• 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
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Emphasis on “we”

                  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.

    • 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.