Back in March, Litzman’s instructors recommended he be canned after he was disciplined repeatedly for failing “to maintain personal appearance,” sources said.

"Repeatedly" is the key word ............

I've seen the photo of this guy over at the Daily News.

If his beard is 18 years worth of growth, then he must have some type of follicular hair growth disorder.

Here's a link to his photo:

Your ignorance notwithstanding, a beard on the face of an NYPD officer is a hazard in many ways. It renders a respirator ineffective. It renders a "SCOTT" pack ineffective. It gives a criminal something to grab in a struggle.

From the SCOTT AIR PAK Safety warning .pdf:

WARNING

RESPIRATORS SHALL NOT BE WORN WHEN CONDITIONS PREVENT A GOOD FACE TO FACEPIECE SEAL OR A GOOD SEAL AROUND

THE NOSE CUP. SUCH CONDITIONS MAY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, GROWTH OF BEARDS, SIDEBURNS, A SKULL CAP THAT PROJECTS UNDER THE FACEPIECE, OR TEMPLE PIECES ON GLASSES. ALSO, THE ABSENCE OF ONE OR BOTH DENTURES CAN SERIOUSLY EFFECT THE FIT OF THE FACEPIECE. USE OF THE RESPIRATOR WITHOUT A GOOD FACE TO FACEPIECE SEAL OR A GOOD SEAL AROUND THE NOSE CUP SEAL MAY REDUCE THE DURATION OF USE AND/OR EXPOSE THE USER TO THE ATMOSPHERE THE RESPIRATOR IS INTENDED TO PROTECT AGAINST RESULTING IN SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH.

The real problem here is this:

(Quote) "The Daily News reported that the NYPD hired its first Hasidic police officer in 2006. Today there are at least two dozen Orthodox-Jewish police officers working for the NYPD, the Daily News said".

It is standards preserved. While they may have rules and regulations, they were ignored as far back as 2006 when they hired their first Hasidic police officer. Just like any other place of employment, they pick and chose which policy and procedure they will follow, and when. It is either a Policy, or it is not.

IMO, the police department is in the wrong.

Hope, the ones on the force won a lawsuit to get their jobs.

I believe in religious freedom for ALL PEOPLE, but, a person that truly believes "his God" doesn't allow him to trim his beard in order to serve the public, shouldn't be in a position of power. In his eyes, people that have shaved, have insulted "his God". If he doesn't feel they are wrong for shaving their beards, then why is he? This man will use that extreme religious belief against the public and that's just wrong. Period.

@fritter: No, he will not. Orthodox Jews live by certain beliefs, but they do not expect others, especially Gentiles, to adhere to those beliefs.

What length do they set for women's hair (not facial hair). I bet it's longer than 1 millimeter below the shoulder and I'd bet that they don't need a religious reason for it. When a work policy is blatantly discriminatory; you don't have to follow it. In fact you shouldn't since you can't challenge something until it is enforced. It's called cause of action. Unless they have a good reason why people can have long hair in the back but not the front, I think the guy has a good case.

It is standards preserved. While they may have rules and regulations, they were ignored as far back as 2006 when they hired their first Hasidic police officer.

Renee -- not necessarily. The Hasidics probably came to a religious accommodation and shaved. It is possible under the secular law exception noted earlier.

Sorry, while I believe in religious freedom he entered a profession knowing the regulations. By doing that he agreed to follow the regulations set for all members of the profession. There are safety reasons why a beard needs to be kept short. What happens if they make an exception and he is injured because of the beard regardless of it being equipment not functioning correctly or the beard being used as a weapon against him then there's a law suit that he didn't have proper protection. It's the same rules for everyone and anyone who doesn't abide by the rules should be removed.

Unfortunately, organizations, especially public employers, often make decisions out of fear of lawsuits. There has to be some sort of compromise that could be worked out. I just hope this guy doesn't wind up suing for millions.

partly cloudy...Women and men have the same rules in the NYPD, if your hair is longer than your collar, it must either be cut, or be able to be worn up under the cap if worn, and if not must be in a tight bun flat against the head. There is no discrimination between men and women about hair.

"there are at least two dozen Orthodox-Jewish police officers working for the NYPD"

Its simple pal..the others had to shave/trim the beard who have same religion..so do you then..or take a hike!

Good thing you didn't try out for the NY Yankee's..all have to be clean shaven!

Did this guy not know that a beard was not allowed? Or, was his intention to "push the envelope" so he could sue later? Who takes a job knowing that there are certain safety restrictions and then tries to overturn them so he can play Mr. Privilege?

ewent

You can bet he won't sue

"dina d'malchuta dina"

I'll bet he does sue. Egged on by a voracious legal beagle who smells free taxpayer moolah? Puhlease. People today are all too hot to sue. It's gone viral on steroids. Don't get your way? Sue. Need a few extra million? Sue. And we wonder why this country is headed down the toilet?

Prediction: He'll get his legal beagle to come up with some "wrongful firing" legal premise and then use his religion to bolster his case.

My name is Mitt and my religion requires that I wear special underwear that has been blessed so no evil can get to my private parts and and we believe that only those who wear the special underwear can get into mormon heaven, can I get a job as president of the United States?

Unfortunately, for the human race, most humans are more interested in following ways of thinking that require them to think little if at all; ways of thinking that they had no actual hand in personally conceiving, testing and/or validating and, perhaps most telling of all, espoused by people who may or may not have even have existed found in "sacred books" with origins found in the misty fog of long ago and far away times. (Conveniently impossible to ever validate.)

The Jewish religion; like the Catholic religion; like the Islamic religion etc., etc., etc. require that their followers set aside their reasoning faculties and blindly embrace belief systems that are more about maintaining power over of the minds and hearts of their groups members than about leading them closer to attunement and oneness with God.

Thus, you get someone like this fellow and who was wisely fired by the NYPD trying to pull off the kind of trick he was hoping he could get away with. He HAD to know, before he even started at the police academy, that he would not be allowed to get away with realizing his secret agenda, but probably thought that in a politically correct city like New York, if he just got his foot in the door he could get enough people outraged in his favor to rally and enable him to get away with it.

Nice to see that the NYPD has some guts left in its leadership; leaders who still realize that one of the most important pillars and strengths of this country - despite the fact sometimes it hasn't always been practiced - isseparation of church and state and that no one individual has the right to fly in the face of commonsense and the law and use the because "...God made me do it and says its ok." ploy.

Chock one up for the "commonsense in the face of religious zealotry crowd".

I would have to agree with some of the posts on here. He entered into this field knowing (and signing) the requirements to having the job, that he doesn't like it now is just too bad. After repeated attempts and warnings that he needed to cut it for safety reasons he chose to ignore it and now raise a stink over it when they put their foot down and didn't let him squeak by. I'm all for freedom of expression and freedom of religion however that doesn't mean that jobs and companies that have specific guidelines for personal grooming need to adhere to it, especially when it pertains to the persons safety. Now a days people are just so happy to sue for every inconvenience out there instead of putting on their big person pants and dealing with it.

AZ, so I am confused. Do they also fire people with glasses or dentures?

He was told the rules when he signed up. This should not even come to court. But some bleeding ambulance chasing lawyer will take the case and make a fortune from it.

I'm tired of those with religious beliefs taking jobs that go against their religion and then suing when they expected to apply with the rules like everyone else. I have always said religions are pulling our country apart instead of uniting it. One more time someone trying to make money from the system. There should be no exceptions when applying for a job, even on religious grounds, not to mention the safety aspects as a police officer.

When are these religious zealots going to realize that once and for all, nobody is obliged to "accommodate" their practices? They have the civil freedom of believing what they want, doing what they want and looking the way they want in order to appease their self-made god, but only on their own dime, not anyone else's.

Well, true to MSNBC, we dont get the full story or facts.

1. The other Hassidim on the force - what is THEIR beard lengths ? If theirs are all over the 1mm length, then, NYPD has not followed its own rules. If they ARE 1mm or less, than this guy has no leg to stand on.

2. If full disclosure was made on BOTH sides, when he first entered the academy, WHO breached ? WAS the 1mm rule explained ? DID he agree ? again, if the rule was not explained, this guy has a leg to stand on; if it WAS explained (and subject to number 1 above), he has no leg to stand on.

Until this is made clear, no one, including "wanker" (2.23 above) has any facts to claim that this guy joined first, and then sought to either change the rule,or get an exemption from it.

And..Jerry ? (2.24)..guess what ?

"When are these religious zealots going to realize that once and for all, nobody is obliged to "accommodate" their practices?"

You probably are unaware, but Federal law...OUR Federal Law, requires "reasonable accommodations" in the workforce to "Accommodate" others' religious practices.

Your post shows a hatred for "religion" in general, which usually means hatred of the practices, and then, hatred of their "different" looks. For guys like you who NEED something to hate, if it wasnt religion, it would be where they came from, or...well, anything.

You are an ignorant hater - nothing more. You dont even try to disguise it.

So if a Amish guy applied for the job would they have to supply him with a horse and buggy? I guess he could be on foot patrol or in the mounted squad but then there is that whole violence thing and no electronics. The Israeli military has issued new regulations that impose greater restrictions on the ability of soldiers to grow beards. Religious soldiers are still allowed to have facial hair, but now they must get authorization from their units’ rabbis and commanders — a policy that has come in for some criticism. Recently, an Orthodox army rabbi refused to allow Conservative Jewish soldiers to claim a religious exemption from the beard ban. I have always been confused by a god that takes attendance and devotes so much time to grooming while so many people live in such suffering.

The reason this is so F'd up'd is that this guy will file a lawsuit, and if he wins, he gets a bunch of money, and all of the requirments for recruits, or any other city employee are meaningless. We will have DMV workers who wear Islamic burkas(however its spelled). I say we need these rules. We need a public workforce that looks and acts professional. But thats just me.

Jeff-573598

And..Jerry ? (2.24)..guess what ?

"When are these religious zealots going to realize that once and for all, nobody is obliged to "accommodate" their practices?"

You probably are unaware, but Federal law...OUR Federal Law, requires "reasonable accommodations" in the workforce to "Accommodate" others' religious practices.

Your post shows a hatred for "religion" in general, which usually means hatred of the practices, and then, hatred of their "different" looks. For guys like you who NEED something to hate, if it wasnt religion, it would be where they came from, or...well, anything.

You are an ignorant hater - nothing more. You dont even try to disguise it.

The key word is "reasonable" (although I think even that's too much - you wanna appease a goblin? - then you do it all on your own time). The NYPD was more than reasonable. It forbids beards of any kind (other than for those doing undercover where it's part of a disguise) for safety reasons, but was willing to make an exception for religionists, including hasidicists, who think face hair somehow keeps their god up and running and not getting mad, by compromising on its requirement by permitting a one-millemeter growth. But for the fanatical hasidicist, that wasn't enough. He wants to keep his long, scruffy growth because his god will get mad otherwise. He was being unreasonable. He thinks everyone else should bow down to his angry god that can't function unless men look like filthy fur trappers from the eighteenth century. Other hasidicists have abided by the requirement with its "reasonable" exemption (again, there should be no exemption, but there is, so be it), so why won't her? Because he, like so many other religious fanatics, want to keep pushing the envelope to force their religion down everyone's throat. They don't want the state to just "accommodate" them, they want the state to pay for their religious magic rituals and lifestyles and, in the long run, make the rest of us practice the nonsense they do.

Yup, I am a hater of religion. I don't disguise it in the least Religion causes all the hatred and divisiveness that brings suffering to this world. The ones who are ignorant are those that believe they must dress and appear in magical ways to appease some non-existent god. I will support their right to be ignorant, but - like I said - only on their own dime, not mine or anyone else's who do not want to spend it on them. If you do, go ahead. I'll support your right to throw away your money on ignorant hate-filled superstition.

Devil's Son

I have always been confused by a god that takes attendance and devotes so much time to grooming while so many people live in such suffering.

I have always been, too. But what I find more confusing and puzzling, is why would anyone want to follow and appease a god like that? If some god insisted that I would have to grow a scraggly beard, or wear magical underwear, or count beads, or speak gibberish, or handle rattlesnakes in order to spend "eternity" with it in some wonderful theme park, rather than on inisting to get busy and do something and succeed in ending suffering, I'd tell that god to go the coal-shoveling place and then would drop a house on it for good measure. What's wrong with these god-appeasing people? What's so lacking in their life that they can only focus on some goblin that insists on performing magical, voodoo rituals rather than focusing everything on caring for fellow human beings who are quite obviously real?

The other Rick

"partly cloudy...Women and men have the same rules in the NYPD, if your hair is longer than your collar, it must either be cut, or be able to be worn up under the cap if worn, and if not must be in a tight bun flat against the head. There is no discrimination between men and women about hair."

Sure there is it's called disparate impact. Unless there is a legitimate work reason for it it is discriminatory because it impacts men and Hassidic Jews disproportionately. Since women are less likely to have facial hair, the rule disproportionally impacts men. Do women have the same height requirements or strength requirements as men? Why do you think that is? I wonder what would happen if he decided to roll his beard up.

Ewent

It appears that you would be tempted to sue if it were YOU or the folks that voted you up.

Not an orthodox Jew. Especially one that feels extra duty bound to uphold halacha to the max... as there have been rulings that allow the use of an electric beard buzzer.

You obviously didn't feel the need to google: "dina d'malchuta dina".

Tell you what..click my name and send off a note to me...we'll keep track to see what pans out maybe make a bet. Feeling lucky? Put your money where you mouth is. What you you have to lose?

2. If full disclosure was made on BOTH sides, when he first entered the academy, WHO breached ? WAS the 1mm rule explained ? DID he agree ? again, if the rule was not explained, this guy has a leg to stand on; if it WAS explained (and subject to number 1 above), he has no leg to stand on.

Why would this ONE rule have to be explained to him? I'm sure that all recruits have a copy of the NYPD regulations. It was up to him to read it, not the responsibility of the police department to sit him down for a heart-to-heart chat.

So I'm a Christian and join the military and then sue because I'm not supposed to kill people.. Or my employer did not explain to me that I'm not supposed to smoke marijuana even though it is their policy, but since god said he put all seed bearing plants on earth for man to use according to the bible, I should probably sue on those grounds. Oh wait this type of stuff only works for the two victim classes.. I'll let you figure out who those are on your own, otherwise I would be called racist. lol, society.

A Z,

You nailed it.

I'm Jewish, but even if that weren't true, I believe that no personal belief should ever impinge on gainful employment in this country.

Having said that, there are exceptions when it comes to physical impairments and/or qualities that may compromise the ability to perform certain jobs.

For those police uniforms that have neckties, it's mandated (in the vast majority of cases) that the tie be a fast-release clip-on. Anything that gives an attacker something to grab onto is a disadvantage to the officer and a potential threat...to the officer, to the officer's partner(s), and to the public if that officer should become incapacitated.

A beard is essentially a home-grown necktie you wear on your face.

There are rules. Some of them are silly, some are bureaucratic...and some are there for damn good reasons.

This is one of them.

if he had no more than 1 mm growth when he was admitted that would be one thing but, unless he's barely out of puberty, I highly doubt he had only razor stubble that didn't grow the entire time he was at the academy being trained. If he told them he was Chasid and could not trim his beard & had more than razor stubble but was not told he had to trim immediately or be fired up until 1 month before getting his shield, they basically misled him into believing there was an exemption for religious reasons. The guy is 38, I'm pretty sure he had a substantial beard when he was admitted and all through his training period. When there is a legitimate reason not to grant exemptions for religious reasons, the employer makes that clear and doesn't admit the person unless they capitulate and maintain adherence to the rule. The NYPD may well lose this one because they hired him with him being in violation of that rule and did nothing about it until 1 month prior to him completing his training.

They mean 1mm of new growth from when he was hired.

The NYPD may well lose this one because they hired him with him being in violation of that rule and did nothing about it until 1 month prior to him completing his training.

It depends. Have they admitted other people into the academy who were not in compliance with departmental rules, but who were in compliance by the time they took their oath? If so, then admitting this guy would be no different.

Uncle Remus...Of course his lawyer is going to shove the blame. His lawyer stands to make a killing when his client sues which his client probably intended from the get go. First of all, the government whether state, local or federal cannot stop anyone from applying for a job...that's discrimination and a violation of EEO/AAF regulations. But this loony tune knew that. All he's after is a nice fat settlement courtesy of taxpayers.

ewent,

You can bet he won't sue.

"dina d'malchuta dina"

He's a Noo Yawkah...He'll sue. Next to spending and overindulging themselves, Noo Yawkahs are the most litigious people in the country. Without lawyers, Noo Yawkahs wouldn't have all that extra moolah to afford Million Dollar sky high penthouse.

By the way, an ignorant person deliberately speaks a foreign language in an English speaking country when they are attempting to insult the other person's intelligence. Give a rest with your dina d'malchuta dina. Your money is in English isn't it?

ewent~ While I can partially agree that if you are reading an article in English, and partaking in conversation that is 99% English, you should type/speak it as well. Often the person using the foreign language appears more pompous then anything else.

That being said. "dina d'malchuta dina' is simply a phrase meaning "the law of the land is the law" because of this I believe it to be more of a tag when a person responds, much like on other sites where there is a tag that is auto applied. Not necessarily a statement towards the article but a statement in general. Ixor wasn't insulting anyone's intelligence (to my knowledge) but it reeks of ignorance when a person automatically assumes an insult to intelligence was intended without first seeking facts to back that theory up.

Thanks Lyrica,

I was feeling too tired to spell all that stuff out...usually after an article about someone REALLY suing over the right to wear a hijab while working the Este Lauder counter at some Macy's, or waiting tables for a resturant at the House of Mouse. Invariabley someone writes , "well if it were a Jew and a yamulke we'd surely have blah blah blah..."

Not.

I come across foreign phrases every so often, mostly French and Latin idioms. I look them up. It was real tough to decipher them in the pre-internet days. Now its a breeze. There was a day when I too had to "google" "dina d'malchuta dina" & translated it based on my scant knowledge of Hebrew that I thought it was "the law of the kingdom is the law"...only to have a person point out that its Aramaic and not Hebrew. When I'm lucky I learn someting new everyday.

Let me guess, he is related to Bernie Madoff... If you cant steal from gentiles, sue it from them right?

That's not the case anymore, now if you are not suited to do a job, just sue the employer.

Well, the last 9 years the I worked I drove an 18 wheeler over the road for a trucking company. They once hired a guy, whose religion barred him from eating pork. On one run they sent him to a pork packing plant. He called the company repeated his religion says he can't eat pork. They told him,"We are not asking you to eat pork, just take to where it has to go." He quit and tried to sue the company. That didn't fly for him either.

I'm almost certain the in the begining his beard and code requirements were presented to all at the same time. I see no problem for letting him go now before it is to late and he is assigned somewhere, after all he was in school not a full fledged police officer.

A school would naturally not be the same as performance of his duties in the job. The school may have assumed he was willing to shave his beard once he passed the initial preliminaries. And, if he was in a school, not being allowed to have a beard would be one thing he'd have learned. This is nothing more than a guy looking for a nice way to make some moolah by not breaking a sweat.

UptownAndy...You are quite correct. I once worked for a company with a customer service department that was part of the payroll division. Payroll data was taken over the phone. When people with thick, thick foreign accents applied for jobs there, they were not allowed those data jobs because one mistake in understanding a customer service rep meant a client's payroll data was input incorrectly. So these people were given jobs in other departments.

Read the story again, the answers to your questions are there. The NYPD does know about Orthodox Judaism, it does allow beards to be worn by officers for religious purposes, but they have to be kept at a certain length. The man wasn't asked to shave his beard off, he was asked to trim it.

Wrong Nikolaus20. The article only states others have been hired. There is no mention of what was done with their beards. I'm curious about that. Did they shave or were they allowed to keep their beards albeit trimmed? Are they "active" cops or are they desk jockeys?

You are correct!!!

@homesick: agreed but the weird thing is, they mention first Chasid hired in 2006 and then dozens of orthodox. The Chasids are ultra-Orthodox and people in NYC know full well there are substantial difference between the ultra-Orthodox sects and the Orthodox streams of Judaism so it's odd this article has them all lumped together when the beard issue isn't a problem with streams of Judaism except for the ultraOrthodox ones.

@Nikolaus

The NYPD does know about Orthodox Judaism, it does allow beards to be worn by officers for religious purposes

1 mm isn't a trimmed, short beard, it's razor stubble

Kelson21 said: "Wrong Nikolaus20. The article only states others have been hired. There is no mention of what was done with their beards. I'm curious about that. Did they shave or were they allowed to keep their beards albeit trimmed?"

Kelson21, the answer to that is also in the story, which you and another person didn't read all that well. I am not wrong. Clearly, anyone who wears a beard for religious reasons may have a TRIMMED beard as a NYC police officer. The article says:

"NYPD rules usually require officers to be clean-shaven. The department makes exceptions for beards kept for religious purposes, but even then only allows 1 millimeter worth of growth."

Maybe they should let him keep the beard and the first Criminal he goes to arrest can grab him by the beard and swing him around and then he'll know why the police department has this rule. Does he honestly believe that a criminal will not use his beard to their advantage. Wake up and join us in the real world.Join us in the 21 century. Religion has nothing to do with this. It is a safety issue.

Perhaps the statement of 1mm of growth being allowed is a typo, as it makes little sense. If the allowed length is 1 cm, about 1/2 and inch, the beard would not be a safety hazard and would have the appearance of a neatly trimmed full beard.

The guy doesn't want a "trimmed beard". He wants HIS way and is using religion as an excuse to be the privileged guy who doesn't have to comply. Or else, he rethought his intentions to become a fire fighter when he realized it's a dangerous job. Sorry, this guy is looking for a free helping of taxpayer money. You can't use the excuse "I didn't know" for long. Not when you take a job you know has certain requirements for safety.

No where in the article did it say that the police officers that had been hired had shaved or trimmed their beards Nikolaus20. All it stated at the end was "The Daily News reported that the NYPD hired its first Hasidic police officer in 2006. Today there are at least two dozen Orthodox-Jewish police officers working for the NYPD, the Daily News said." This does not mean they have shaved. Just means they've been hired. My questions still stand. Are they on patrol or are they at a desk? Did the shave to the required length or not? Maybe we're both looking at the same article but in different ways.

he knew the rules and yet they accepted him with a full beard and kept him until 1 month prior to getting his shield. That implies that they gave him a religious exemption for the beard.

He's 38, not 18, the beard would have been evident the first time they saw him

He had one month to shave or trim, his choice. Just like he chose to practice the religion he does, chose to join the department, and chose to ignore the order to trim. Looks like he got his choice!

Trimming his beard at the academy wasn't required. Did this guy sit in class all day and not pay attention to the rules regarding personal dress and grooming for safety?

They talked to him about it many times. They are not stupid. I know that they documented each time he was talked to. I am willing to bet that he had to sign a few times stating that they talked to him about his beard. People have been after police departments for a long time saying that they don't hire fairly so they know what to do when someone does not want to follow the rules. Since they had a month left they were probably going to go out into the field with an officer in uniform so they told him that this was the deadline to shave. When he did not meet that final deadline he was released.

I am sorry, Kevin Bits, but the person that hired him and let him continue training as long as they did is the one at fault. And if a police officer cannot work with long facial hair, they better have all of the officers that work undercover, most of these men have long facial hair, to get in line and start trimming and shaving. If one person is being individually pointed out and terminated over their facial hair, then ALL must follow these rules and regulations. NO EXCEPTIONS !!!

Yes because we all recognize that the appearance of undercover cops should fall in line with on-duty cops, s/

Seriously stillamotormouth, your comment flies in the face of common sense. Unbury your head and come back to reality.

That is a quite a bigoted statement.

I respect your right to practice your faith (atheism) though I do not agree with it. Why are atheists so angry and judgmental?

And why should he not bring moral teachings to his profession? I applaud those who conduct their lives according to a moral code. It is the amorality of atheism that degrades the moral compass that religion gives us, irrespective of whether there even is a G-d or not.

Religion is a crock, no matter what the denomination. This idiot just proved that again. Rules say no untrimmed beard? You wanna keep your beard untrimmed? Fine. Go someplace where it's not an issue. The world does not have to bend over backwards to accommodate your ridiculous religious beliefs.

What makes you think atheism is amoral? A bit bigoted on your part, I'd say.

tim do you also think blacks should be kept in the fields?

There is nothing "bigoted" in referring to the fundamentalists of the world as mentally abberant. It's just fact. There is nothing legally binding that religion even needs to be tolerated in the US. You have the constitutional protection that a state religion won't be established, t t t that's all folks. Pointing out the crazy is bigotry? Only to the crazy.

so substitute religious for blacks and its still not bigoted?

hating anyone for thier beliefs, color, sex, or other stuff is still bigoted. heck following your line of thinking its not bigoted to call gays sick.

When we allow religion to circumvent rules and laws by which we live, it will only be a matter of time until we are forced to allow sharia law to be accepted in our society. Have any of the religious rights professors thought about the precedence that would create?

The NYPD is 100% right!

And why should he not bring moral teachings to his profession? I applaud those who conduct their lives according to a moral code.

The notion that only religious people have morals is bigoted and ignorant. The fact is that atheists have greater moral virtue than religious nut jobs. Our morality is not based on punishment avoidance, like religious people is; we don't fear retribution from your blood thirsty God who will send you to hell or kill your children if you don't do as he says. We act morally on principle.

I also want to point out, that Jews didn't "invent" morality, as they all seem to believe. Every civilization that has ever existed, many older than the Jewish people, have had moral codes.

Hey Jester, worthless Jokester. Here is the difference Mr. Piehole.

Religion is a CHOICE.

Just like your choice for a moniker and a "stiff little firecracker" for an avatar (perfect choice BTW). So, once you cross that bridge of CHOICE, vs race, gender, sexual orientation, bigotry goes out the window. You can be born a Jew, but not chose to practice, or chose to be Ultra-Orthodox, but it is a choice. Its the difference with having a dick and chosing to be one. You know.

If you chose to be a Piehole, it an't bigotry to point it out! Evah!

One more thing Jester...

"...hating anyone for thier beliefs, color, sex, or other stuff is still bigoted..."

By that logic the War on Terror and killing Osama Bin Ladin was an act of bigotry, raiding Jim Jones' religious death camp in Guyana was an act of bigotry... idiot.

i would like to just ask that you please mind the CoH in your posts.

with that said even such things as sexual orientation is a choice.

also the definition of bigotry is different than what you believe

big·ot·ry

   /ˈbɪg ə tri/ Show Spelled[big-uh-tree]
noun, plural big·ot·ries.

1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

It's now the 21st century. We should be long past howling at the moon!

Oh Jester the heck with your CoH. Its just delightful that you read what was written. That definition is really good. Proves my point. Thanks. If pointing out that Faith=Superstion qualifies me as a bigot, Ill accept that badge just fine.

So, would your anti-science attitude be bigotry, or willfull ignorance? We know that all the variations in gender, and it really isn't black and white male and female, are caused by variations in the human genome. Or are you just an anti-science-bigot?

See, its really easy to toss that around. Just like racist, homophobe, etc. But setting up a way of life based on the utterings of half-starved stone age men? That's just Precious! Please, stun me with your Logic!

its not my CoH its newsvines and we all have agreed to it when we came here.

1) Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from
making personal attacks.

arsenic how does my post confirm your post, you said if a person makes a choice to have a belief then you are free to be a bigot towards him. oh i am sorry it mean that you can hate him for making that choice with out being a bigot.

now according to that definition being a bigot means to be intolerant (or hateful) to someone that belives differently than you. so it directly disagrees with you

King Jester... STOP comparing a belief, to something factual like a skin color. You are not born believing you are black, you are born black. You cannot stop believing your a certain color, sex, or your location of birth.. uncontrollable things that people are often persecuted for. But you are endoctrinated and educated in a specific belief set... and you can educated yourself and stop believing in whatever mythology you were taught. One set is factual, the other is a belief set.

Bet you no longer belief in the big red elf leader from up north do you? Didn't think so.

Now, if you want to compare religious beliefs, to a male who dresses as a woman and then believes he is a woman... feel free.

sorry dan, but they are all the same since they are all freedoms of each and every person, just cause you dont agree with them, doesnt mean we have to deny freedoms to people based on your beliefs.

king jester

There is a difference between the private choice of religion, and religion being used for monetary or political gain. Nobody is denying this man freedom of religion. just simply rules that must be followed by societal standards. He should have no more, or less rights than you or I. But by believing that his rights to religion should take precedence over the rights of everyone else is wrong. I have just as much right to believe that if I am to be treated fairly by the police that I will not have to compete against the religious morality of an arresting officer.By allowing religious preference, there will be many more sets of laws than we have now. Those based on every religion under the sun, and those based upon 230 years of jurisprudence. I choose the latter.

In my opinion, there is a huge difference between having religion that no one in this country can control, and shoving said religion down others throats. It is a slippery slope allowing religion to determine policy. I believe that is what we fought against a couple hundred years ago.

john i am sorry but you must of miss understood what we was discussing. i agree with the police for fireing him.

but the original person i was discussing with said its not bigoted to hate a person for their religuos views. where i amn arguing its just as bigoted to hate someone for their beliefs as it is to hate someone for being black or gay.

people are free to have the freedom to believe in their faith as they wish as long as it does not interfier in the rights of others.

this man has the right to grow his beard as long as he wishes. and the police have a right to set their dress code as they wish. and he either has to shave or find a different job. now if he was hired and there was no dress code for shaving and they just changed it inorder to fire him we would be having a totally different discussion.

most of our laws are based on religion and i dont see that changing anytime soon either. like killing is wrong because god says so. if there is no god then killing shouldnt be wrong. i know that might be a poor example but its the first thing that came to mind.

but the person i was originally talking to hates people with religios beliefs and in his mind since they choose these then he has the right to hate them for it and its not bigoted. i think of that like hating gays. even if you argue they was born that way. its an impulse and they choose how to act apon that impulse. so they choose to be gay. so we should be allowed to hate them. do you see my point?

Westwest

And why should he not bring moral teachings to his profession? I applaud those who conduct their lives according to a moral code.

The notion that only religious people have morals is bigoted and ignorant. The fact is that atheists have greater moral virtue than religious nut jobs. Our morality is not based on punishment avoidance, like religious people is; we don't fear retribution from your blood thirsty God who will send you to hell or kill your children if you don't do as he says. We act morally on principle.

I also want to point out, that Jews didn't "invent" morality, as they all seem to believe. Every civilization that has ever existed, many older than the Jewish people, have had moral codes.

Legal codes yes. Many folks point to the "code Hammarabi". Moral codes perhaps not. & We in the West certainly didn't "inherit" any of the others. We (including atheists) got ours and more(!) from the Jews via the Christian bible. A nice easy read on the topic is by Thomas Cahill "The Gifts of the Jews" subtitled, "How a Band Of Desert Normads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels" he wrote a great one about the Irish as well.

king jester:

like killing is wrong because god says so. if there is no god then killing shouldnt be wrong.

It's very disturbing that you believe that.

i think of that like hating gays. even if you argue they was born that way. its an impulse and they choose how to act apon that impulse. so they choose to be gay.

Even for that absurd definition of "being gay", it's still discriminatory to hate one group for indulging their natural impulses but not another group for indulging the same ones.

ash your correct on both accounts. so you agree with me then, thank you

This has nothing to do with separation of church and state. You are categorically wrong.

Next.

You're an idiot Mikey.

the aclu sucks and every case they enter [win or lose] is payed for by us the taxpayer...believe it or not

mikeyknows...Please do tell that to NY's Dolan. He's pulling the same stunt. I'm Catholic and I know that Dolan has an option he is refusing to take...stop taking federal dollars if your Catholic religion can't accept contraception for non-Catholics you accept in your hospitals. It's that simple. End funding to Catholic hospitals or the Catholic hospitals can accept only Catholic patients.

If you want to do a job bad enough then you will make sacrifices. I remember a quarterback in the NFL who was LDS (Mormon). They believe that it is wrong to work on Sunday or to make a person work on Sunday. (i.e. going to a store or restaurant.) He made a choice and worked on Sundays. His church did not kick him out. He was still a good Mormon.

unless you are a homosexual. Then you can force the military to change it's 200 year old policy against homosexuals. BSA is next!

The ban on gays and DADT wouldn't have been dropped if it could be shown that they had a valid purpose, other than discrimination. That couldn't be shown. This situation is different. There is a valid reason for the ban, and it is applied to EVERYONE.

Laura, although it is not pertinent to this discussion, the policy against gays in the military was not 200 years old. Perhaps you dont know American history, but the RULES of the American military, many which are still followed today were written by an OUT FLAMING QUEEN who even brought his young lover with him to the military camp in the midst of the Revolutionary War, Baron Fredrich von Steuben.

Great statement CBL. I work security for a HOA. I have people complain all the time about the covenants. They were well aware of them when they bought the house. They also never attend a single meeting or try to change the rules they don't like.

Do not say that God does not pick and choose to an Orthodox Jew. They believe that they are the "chosen ones"!

judsi.........and get paid by the taxpayers win or lose their case

Judsi...Now you've hit on the real reason this guy is pulling this. In a society, there are certain things that require conformity. Using religion, no matter which it is, to avoid compliance to the regulations of conformity is patently wrong. It upsets any possible societal order which all societys who plan to coexist peacefully must abide by.

Your religion does not exclude you from complying to civil laws that maintain safety, order and peace.

So you must know by now that an orthdox Jew won't sue over this . And if he was YOU'd know it in ; how would YOU put it(?), in a Nuu Yawk second (which would redefine instantaneous).

Actually, you need to go back about 100 years to the 1700s. The Amish seem to feel the same way about the look - except for the beards. They seem to prefer their own quirky style of beard.

DocAeth..Interesting analogy. I can't recall any Amish man trying to leave his community and joining the NYPD. When you look at it right, the Hasids have very insular communities and consider it their "territory" even though they receive as much federal funding from taxpayers of numerous other religions for their schools and local infrastructure. That's why this guy's actions look litigious. If Hasids are so insular and live in tight-knit communities of their own, wouldn't it be simpler for him to become a Hasid cop in a Hasid community?

No they don't get tax payer money for their yeshivas other than for the public sidewalk out front etc.

wouldn't it be simpler for him to become a Hasid cop in a Hasid community?

Bingo! Hopefully his rabbi will stear him toward an electric beard buzzer....

Asa, agree with you totally, long hair or a long beard makes a good "handle" to get a hold of someones head. Puts them in a dangerous position going hand to hand.

I'm with the NYPD on this one. Agreed...rules are rules,and if this person chose to ignore them,then..

"too bad,so sad,find a different line of work".

You can bet he won't sue

Look up

"dina d'malchuta dina"

Ixor Kleb...If you are attempting to use a foreign language to insure superiority, give it up. We know you are not paid in drachmas or any other kind of foreign currency. Yours is in English. Yeesh...is there no end to the superiority complexes in men and women these days? Heads so swollen with ego, a pin would create an explosion.

ewent

You have had it spelled out for you. Now you are dis-ing...nothing more.

Learning something new is preferable eh?

Yeah, you wouldn't want some guy in a beard hitting you with a club at your next protest lol

Odumbo

I thought about the beard in that context too. My thinking was the perp could grab ahold of it and turn the tables in his/her favor. Even if only slightly in their favor. Why give them the opportunity?

Odumbo...

Another minority...?? and you wonder why the dept has been nearly 90% or more white for all these years...!!!!

Thats because that Taliban "nut job" is more likely to do something that involves lives being lost as compared to him being fired. He is not going to blow himself up for being fired, whereas the Taliban "nut job" will blow himself up.

If the rules are in place before you sign up, IMO you have no recourse. This is getting ridiculous. Go live in a place where the way you dress or groom yourself is the norm.

Tony...This 38 year old Twerp wouldn't be allowed to fire a gun on the Sabbath...no work allowed from sundown to sun up...remember?

Once we start down the road of giving in to twerps who are anti-social and think they are superior ad privileged, we end up in a continuous vacuum of compromising the laws of the society we live.

What is it about these types who think they are privileged to do what no one else is allowed to do? Outlaws of society always look for ways to prove they are above the laws.

ewent,

Twerps, Jewish ones at least, are allowed to do what ever is neccessary to save a life on their "Sabbath"

If you get critically injured on a Friday night or Saturday a bearded "twerp" is allowed, in fact compelled to by jewish law to save your non-twerp hinney.

His trial was postponed UNTIL he shaves or if he refuses, the judge said he would have to listen to his trial via closed circuit TV...it wasn't postponed in order for him to grow his beard.

Yes I don't think a trial should be postponed for a beard, but anyone applying for a job should be told ahead of time about the requirements. It is not normal to wait until graduation to tell that he needs to trim his beard. Just like police needs to wear a uniform (and you can't argue you want to wear a burqa instead), you can't grow beard or hair because it can be considered part of the uniform.

jacksonc..

I Want To See how the police look like in Isreal and see if they can still do their jobs...!! On the other hand.. Muslim towelheads and women in burqas...?? -"boy, a real can openner here"!! -let me think about this for awhile !!!

To Jester... Only a rube would make the jump from a statement about the elitism of a religious group to some kind of hatred to a race. You certainly must be a product of the public education system, or just another self loathing white man. Perhaps you should look into the allegations of racism in Israel against Ethiopian Jews from the lighter members of the faith... Then you will answer your own question and realize it is not I who would keep the so called 'blacks' (your word) in the 'fields' (again, your word).

thank you tim for the insightful personal attack. now i remember that i posted that as a question, not a statement. but since you didnt reply in the same thread i cant refresh on what we was talking about.

but if you want to hate jews or anyone with a religious belief you are free to do that. and i am guessing since i was asking a question it was geared towards the person in the thread posting bigoted comments and i was wondering if they believe if blacks should also be kept in the fields. not sure what you was reading. maybe i should of added more to the question. but i thought it was a pretty simple one. when i find it i will reread why i asked that question.

from what i understand hasidic jewish men don't just grow long beards overnight,

In other words, 'im jewish and will defend him no matter what, using absurd defenses.' The rules arent, in order to apply and go through the testing you need to be clean shaven, the rule is you need to be clean shaven to actively work as a cop. It is irrelevant what he looked like the day he signed up, it matters what he is willing to look like when he is hired, period.

And like the article said, they didnt state why he was fired, maybe he really shouldnt have been a cop and used the beard for his 15minutes and lawsuit. Perhaps he was fired for not showering for 3 months at a time.

fati,

you sure don't have to look far to find "one of theose posts".

I think you made a very reasonable observation...about he likely had substantial whiskers when he showed up to apply. Generally a career guidance councilor is part of the career process.

If they firred him for not bathing than the article is in error.

Was he ever "hired' in the first place? It seems he was a recruit fresh out of the academy?