Muslims Welcome St. Paul Police Hijab!

[Coyote]

And you know that to be true?...How?

History.

No, you have no idea what would have happened, simply because it never happened!.... Lots of history out there, some repeats, others don't!

There is a considerable body of history regarding the Spanish conquests of the New World.

None of which though, has to do with the wearing of religious symbols in modern police forces

 

[Steinlight]

so say liberals that faint at the sight of a cross.....

the hypocrisy abounds......libs are hypocritical dhimmis...

LOL, the funniness abounds as patriotards and conservacunts try to outdyke professional lefty feminists.

Word of advice, short of a sex change operation, you can't.

so you admit they are 'professionals'.......

Professional faggots and losers for the most part. You trying to one up them or something?

 

[Vigilante]

History.

No, you have no idea what would have happened, simply because it never happened!.... Lots of history out there, some repeats, others don't!

There is a considerable body of history regarding the Spanish conquests of the New World.

None of which though, has to do with the wearing of religious symbols in modern police forces

Then why did you bring it up?

 

[Coyote]

But it does require people to WEAR their religion? That's news to me

Require? No.

Allow? Yes.

It's known as "reasonable accommodation".

I thought separation of church and state, meant just that! This is a prime example of that conflict!

Wearing religious symbols is not imposing religion.

 

[Coyote]

No, you have no idea what would have happened, simply because it never happened!.... Lots of history out there, some repeats, others don't!

There is a considerable body of history regarding the Spanish conquests of the New World.

None of which though, has to do with the wearing of religious symbols in modern police forces

Then why did you bring it up?

I didn't. You did.

 

[Vigilante]

Require? No.

Allow? Yes.

It's known as "reasonable accommodation".

I thought separation of church and state, meant just that! This is a prime example of that conflict!

Wearing religious symbols is not imposing religion.

But a MEMORIAL CROSS ON PUBLIC LAND IS...seems that's government property, just as the police are government agents!

 

[Vigilante]

There is a considerable body of history regarding the Spanish conquests of the New World.

None of which though, has to do with the wearing of religious symbols in modern police forces

Then why did you bring it up?

I didn't. You did.

Please show me where I mentioned Conquistadors BEFORE YOU brought it up!

 

[Mojo2]

Perhaps the next step, is to allow turbans, and "yamaka's" so one can denote their religious preference while doing police work? Where is the atheists, and the unforgiving left on a separation of religion and government?

More... Muslims Welcome St. Paul Police Hijab - Americas - News - OnIslam.net

Their visual identifiers are a tool for acclimating the infidels to the presence of Muslims in the society. It will encourage others to do the same. It will encourage more Muslims to come here and do the same.

This is a harbinger of what is to come.

Montezuma thought the Conquistadors were Gods or representatives of the Gods because they had no other frame of reference to use in assessing these Spanish explorers and soldiers.

But if they knew the Conquistadors would wipe out their entire civilization they would have been wise to stop them cold on sight before they had a chance to accomplish their mission.

The Conquistadors were Christians....

So what?

Certainly you see the parallel.

Don't you?

EDIT: Oh, I just got it.

You are laboring under the false assumption that my opposition to islam is because of the Islam.

When in reality my opposition stems from the threat it poses to our society and way of life and freedoms.

Any religion or group which posed an existential threat to our civilization would and should be opposed.

Montezuma didn't realize he was facing an existential threat to his civilization.

We, largely, don't realize Islam is an existential threat to our civilization.

There.

Does that mess up your Islamophobia schpiel?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

LOL, the funniness abounds as patriotards and conservacunts try to outdyke professional lefty feminists.

Word of advice, short of a sex change operation, you can't.

so you admit they are 'professionals'.......

Professional faggots and losers for the most part. You trying to one up them or something?

i can't wait to hear what the lefty feminists have to say when one of these becomes a teacher in their child's classroom.....

 

[Missouri_Mike]

So the police allow these hijab's to be worn by female officers, who get special treatment in order to join the police force through affirmative action. So the end result is what? The Muslim men who commit crimes against their subservient women will request a hijab wearing woman be the arresting and investigating officer because...religious freedom, and then intimidate her until the entire investigation get's spun into a muslim bullshit spin of she had no rights to begin with.

Nah, this doesn't seem like circling the toilet at all.

 

[Vigilante]

The "next step"?

I don't know about anywhere else, but Jewish NYPD officers have been allowed to wear a yarmulke as part of their uniform for years now.

BTW, still waiting for that UNFINDABLE LINK!

 

[Coyote]

I thought separation of church and state, meant just that! This is a prime example of that conflict!

Wearing religious symbols is not imposing religion.

But a MEMORIAL CROSS ON PUBLIC LAND IS...seems that's government property, just as the police are government agents!

A memorial cross on public land is a different issue. Land has no "freedom of religion" rights.

People do. That's where "reasonable accommodation" comes in. Reasonable equals an hijab, for instance - but not a burkha. Reasonable equals a kippa, but not a shtreimel. Reasonable equals a discrete cross on a necklace but not emblazoned on a jacket.

 

[Moonglow]

But it does require people to WEAR their religion? That's news to me

Require? No.

Allow? Yes.

It's known as "reasonable accommodation".

I thought separation of church and state, meant just that! This is a prime example of that conflict!

the police are not the govt.

 

[Steinlight]

so you admit they are 'professionals'.......

Professional faggots and losers for the most part. You trying to one up them or something?

i can't wait to hear what the lefty feminists have to say when one of these becomes a teacher in their child's classroom.....

I call the hijab an improvement, the more we can hide ugly feminist women from the light of day, the better.

 

[Steinlight]

Require? No.

Allow? Yes.

It's known as "reasonable accommodation".

I thought separation of church and state, meant just that! This is a prime example of that conflict!

the police are not the govt.

Why you trollin?

 

[Vigilante]

Wearing religious symbols is not imposing religion.

But a MEMORIAL CROSS ON PUBLIC LAND IS...seems that's government property, just as the police are government agents!

A memorial cross on public land is a different issue. Land has no "freedom of religion" rights.

People do. That's where "reasonable accommodation" comes in. Reasonable equals an hijab, for instance - but not a burkha. Reasonable equals a kippa, but not a shtreimel. Reasonable equals a discrete cross on a necklace but not emblazoned on a jacket.

Then there is a "reasonable accommodation" for a religious organization to hold off on birth control under repressive Obumacare!

And Public land, owned by the government does have freedom of religion protection.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Professional faggots and losers for the most part. You trying to one up them or something?

i can't wait to hear what the lefty feminists have to say when one of these becomes a teacher in their child's classroom.....

I call the hijab an improvement, the more we can hide ugly feminist women from the light of day, the better.

they've got a new improved Fluke model.....she might take offense....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Wearing religious symbols is not imposing religion.

But a MEMORIAL CROSS ON PUBLIC LAND IS...seems that's government property, just as the police are government agents!

A memorial cross on public land is a different issue. Land has no "freedom of religion" rights.

People do. That's where "reasonable accommodation" comes in. Reasonable equals an hijab, for instance - but not a burkha. Reasonable equals a kippa, but not a shtreimel. Reasonable equals a discrete cross on a necklace but not emblazoned on a jacket.

a 'discrete cross'......? compared to an in-your-face hijab.....? that's not exactly 'equal'....

how about a cross pinned on a hijab....?

 

[Coyote]

But a MEMORIAL CROSS ON PUBLIC LAND IS...seems that's government property, just as the police are government agents!

A memorial cross on public land is a different issue. Land has no "freedom of religion" rights.

People do. That's where "reasonable accommodation" comes in. Reasonable equals an hijab, for instance - but not a burkha. Reasonable equals a kippa, but not a shtreimel. Reasonable equals a discrete cross on a necklace but not emblazoned on a jacket.

Then there is a "reasonable accommodation" for a religious organization to hold off on birth control under repressive Obumacare!

Different topic, different issues than a single person wearing a religious item.

And Public land, owned by the government does have freedom of religion protection.

Nope. Freedom of religion is for people.

 

[Coyote]

But a MEMORIAL CROSS ON PUBLIC LAND IS...seems that's government property, just as the police are government agents!

A memorial cross on public land is a different issue. Land has no "freedom of religion" rights.

People do. That's where "reasonable accommodation" comes in. Reasonable equals an hijab, for instance - but not a burkha. Reasonable equals a kippa, but not a shtreimel. Reasonable equals a discrete cross on a necklace but not emblazoned on a jacket.

a 'discrete cross'......? compared to an in-your-face hijab.....? that's not exactly 'equal'....

The hajib in question is discrete, non-flamboyant. Not like a burkha.

A "discrete cross" in relation to having a cross emblazoned across the back of your jacket.

The comparisons stand - accommodation for religion is unique to the requirements of each religion.

how about a cross pinned on a hijab....?

hmmm.....methinks the wearer is confused.