As reported in the New York Times, the US Army has granted Capt. Simratpal Singh a religious accommodation to wear the beard, unshorn hair, and turban as the outward expression of his Sikh faith — even while wearing the military uniform:

It is the first time in decades that the military has granted a religious accommodation for a beard to an active-duty combat soldier…But it is only temporary, lasting for a month while the Army decides whether to give permanent status to Captain Singh’s exception.

If it decides not to, the captain could be confronted with the decision of whether to cut his hair or leave the Army. He has said he is prepared to sue if the accommodation is not made permanent.

(This occurred not long after Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va) sent yet another letter to the DoD, as he has for several years, asking that the US military reconsider its policies prohibiting Sikhs from serving.)  Singh, a West Point graduate, had previously sacrificed those religious accoutrements in order to serve:

Singh had grown up a Sikh. As part of his faith, he had never cut his hair or beard. But his faith also encouraged protection of the oppressed, which inspired him to join the Army.

The Army would not allow a soldier with long hair or a beard, so that day he watched his locks drop to the floor.

The article aptly notes that this could “open the door” for other religious personnel to display their faiths. It is apt, then, to note that a leading religious liberty group for military personnel lauded the move. The group? The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty:

“This is a precedent-setting case,” said Eric Baxter, senior counsel at the Becket Fund, a nonprofit public interest law firm that specializes in religious liberty. “A beard is a beard is a beard. If you let one religious individual grow it, you will need to do it for all religions.”

Where, might you ask, is Michael “Mikey” Weinstein, the self-designated “number one” advocate for military religious liberty? It seems he’s busy trying to prevent the very type of display of religion the Becket Fund is lauding by ending the “putrid” practice of US Air Force Academy cadets praying in public on a football field. (As if to prove how far afield Weinstein has gone, he was even schooled by a large number of commenters at the left-leaning Daily Kos — commenters who recognized that even if they didn’t like seeing the cadets pray, it was within their right to do so and an attack on their religious liberty to demand otherwise).

Singh noted he was relieved to no longer have to live a “double life,” which made it all the more ironic when the New York Times cited the acceptance of homosexuality within the military as a step toward accepting Sikhs.  The report said the US military has become “increasingly inclusive” over the past few years.

It does seem to make sense that if the US military would accept troops regardless of their choice of sexual conduct, it would also accept troops regardless of the Constitutionally-protected choice of religious beliefs.

Also at ThinkProgress, which seemed surprised to see the Becket Fund’s consistent position on religious liberty.  The Daily Caller said the Army “caved.”  Also at the Stars and Stripes, the Religion Clause, and Military.com.

ADVERTISEMENT