Muslims Welcome St. Paul Police Hijab!

[Vigilante]

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.

I disagree with you assumption, you're simply wrong! Or link me up to a legitimate source to agree with your views.

 

[Coyote]

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.

I disagree with you assumption, you're simply wrong! Or link me up to a legitimate source to agree with your views.

I can't find a single source on the religious views of a piece of land Is the earth Catholic? Buddhist? Morman? How can land have religious freedom when we haven't a clue what religion it is?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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.

Catholic nuns used to wear hijabs....a cross pinned on it would identify the religion....

 

[Vigilante]

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

Nope. Freedom of religion is for people.

I disagree with you assumption, you're simply wrong! Or link me up to a legitimate source to agree with your views.

I can't find a single source on the religious views of a piece of land Is the earth Catholic? Buddhist? Morman? How can land have religious freedom when we haven't a clue what religion it is?

How many court cases have been held regarding religious ornaments on public land?...And there outcome?

 

[Coyote]

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.

Catholic nuns used to wear hijabs....a cross pinned on it would identify the religion....

Catholic nuns wear wimples...but I don't think Catholic nuns become police officers.

 

[Coyote]

I disagree with you assumption, you're simply wrong! Or link me up to a legitimate source to agree with your views.

I can't find a single source on the religious views of a piece of land Is the earth Catholic? Buddhist? Morman? How can land have religious freedom when we haven't a clue what religion it is?

How many court cases have been held regarding religious ornaments on public land?...And there outcome?

Those court cases have nothing to do with the land's "religious freedom" - they are about the use of public land for religious expression. The religious freedom belongs to the people.

 

[Vigilante]

I can't find a single source on the religious views of a piece of land Is the earth Catholic? Buddhist? Morman? How can land have religious freedom when we haven't a clue what religion it is?

How many court cases have been held regarding religious ornaments on public land?...And there outcome?

Those court cases have nothing to do with the land's "religious freedom" - they are about the use of public land for religious expression. The religious freedom belongs to the people.

ENSURING THE FULL FREEDOM OF RELIGION ON PUBLIC LANDS ... OR...

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/displaying-religion-on-public-property.html

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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.



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

Catholic nuns used to wear hijabs....a cross pinned on it would identify the religion....

Catholic nuns wear wimples...but I don't think Catholic nuns become police officers.

they're called wimples....? OK then...

Catholic nuns taught school wearing wimples.....if Muslims teach in a public school they will be wearing headgear pretty much like the nuns....isn't this just a little too 'religious'...?

 

[Coyote]

How many court cases have been held regarding religious ornaments on public land?...And there outcome?

Those court cases have nothing to do with the land's "religious freedom" - they are about the use of public land for religious expression. The religious freedom belongs to the people.

ENSURING THE FULL FREEDOM OF RELIGION ON PUBLIC LANDS ...

Interesting - that's the first I've seen of that

That's not exactly giving the land "freedom of religion" but making a distinction for sacred sites that exist on public lands in the same way a church is regarded as sacred. That's not really comparable to non-sacred public spaces or to the rights of individuals to wear garb required by their religion.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

Catholic nuns used to wear hijabs....a cross pinned on it would identify the religion....

The actual headdress that nuns wear is called a veil or a coif, although other christian religions have different habits...

The word hijab is an Arabic word meaning barrier or veil

 

[Coyote]

Catholic nuns used to wear hijabs....a cross pinned on it would identify the religion....

Catholic nuns wear wimples...but I don't think Catholic nuns become police officers.

they're called wimples....? OK then...

Catholic nuns taught school wearing wimples.....if Muslims teach in a public school they will be wearing headgear pretty much like the nuns....isn't this just a little too 'religious'...?

No. It's no more religious than a male teacher wearing a yarmulka or a Christian teacher wearing a necklace with a cross.

 

[Vigilante]

Those court cases have nothing to do with the land's "religious freedom" - they are about the use of public land for religious expression. The religious freedom belongs to the people.

ENSURING THE FULL FREEDOM OF RELIGION ON PUBLIC LANDS ...

Interesting - that's the first I've seen of that

That's not exactly giving the land "freedom of religion" but making a distinction for sacred sites that exist on public lands in the same way a church is regarded as sacred. That's not really comparable to non-sacred public spaces or to the rights of individuals to wear garb required by their religion.

Why don't you just agree that wearing anything to do with any religion should NOT be allowed as it can be construed as promoting that religion by a government official!

 

[Mojo2]

Ladies and Gents,

The issue is NOT about the manner of dress.

The issue is about the effect of increasing visibility and the increasing numbers of Muslims who are introduced to America and what thet will lead to.

Everything else is irrelevant to the most important point.

Only religionists can stop Islam.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Catholic nuns wear wimples...but I don't think Catholic nuns become police officers.

they're called wimples....? OK then...

Catholic nuns taught school wearing wimples.....if Muslims teach in a public school they will be wearing headgear pretty much like the nuns....isn't this just a little too 'religious'...?

No. It's no more religious than a male teacher wearing a yarmulka or a Christian teacher wearing a necklace with a cross.

well then they should also permit Catholic wimples....or bigger crosses....

 

[Coyote]

ENSURING THE FULL FREEDOM OF RELIGION ON PUBLIC LANDS ...

Interesting - that's the first I've seen of that

That's not exactly giving the land "freedom of religion" but making a distinction for sacred sites that exist on public lands in the same way a church is regarded as sacred. That's not really comparable to non-sacred public spaces or to the rights of individuals to wear garb required by their religion.

Why don't you just agree that wearing anything to do with any religion should NOT be allowed as it can be construed as promoting that religion by a government official!

Because it's a fine line between promoting a religion and allowing religious freedom and it's easy to go to far and infringe on the rights of religious people.

If a person's religion requires certain garb, and it's reasonable to accommodate that religious requirement - why not? What's so horrible about that?

Wearing a necklace with a cross is not promoting a religion.
Using your authority as a public official to impose your beliefs on others is.

There is a big difference.

 

[Coyote]

they're called wimples....? OK then...

Catholic nuns taught school wearing wimples.....if Muslims teach in a public school they will be wearing headgear pretty much like the nuns....isn't this just a little too 'religious'...?

No. It's no more religious than a male teacher wearing a yarmulka or a Christian teacher wearing a necklace with a cross.

well then they should also permit Catholic wimples....or bigger crosses....

That's silly.

Catholic's don't wear wimples.

Nuns do.

 

[Coyote]

Ladies and Gents,

The issue is NOT about the manner of dress.

The issue is about the effect of increasing visibility and the increasing numbers of Muslims who are introduced to America and what thet will lead to.

Everything else is irrelevant to the most important point.

Only religionists can stop Islam.

Don't be ridiculous.

This is the U.S.

It's about freedom of religion. All of them.

 

[Vigilante]

Interesting - that's the first I've seen of that

That's not exactly giving the land "freedom of religion" but making a distinction for sacred sites that exist on public lands in the same way a church is regarded as sacred. That's not really comparable to non-sacred public spaces or to the rights of individuals to wear garb required by their religion.

Why don't you just agree that wearing anything to do with any religion should NOT be allowed as it can be construed as promoting that religion by a government official!

Because it's a fine line between promoting a religion and allowing religious freedom and it's easy to go to far and infringe on the rights of religious people.

If a person's religion requires certain garb, and it's reasonable to accommodate that religious requirement - why not? What's so horrible about that?

Wearing a necklace with a cross is not promoting a religion.
Using your authority as a public official to impose your beliefs on others is.

There is a big difference.

Of course it is.

The mere FACT that her religion is WORN ON HER SLEEVE as one would say, is enough to promote it!...just ask an extremist atheist!

She is also representing the government, not a private organization like a RENT A COP!

 

[Coyote]

Why don't you just agree that wearing anything to do with any religion should NOT be allowed as it can be construed as promoting that religion by a government official!

Because it's a fine line between promoting a religion and allowing religious freedom and it's easy to go to far and infringe on the rights of religious people.

If a person's religion requires certain garb, and it's reasonable to accommodate that religious requirement - why not? What's so horrible about that?

Wearing a necklace with a cross is not promoting a religion.
Using your authority as a public official to impose your beliefs on others is.

There is a big difference.

Of course it is.

The mere FACT that her religion is WORN ON HER SLEEVE as one would say, is enough to promote it!...just ask an extremist atheist!

She is also representing the government, not a private organization like a RENT A COP!

I don't hold with "extremist athiests" opinions

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No. It's no more religious than a male teacher wearing a yarmulka or a Christian teacher wearing a necklace with a cross.

well then they should also permit Catholic wimples....or bigger crosses....

That's silly.

Catholic's don't wear wimples.

Nuns do.

well the issue here is visibility.....

if the muslims can flaunt a big flapping hijab.....then Christians should have an equally impressive cross......not just a half-hidden 'discrete' cross....