Alabama church asks state for permission to have its own police force

[BWT]

I don't mean to keep you, but I do feel the need to be clear here:

It's not just you making the suggestion. For what it's worth, I'm trying to be polite with this because religion is right up there with politics when it comes to the potential for a discussion to turn south. The fact of the matter is that a church isn't just like anything other entity in our country. Our government is specifically prohibited from doing certain things with regard to churches -- both to aid them as well as to inhibit them -- and that's a good thing for everybody involved. Pretending they're just like everybody else -- railroads, universities, pharmaceutical companies, and so on -- doesn't serve the discussion. Setting up First Presbyterian Church Police Department -- complete with an organization ultimately answering to a pastor/board of elders having the power to put somebody in jail -- is a tad bit too far towards one end of the pendulum in my view.

And also for what it's worth, I see absolutely no problem with a church setting up security for its parishioners. You're obviously more up on the Bible and its proscriptions than I am, but I agree that arranging a secure place to worship is a solid move -- especially in this day and age. My issue is the government involvement and apparent endorsement, pure and simple. I think there are plenty of ways around that problem, whether that requires some sort of arrangement with the local PD for additional attention, a well-developed private security program, or even just a group of appropriately-trained church members stepping up to do the job themselves.

First, sorry for the delay in response; I saw this and thought about it. Forgot and got busy with work/life and got caught up in other things.

Second,

Pretending they're just like everybody else -- railroads, universities, pharmaceutical companies, and so on -- doesn't serve the discussion.

I guess I'll say this. I'm not pretending anything; I'm aware a church is a different organization with different needs. If my view point seems naive or ignorant; that's fine but I'm not trying to do anything on false pretenses in this discussion.

What I see is candidly a unified respected authority among religious and non-religious citizens of the United States in Law Enforcement. If an LE officer sees Christians beating non-Christians they get arrested and vice versa.

Setting up First Presbyterian Church Police Department -- complete with an organization ultimately answering to a pastor/board of elders having the power to put somebody in jail -- is a tad bit too far towards one end of the pendulum in my view.

I don't know how their going to have the power to arrest people that aren't breaking a law that doesn't already exist in the entire United States not just on their property. If they arrest someone against their will, violate their rights, or detain them they will be held accountable legally and potentially criminally. The church and officers (in this hypothetical situation) will be subject to the same punishment that Law Enforcement is for illegally detaining someone now. The worst they could do as far as I know is give a no-trespassing to someone they didn't want on their property and LE can be there to enforce that. That's it again, as far as I know. The only places on United States soil that are not subject to United States laws are literally things such as embassies that we give to other countries (which is why it was so outrageous when our embassy was obliterated in Ben Ghazi and ambassador killed; that was literally an act of war) and give the foreign country the soil that the land is on.

I feel like a lot of parallels are being drawn to this Presbyterian Church and a sovereign country like an embassy; I feel that is simply sensationalism and an inaccurate depiction of what's being proposed or possible. Not necessarily expressed by you but it seems to be a common sentiment that's being raised here as a concern.

And also for what it's worth, I see absolutely no problem with a church setting up security for its parishioners. You're obviously more up on the Bible and its proscriptions than I am, but I agree that arranging a secure place to worship is a solid move -- especially in this day and age. My issue is the government involvement and apparent endorsement, pure and simple.

Part of the reason this makes sense to me is this location is also a school; so it's going to have thousands of individuals on campus all week every week similar to a university which you seemed to indicate you're okay with having their own P.D. Both universities and most public schools have resource officers that are on-site including private ones.

I think there are plenty of ways around that problem, whether that requires some sort of arrangement with the local PD for additional attention, a well-developed private security program, or even just a group of appropriately-trained church members stepping up to do the job themselves.

I'd prefer LE because churches aren't in the business of organizational security, use of force, or understanding legal ramifications that go with it. To me it's re-inventing the wheel standing up their own security organization with the potentials for pitfalls becoming increasingly large in our modern society. I've attended enough churches that well meaning people expose themselves and the church to a lot of legal liability with nothing but good intentions. (ETA: I want to be clear with my intentions of the previous sentence. I'm talking about parishioners filling the capacity of church security; what I've added in parenthesis here is all I've added.)

I'll end on this post; I'm fine to continue this discussion. I think you've expressed your view point respectfully and intelligently and I've attempted to do the same. So have others here. It seemed to me that TGS made a great point on the last page that it wasn't necessary for there to be a dedicated LE and that the local LE may be able to provide some kind of contract with exclusively dedicated personnel which sounds great to me for both parties.

We can agree to disagree because in the end our opinions on this aren't going to shift the outcome. I mean c'mon... we're both site supporters, we both love firearms, have names that are three letters, and live in the best country on the planet; things are good .

I hope this finds you well and I'd be happy to discuss further if you choose. I may be delayed in responses.

Thanks and God Bless,

Brandon

[TGS]

The only places on United States soil that are not subject to United States laws are literally things such as embassies that we give to other countries (which is why it was so outrageous when our embassy was obliterated in Ben Ghazi and ambassador killed; that was literally an act of war) and give the foreign country the soil that the land is on.

Some correction is needed here:

A diplomatic mission is still US soil. It is the host country's soil, simply respected as sovereign in accordance with Article 22 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The land is not given to the foreign country; see the Obama administration closing multiple Russian diplomatic compounds.

I feel like a lot of parallels are being drawn to this Presbyterian Church and a sovereign country like an embassy; I feel that is simply sensationalism and an inaccurate depiction of what's being proposed or possible. Not necessarily expressed by you but it seems to be a common sentiment that's being raised here as a concern.

I'm not sure I have the slightest clue how you're comparing churches to diplomatic missions.

[BWT]

Some correction is needed here:

A diplomatic mission is still US soil. It is the host country's soil, simply respected as sovereign in accordance with Article 22 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The land is not given to the foreign country; see the Obama administration closing multiple Russian diplomatic compounds.



I'm not sure I have the slightest clue how you're comparing churches to diplomatic missions.

SSB stated that the LE of this church would ultimately be accountable to a pastor or board of elders. I'm indicating No they won't. They'll ultimately be accountable to the United States legal code.

I was also indicating that to indicate otherwise is inaccurate and drew some parallels of how churches can't usurp that code with a LE. (ETA: I was under the impression that embassies weren't subject to local laws; for example the Wikileaks founder and others have been granted asylum into embassies. How is that possible if LE can cruise in there like normal it's US property?)

Now, this is out of my lane but did Obama make that decision via his executive authority or was he enforcing a legal precedent.

Because we do things in the executive branch from time to time that doesn't pass legal review or is an discretionary authority given to the executive branch.

God Bless,

Brandon

[TGS]

SSB stated that the LE of this church would ultimately be accountable to a pastor or board of elders. I'm indicating No they won't. They'll ultimately be accountable to the United States legal code.

I was also indicating that to indicate otherwise is inaccurate and drew some parallels of how churches can't usurp that code with a LE.

(ETA: I was under the impression that embassies weren't subject to local laws; for example the Wikileaks founder and others have been granted asylum into embassies. How is that possible if LE can cruise in there like normal it's US property?)

I never wrote that LE can cruise in there like its normal US property. I wrote that they're respected as sovereign.

I honestly have no clue what you're trying to convey how it's relevant to the issues expressed against a church-run police department. The fact a church is still beholden to US laws does not in any way dismiss the issues expressed in this thread regarding excessive entanglement, the Establishment Clause, in addition to the speculative (and very likely) issues revolving around the quite obvious motivations of the Church.

Now, this is out of my lane but did Obama make that decision via his executive authority or was he enforcing a legal precedent.

I'm not sure what you're trying to differentiate between "executive authority" and "enforcing a legal precedent." The question/words does not make sense.

If you're asking whether he was allowed to, yes, that's specifically within the executives' wheelhouse.

[BWT]

I never wrote that LE can cruise in there like its normal US property. I wrote that they're respected as sovereign.

I honestly have no clue what you're trying to convey how it's relevant to the issues expressed against a church-run police department. The fact a church is still beholden to US laws does not in any way dismiss the issues expressed in this thread regarding excessive entanglement, the Establishment Clause, in addition to the speculative (and very likely) issues revolving around the quite obvious motivations of the Church.

I'm not sure what you're trying to differentiate between "executive authority" and "enforcing a legal precedent." The question/words does not make sense.

If you're asking whether he was allowed to, yes, that's specifically within the executives' wheelhouse.

ETA: I re-read it and deleted my first sentence.

I'll leave the rest alone. I'm at the point of repeating myself or using examples that are apparently start secondary discussions themselves.

I think I should've left a dieing thread dead.

No big deal.

God Bless,

Brandon

[Shellback]

OhioHealth has their own police, now they're in the news, otherwise I wouldn't have heard about them. http://abc6onyourside.com/news/local...aking-down-man

[jondoe297]

In Virginia, nearly any private entity can create their own police force by petitioning the circuit court in their jurisdiction to appoint their people as Special Conservators of the Peace.

[Stephanie B]

I want to know how to start my own church with a huge range complex. Kind of like a gun club but instead of a bar a church. It a tax thing

The Eternal Church of Our Lady of Metallic Cartridges. The patron saint would be Rollin White. The Holy Trinity would be Samuel Colt, Horace Smith and Daniel Wesson.

(Yes, you can set up your own church.)

[Poconnor]

I can already see a sister church- our lady of blessed acceleration. Honestly all I want is an active gun club that is not run by the bar flys. I know of one but is an hour and half away. The last house that my wife and I wanted to put on offer on was only a quarter mile from a gun club

[JAD]

Nothing you wrote would require the church to establish their own PD.

Is the question whether it is required or should be permitted?