
"These kids are being harassed in New York. It's Queens, the most diverse county in the United States. If this is happening in Queens, it's happening in other parts of the country."
So, he said, the opportunity to serve in the U.S. Army sends the opposite message -- "that we are part and parcel of the fabric of this country."
Kalsi, Singh and the Sikh community stress the Sikhs' military heritage. Kalsi, for example, is the fourth generation in his family to serve in the military, and his ancestors served in India's military. The Sikh served in allied forces in the two world wars and they serve in the militaries of Great Britain, Canada, Sweden, Pakistan, as well as India.
The coalition notes in its letter to Gates that a Sikh doctor and dentist were serving in the Army, "grandfathered in under the old policy" that ended in the 1980s when observant Sikhs were barred from admission to the armed forces.
Lt. Col. Christopher C. Garver, an Army spokesman, told CNN in an e-mail that "the Army places high value on the rights of Soldiers to freely observe the tenets of their respective religions."
"Accommodation of a Soldier's religious practices must be examined against military necessity and cannot be guaranteed at all times," he wrote. "There are times when the Army cannot accommodate for religious reasons, such as when those religious observations would interfere with the wear of proper military headgear or protective clothing or equipment.
"The Army regulations which establish the standards of wear and appearance of the uniform and accommodating religious practices are in accordance with the Department of Defense Instruction on this subject," he said.
But the Sikhs want the Army to rethink and reconsider their situation.
"If they can come up with another policy that would allow Sikhs to serve, I guarantee you, they will have many, many people join from the Sikh community," Kalsi said.
Converse
Wow.
I wish the Military would ease up on religious freedom a bit...I mean I totally understand how the military environment is different and somethings need to be checked at the door, but a person can't drop their faith.
And it puts us in a bad position, we lose many good American Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and a whole bunch of others with rules that probably wouldn't make too much of a difference.
And if they were told it won't be a problem then the military needs to either excuse them from duty without any penalty or fix it and allow them to practice - I hate it when this happens with companies, where numerous individuals make promises to laymen and people rely on this information and later get screwed because that information came from unauthorized personnel.
1I think the story's confusing and should have focused more on the two recruits rather than history. What were these two guys told when they signed up, what will their assignments be? If promises were made and are now being broken, they have a case. Otherwise, it should come as no surprise to them that the military requires uniforms.
2It is strange. There is only one mention and one tiny quote regarding a promise to keep their turbans and hair. And did they sign up at the same time or were they just told the same thing?
3I think there is pressure on recruiters to sign people up and sometimes they tell people what they want to hear and they have no authority to make those promises. So these people later complain to the army and the army says tough luck, we have always done so and so, and they don't have the authority to promise you that...etc...just my guess though...because I've seen this type of scenario play out everywhere.
4I imagine the military are more concerned about their safety then anything else. Helmets and gas masks have to be worn, and fit correctly to work effectively. The majority of the casualties suffered by the Sikhs in both WWI and WWII (while fighting for the British Empire)were from artillery fragmentation that would very well have been prevented if the Sikhs would have agreed to replace turban with helmet. It is a relatively new religion, in world terms, about 400 years old. Extremely tolerant of other religions, and when Muslims first came into India, and began massacring Hindus, the Sikhs stepped in to protect the Hindus. I think it is safe to say if there had not been the Celts (Irish, Scots, and Welsh), Sikhs, and Gurkhas in the British army, their would not have been a British Empire of the size it reached, nor would it have lasted nearly as long as it did.
5I'm not so sure about the safety issue Grandpa...while I agree it must be a concern, I have seen the military be difficult just for the sake order, commands, uniformity...all things that can be great for them I am sure. But reading this I remembered a case I read the other day about Jewish soldiers who lost a lawsuit when they wanted to wear they Yamukahs - there were no arguments about safety there, just uniformity I think. (I'll try to remember the case name)
And sometimes I think a little flexibility would help not than it would hurt - because like you mentioned, we could be losing very good military people to rigid rules.
6This is a police case with a cop in a headscarf -no safety issue there, only reason is uniformity and some weak argument about public needs cops to be genuine and nonreligious or something - which makes little sense to me because if IDing someone by religion makes them not able to perform their duties as a cop, what do we do about racism - make them all wear masks and gloves?
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20090409_Court__Muslim_cop_can_t_w...
(don't read the comments - they just made me sick)
Found a similar Jewish case: GOLDMAN v. WEINBERGER, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ET AL.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 475 U.S. 503
From the case:
"Petitioner Goldman contends that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment requires the Air Force to make an exception to its uniform dress requirements for religious apparel unless the accouterments create a "clear danger" of undermining discipline and esprit de corps. He asserts that in general, visible but "unobtrusive" apparel will not create such a danger and must therefore be accommodated. He argues that the Air Force failed to prove that a specific exception for his practice of wearing an unobtrusive yarmulke would threaten discipline....
... The desirability of dress regulations in the military is decided by the appropriate military officials, and they are under no constitutional mandate to abandon their considered professional judgment. Quite obviously, to the extent the regulations do not permit the wearing of religious apparel such as a yarmulke, a practice described by petitioner as silent devotion akin to prayer, military life may be more objectionable for petitioner and probably others. But the First Amendment does not require the military to accommodate such practices in the face of its view that they would detract from the uniformity sought by the dress regulations. The Air Force has drawn the line essentially between religious apparel that is visible and that which is not, and we hold that those portions of the regulations challenged here reasonably and evenhandedly regulate dress in the interest of the military's perceived need for uniformity. The First Amendment therefore does not prohibit them from being applied to petitioner even though their effect is to restrict the wearing of the headgear required by his religious beliefs."
7Yeah, I'm definitely interesting in what they were told when they signed up.
Off topic, but my dad told me when you're in the military if you get a bad sunburn you can be charged with damaging government property. But...I was little, so that's probably not true.
8TrueSong, it was true, at least during WWII. My dad did his basic down in Camp Blanding in Florida. He related the same story to me.
9I see where the army is coming from with the "Public Display", as opposed to a hidden expression of religion. It comes down to how and where do you draw the line? Safest and best one rule applies to all, know public display.
10I'm on the fence. In Canada, Sikh officers are allowed to wear turbans as part of their RCMP uniform. While I respect and support freedom of religion, I lean more towards enforcing one uniform across the board particularly in any case where combat would be involved. In the case of the RCMP, I can't really say that replacing the Stetson with a turban impedes uniform functionality
11lil, the military wear Kevlar helmets, in war zones. That is ALL ranks, up to and including the commanding officer. It is one of the reasons, the per capita casualty rate has sen such a dramatic drop over the last 100 years, as helmets became more refined, and more common in a war zone. The per capita is the number of casualties vs, man days in a combat zone.
12This reminds me of that recent story about a woman who was told to use a separate area of the bank because her coverings were hiding her face which was a security breach for the bank.
I'm all for freedom of religion, but an institution should be able to have its own rules and regulations.
The problem, I guess, is when the regulations are accidentally discriminatory. Meaning, they weren't designed that way, but that is what ends up happening.
I'm not sure what the right answer is. Seems like if they are willing to accept the risks of not wearing the proper headgear they should be allowed to, especially if their work isn't going to be on the battlefield.
13I understand what you're saying Grandpa - I was mostly just poking fun at the RCMP's lovely uniforms
The Stetson really is the most important part.
14Wow that's figure flattering!
15Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.