this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
163 points (92.7% liked)

World News

38188 readers
1978 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Why didn't you address their point? The flag has a cross on it

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's a part of our history, imagine that. Islam isn't

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I see.

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

"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!"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 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.