What part of a police officer’s job is made impossible by wearing a scarf or a hat?
The government should not be forbidding anyone’s religious practice. That being said, a patch on a uniform is not a religious obligation. Totally different category from a kippah, hijab, turban, ash, bindi, etc.
What part of a police officer’s job is made impossible by wearing a scarf or a hat?
Neutrality. A police officer should be enforcing the law, not representing a religion. Luckily religious symbols in the Norwegian police force is still illegal (including christian symbols). And it should remain that way in a secular state
Yeah this is the equality vs equity debate. Saying that you are banning all religious dress doesn’t weigh equally on Christians vs non-Christians. Additionally even when it would there are loopholes given. The NT endorses woman to grow their hair long. The various security forces of the world usually allow woman to do it. So even the argument that you are treating every religion the same doesn’t hold up.
A turban is not endorsement of Sikhism. By banning mandatory religious garments you are just promising that the police do not reflect the demographics of the area. Which is not a great thing.
That position requires a willful ignorance of the difference between a religious symbol and a religious practice.
Do you really think it’s a coincidence that the law carves out a specific prohibition on religious practices that doesn’t affect Christians, the dominant religious group? Your flag has a cross on it.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
What part of a police officer’s job is made impossible by wearing a scarf or a hat?
The government should not be forbidding anyone’s religious practice. That being said, a patch on a uniform is not a religious obligation. Totally different category from a kippah, hijab, turban, ash, bindi, etc.
Neutrality. A police officer should be enforcing the law, not representing a religion. Luckily religious symbols in the Norwegian police force is still illegal (including christian symbols). And it should remain that way in a secular state
Yeah this is the equality vs equity debate. Saying that you are banning all religious dress doesn’t weigh equally on Christians vs non-Christians. Additionally even when it would there are loopholes given. The NT endorses woman to grow their hair long. The various security forces of the world usually allow woman to do it. So even the argument that you are treating every religion the same doesn’t hold up.
A turban is not endorsement of Sikhism. By banning mandatory religious garments you are just promising that the police do not reflect the demographics of the area. Which is not a great thing.
That position requires a willful ignorance of the difference between a religious symbol and a religious practice.
Do you really think it’s a coincidence that the law carves out a specific prohibition on religious practices that doesn’t affect Christians, the dominant religious group? Your flag has a cross on it.
It’s not about you any more. You’re wearing a uniform, and religion is not a part of it. You’re representing the law, not yourself.
Why didn’t you address their point? The flag has a cross on it
It’s a part of our history, imagine that. Islam isn’t
I see.
Well thanks for confirming some things I have always suspected about Christianity in general and European Christianity in particular.
“We can’t allow distinctive religious or cultural symbols representing the state!”
“What about that one right there?”
“Well, obviously that one is allowed. It’s a part of who we are!”
Emphasis on “we”
Uniform dress
By that logic, these officers are not able to function in their job. Or maybe it’s just certain types of hats and scarves that are objectionable.