And what they do is not illegal...or they would have been shut down. Remeber; these criteria must be objective; it's not a matter of what you personally are or are not "comfortable" with.

When you join the Klan, the Order, the Nation Of Islam, or anything like them, you take an oath, a binding oath, that your allegiance is to that order... above all else, ESPECIALLY the government.

I believe in anyone's right to feel that way, speak about it (short of incitement), but not to serve in ANY government capacity, as you cannot do both with a clear conscience.

I'm pretty certain that there are gov't officials who do repugnant things and have a very clear conscience about it.

Really? Which one of those have you joined?

And how would you define "anything like them"?

Would that include the Masons?

How about Skull and Bones?

It wasn't. His behavior damages the public trust in the police, and thus endangers both policemen and civilians. I agree that he's welcome to think whatever he likes as long as he can effectively do his job--but in this case, by simply allowing the information to become public, it has affected how effectively not only he, but the rest of the police force, can do their job.

I have family in both the Klan, the Order and more secret organizations & we have had this, exact, conversation. They place people in government jobs intentionally.
The Mason's oath does not supersede governments and, yes, I know it.
I define "anything" as anything that places itself above civil government, especially those diametrically opposed to the civil government. It ain't hard... having to spell things out for you that are patently obvious to everyone else is getting very tiresome.

It's only patently obvious to Klansmen, Members of the Order and the Nation of Islam, Masons and their confidants. (Ah...just found The Order on Wikipedia their oath is reproduced there in part.)

Sorry, I'm not any of those. The only oath I've ever taken was to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to bear true and faithful allegiance to the same.

As for Skull and Bones, we'll have to wait for someone here to 'fess up.

Man would I like to be a fly on the wall for some of your conversations :P

I vote for DanaC, even if she can't read a calendar.

I sort of took it as a given that we were working in the realm of 'legal' activities. Felonious conduct is obviously grounds for dismissal.

You can't be persecuted or fired for your beliefs.

You CAN be fired for neglecting your duties.

If you're in the KKK, there's a preeeeetty good chance you arent being fair and upholding the law like a good cop.

Its only a matter of finding the instances of discrimination.

If he hasnt done anything racist or discriminatory, ever, then he can't be fired. But if he has, which is most likely given his KKK membership, then he's out.

We have had some "interesting" Christmas'.

The article states that they could not find any instances of discrimination. The officer maintains that this was a poor choice on his part caused by the stress of a personal situation.

Legally speaking, the Klan has in the past been labelled a terrorist organization, but in the 1920's it was a huge almost mainstream organization that paraded in Washington.

Also, it seems to have become decentralized, where any local group can adopt the name. This means that there is not one large Klan that can be put on a list.

The two questions are can any employee be fired for legal off-work activities which embarass his or her company and are police any different? Military service members voluntarily accept a code of conduct which does to some degree cover private legal activities. Public figures accept morals clauses in contracts covering private behavior.

Should police be held to a higher standard considering the power they wield and the public trust they hold?

Yes.
Yes. Police are different. They should be held to an even higher standard.

When I ran a business I made hiring decisions. I would not have hired anyone involved with the Klan unless it was in their past and they had decided it was a mistake and maybe made amends.

I don't think it should be any different in hiring someone to be a police officer. As a citizen and taxpayer I want the best hiring decisions to be made on my behalf. Everything in a person's past is fair game.