[Jonty30]

The article says he was open about his Jewishness, so I presume it means he was wearing the yarmaluk.

[jjotto]

The article says he was wearing a skullcap, but was not wearing any other distinctively Jewish garb. He was clean-shaven. A Modern Orthodox-type yarmulke would seem barely noticeable.

[Political Junkie Too]

I know the article said it, but you said it too, without quotation. I took that (perhaps incorrectly) to mean that you were sympathizing with the sentiment.

Most religious Jews are open about their Jewishness faith and wear religious garb in devotion to it. Are Catholics who wear a cross said to be "openly Christian" just because they wore a religious symbol unique to them?

I reject the notion of replacing one's expression of faith as being "Jewishness" or "Christianness" or "Musllimness" or whatever. The police officer and/or the writer of the article were being lazy in their description of the individual. Devotion to a creed or faith is just that; both of them could just as easily said the man was "openly devout" instead of calling him "openly Jewish."

"Openly Jewish" implies that it is something best kept in private.

-PJ