The Pied Piper
“Should Muslim policemen be permitted to grow beards?”
I am very sorry! You have right but not ONLY for Muslim policemen, for all policemen! I thought that the question was for the special Muslim Police for the protection of Muslim ethos. I am against the religious police and I do not care for the beards if they allowed to all policemen. Sorry friend MY MISTAKE!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Steven,
Like most here, no to the questions you asked Foxy. In relation to the question about beards and muslim policemen. If the standard dress code of any service permits beards (subject to length, triming, neatness, etc.) Yes, but No if against dress code.

You did not ask about turbans, to which i also say no

Your other question is far more difficult.

Steven and others
As always I find 'absolutist' Q&A tend disregard issues of equity and objectivity resulting in predictably unsatisfactory results.

IMHO The common “no” to female Muslim swimming pools sessions. Consider what if the majority or near majority of population in the area serviced by the pool were Muslims. Given they pay their taxes, vote and that a pool is a discretionary activity what's wrong with suiting their needs too.

Given in an area of 230000 residents the council just GAVE $180k and public land to a commercial footy club (the club has 3000 registered members and players...each match draws less than 400 supporters) why then should the majority of non footy interested fund this activity to satisfy what is a cultural(?) expression?

Clearly if the Muslims are a small minority their claims on pool sessions would be reduced.

As for police personnel dress and culture etc. the police are secular (non biased)critical non discretionary govt. supplied service. therefore the answer is clearly NO. Not only because of dress code/safety issues but also for safety, neutrality issues and it's the job period.

Doctors and nurses in Public hospitals the above issues apply. Additionally staff/resources are limited and essential services can't reasonably tolerate Religious cultural preferences of staff. Private hospitals are subject to their own decisions in un-govt funded areas.

The “Jewish” so called 'Holocaust' deniers should be permitted to speak providing what they are advocating doesn't demonstrably interfere with someone else's rights or community harmony....i.e. Polycarp type abuse and rabble rousing.
The flip side is that the Jewish spokespersons should also be limited in the level of misinformation, abuse they proffer to justify 'Israel's' local issues.

Finally, ALL religious preferences should be EQUALLY acceptable providing they are with in state and federal law.
Clearly female circumcision is not acceptable for children or decided by parents.

State school Curriculums should be non religious but informative. Private school are the same as hospitals.

What is wrong with some people who cannot see where we have gone wrong. We have simply replaced one State Religion with another, and the one we have replaced it with is in a staggering mess. It used to be Christianity and we have a Constitution that captures that Religion, as our birthright. Somehow we have allowed people to replace Christianity with some sort of a State Religion with no other basis than it is invented by lawyers.

We used to have a Christian based legal system, that delivered prosperity and certainty to all comers, that had about seven hundred years of precedents to which a person could be referred, and in 1970, we were conned by the Liberal Party into letting lawyers write a New Testament and call it Rules of Court. These Rules repudiate every basic rule of Christianity. There are now a set for every State and the Commonwealth has four sets, one each for the Family Court, one set for the Federal Court, one set for the Federal Magistrates Court and another set for the High Court.

When the system was Christian based, there was a presumption that people would tell the truth. Most people faced with a Justice and jury are reluctant to lie on oath. No such inhibition exists when evidence is given by affidavit. In fact when affidavits are used the presumption is that the evidence is manufactured. Is it better to have multiculturalism and no functioning legal system, or a functional legal system, that expects people to keep their word and act ethically.

The total breakdown of corporate morality, has gone hand in hand with the destruction of the legal system. The lack of enforceability of Commonwealth Law, and even the utter and total contempt with which the High Court rulings are treated by all lawyers, is a direct result of all the Rules of Court.

At one time the Holy Bible was the basis of all Rules of Court, and any Rule or law inconsistent with its provisions was challenged and removed. This was good government, something sadly lacking today

I take the view that intepretation of religious teachings should not be considered by the law as more important than other values systems someone might hold. The answer to each of the the questions then falls back to the requirements placed on everybody in those positions.

There may be a case for ensuring that the requirements in publiclly funded positions are not artificial (will a policeman having a beard intefere with them doing their job, if not then there is no place for rule about beard's.

In the case of a willingness to perform abortions (or other procedures which might go against individal values systems) the issue should be addressed at the start of an employment contract. If the employer is willing to employ someone who won't do certain procedures then that's their choice. The downside to that is an unfair proportion of less palatible procedures may fall on others. Some might be willing to perform the procedure but not so keen to find they are doing all of them and few of other procedures which they may prefer.

R0bert

“I am very sorry! You have right but not ONLY for Muslim policemen, for all policemen! I thought that the question was for the special Muslim Police for the protection of Muslim ethos. I am against the religious police and I do not care for the beards if they allowed to all policemen. Sorry friend MY MISTAKE!”

You’re alright my friend, my thinking was a beard wasn’t a big deal – I was probably thinking “off topic” and instead of approaching it on religious grounds - I was just thinking about it from a human point of view about choices people should be allowed to make.

Same with nurses, if I think without bringing in the question of religion then I believe that if they don’t like taking babies out of women then no one should make them.

My brain doesn’t work this way, I don’t think I can understand this topic from a political point of view or what is wrong with letting adults make a decision to grow a beard or not let their children go to a class about evolution.

I cannot see why someone refusing a handshake should even need to be explained, they should not have to state a religious reason or any other for this choice should they?

This is one of those topics where I really feel I am missing some basic concept about the debate… Ignorance is certainly not blissful to me.