• BaardFigur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Allowing religious symbols on police uniforms opens up the gate for people wanting to wear hijabs with their police uniforms. Not a good idea. Being strict about all relgious symbols is a good idea. But I can agree on the Punisher symbol being extremely cringe, especially on a police uniform.

    • pewter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      10 months ago

      Allowing religious symbols on police uniforms opens up the gate for people wanting to wear hijabs with their police uniforms.

      Sikh cops are allowed to wear turbans and it doesn’t harm anyone when they do.

        • pewter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          Canada has at least one. America has them. Being able to see someone’s hair doesn’t really seem like a requirement for police officers. Back in the day, police officers all wore hats in the US anyways.

    • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • BaardFigur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        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

        • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • BaardFigur@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            That position requires a willful ignorance of the difference between a religious symbol and a religious practice.

            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.

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  I see.

                  Well thanks for confirming some things I have always suspected about Christianity in general and European Christianity in particular.

                  • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    “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!”

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.