NYPD right to allow religious attire

The New York Police Department wasted a lot of time and taxpayer money with an absurd defense of its policy barring two Sikhs from wearing turbans while working as traffic agents. So reinstating the two men last week was a welcome if belated recognition of the obvious - that the NYPD dress code is no match for First Amendment rights.

Described by a Sikh adherent as "our first big civil rights victory in this country," the achievement didn't come easy. Police claimed for two years-plus that turbans and beards, both tenets of the Sikh religion, violated the dress policy. The more salient point was that constitutionally protected religious expression wouldn't compromise public safety in this case.

So rather than simply altering the policy in deference to the law, not to mention common sense, officials waited for one of the men, Amric Singh Rathour, to drag them into federal court on discrimination charges. Meanwhile, Jasjit Singh Jaggi's case made its way to the city's Commission on Human Rights, which recently ordered the NYPD to reinstate him. Mercifully, police officials decided not to appeal.

Do we want this type as police?

by 1973, Delhi and north India were rocked by demonstrations angry at high inflation, the poor state of the economy, rampant corruption, and the poor standards of living. In June 1975, the High Court of Allahabad found her guilty of using illegal practices during the last election campaign, and ordered her to vacate her seat. There were demands for her resignation.
Mrs. Gandhi's response was to declare a state of emergency, under which her political foes were imprisoned, constitutional rights abrogated, and the press placed under strict censorship. Meanwhile, the eldest of her two sons, Sanjay Gandhi, started to run the country as though it were his personal fiefdom, and earned the fierce hatred of many whom his policies had victimized. He ordered the removal of slum dwellings, and in an attempt to curb India's growing population, initiated a highly resented program of forced sterilization. In early 1977, confident that she had debilitated her opposition, Mrs. Gandhi called for fresh elections, and found herself trounced by a newly formed coalition of several political parties. Her Congress party lost badly at the polls. Many declared that she was a spent force; but, three years later, she was to return as Prime Minister of India. The same year, however, her son Sanjay was killed in an airplane crash.
In the second, post-Emergency, period of her Prime Ministership, Indira Gandhi was preoccupied by efforts to resolve the political problems in the state of Punjab. In her attempt to crush the secessionist movement of Sikh militants, led by Jarnail Singh Bindranwale, she ordered an assault upon the holiest Sikh shrine in Amritsar, called the "Golden Temple". It is here that Bindranwale and his armed supporters had holed up, and it is from the Golden Temple that they waged their campaign of terrorism not merely against the Government, but against moderate Sikhs and Hindus. "Operation Bluestar", waged in June 1984, led to the death of Bindranwale, and the Golden Temple was stripped clean of Sikh terrorists; however, the Golden Temple was damaged, and Mrs. Gandhi earned the undying hatred of Sikhs who bitterly resented the desacralization of their sacred space. In November of the same year, Mrs. Gandhi was assassinated, at her residence, by two of her own Sikh bodyguards, who claimed to be avenging the insult heaped upon the Sikh nation.
Mrs. Gandhi acquired a formidable international reputation as a "statesman", and there is no doubt that she was extraordinarily skilled in politics. She was prone, like many other politicians, to thrive on slogans, and one -- Garibi Hatao, "Remove Poverty" -- became the rallying cry for one of her election campaigns. She had an authoritarian streak, and though a cultured woman, rarely tolerated dissent; and she did, in many respects, irreparable harm to Indian democracy. Apart from her infamous imposition of the internal emergency, the use of the army to resolve internal disputes greatly increased in her time; and she encouraged a culture of sycophancy and nepotism

The terrorism that occurred in Northern Ireland was committed by members of the Irish ethnic group. My statement stands.

What the heck is the Irish ethnic group? There Celts and Anglo Saxons living in Northern Ireland. Some call themselves Catholics. Some call themselves Protestants. None of them actually pratice religion.

Why? The Irish have committed more than their fair share of terrorism in the last century.

Nope not even in the same galaxy compared to Islamic terrorism. The PC crowd likes to lump the Irish in as if to prove that white people blow up school buses and fly planes into buildings too. They don't.

You're splitting hairs. What ethnic group would the members of the Irish Republican Army say that they belonged to?

Nope not even in the same galaxy compared to Islamic terrorism.

The IRA and its ofshoots have killed 2000 or so people since the late 1960's. Considering the limited geographic area of the N. Ireland conflict, that puts them in the same ballpark as their Islamic buddies (and the IRA has had ties to various Muslim terrorist groups).

The PC crowd likes to lump the Irish in as if to prove that white people blow up school buses and fly planes into buildings too. They don't.

Tell that to the people who died in the OK City bombing. Or the victims of the Red Army Faction, various White Supremacist groups in the US or the FLQ in Quebec.

At the end of the day, the IRA belongs in the same camp as Al-Qaeda.

It seems to me that the problem with "diversity" as it is currently practiced in organizations today is that reasonable solutions are thrown out the window. Would it be reasonable to allow a cross dresser to wear a skirt and makeup while on duty? No. Would it be reasonable for a Jew to refuse duty on the Sabbath? Yes. Would it be reasonable for a Jew to refuse to be on duty on Fridays and Saturdays even in an emergency such as 911? No, and I'm pretty sure Jewish religious rules allow for such contingencies.

Now, is it unreasonable to bar a policeman from wearing a small, unobtrusive cross on his lapel. No. Is it unreasonable to allow Sikhs to wear their turbans while on duty, as they have in English service for hundreds of years? No.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.