Should churches be able to have their own state-sanctioned police force?

[Czarcasm]

@watchwolf49

This all boils down to “churches are icky” … and somehow priests are more corrupt than politicians …

Shodan is already doing the “Words go in-Icky comes out” bit. Got anything new?

[Lumpy]

TL;DR I wanted to point out that semi-private police (campuses, rail road, etc.) have defined geographic jurisdictions, in accordance with state laws. If this church is asking to have its own police everywhere it happens to have private property, then imho that just doesn’t fly.

[ISiddiqui]

If the shoe fits? I’m not seeing anything other than “churches are icky” as the opposition to this either.

[ISiddiqui]

@Lumpy

TL;DR I wanted to point out that semi-private police (campuses, rail road, etc.) have defined geographic jurisdictions, in accordance with state laws. If this church is asking to have its own police everywhere it happens to have private property, then imho that just doesn’t fly.

Wouldn’t the private property to be defined in the law?

Though, the question arises, what happens with private universities that buy land - do they have to go back to get an amendment to the law?

[watchwolf49]

@Czarcasm

Shodan is already doing the “Words go in-Icky comes out” bit. Got anything new?

I’m glad you agree … the new argument is that the legislature must approve police departments on a case-by-case basis no matter the affiliation …

[Shodan]

@Czarcasm

You’ve said this before…which means you are still not acknowledging any of the concerns and questions brought up in this thread.

I’ve said it before because I have pointed out how all the concerns and questions brought up are invalid.

edited to add: It’s rather fucking obvious that this is a special case, since they created a special bill that covers only this one special church.

It would be a special case if no other private organization had ever created its own police, and if only churches were allowed to do so. Neither of those things are true.

Regards,
Shodan

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Czarcasm

Again, we are not talking about “armed security guards”. Are these volunteers you are proposing going to go through the complete training and upkeep to become full-fledged police officers, which is what the bill requires?
NOT in-house security, NOT volunteer security.
Fully trained police officers.

OK maybe I wasn’t being as clear as I thought.

These volunteer congregants are nucking futz. They would cream themselves at the opportunity to carry a fucking badge. Their weekend drills include doing a room to room search of their mega-church wearing full anti-ballistic plate armor and helmets and carrying AR_15s, flashbang grenades, the whole 9 yards.

The minimum requirements to be a cop are set by the state and while sheriff’s offices and police departments can set higher standards, many of them don’t. For example Louisiana requires barbers to undergo significantly more training that cops:

Louisiana requires less training hours to become a cop than to become a...

360 hours. At 40 hours a week, that’s 9 weeks. That’s a summer vacation.

But that’s the shortest one. I don’t know how long it is in Alabama but I think the Texas one is about 15 week full time I think you can go part time and some of your classwork training can be taken at community college criminal justice programs.

So when you say fully trained police officer, the hurdle really isn’t THAT high if the police department doesn’t really give a shit about the quality of the police officers.

[Czarcasm]

How to become a Police Officer in Alabama. How long will it take? According to this, several months at best.
Edited to add-And they still won’t be able to restrict it to people of their own religion.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Shodan

Yes, there is. It’s the First Amendment.The point doesn’t stand. If we don’t treat churches the same as other non-profits, that is discrimination by the government on the basis of religion. And that’s against the First Amendment.

I don’t recall the word university anywhere in the constitution. Can you point it out?

What is the compelling reason for precluding a religious organization for having its own police that doesn’t apply to private universities? It isn’t the establishment of religion - the government isn’t allowing one religion to have police but forbidding others, or allowing religious organizations to have police but forbidding it to non-religious non-profits. So the government would not be treating one religion better than another, or religion better than no religion.

If they forbade this church from doing what it allows non-churches to do, they would be treating a religious organization better than a non-religious one, and to justify that, you have to have a reason. What do you think that reason is?

Regards,
Shodan

Wait, how are they treating a religious organization better than a non-religious one?

ISTM they may be treating a religious organization less favorably than a secular one but that disparity does not interfere with their free exercise of religion in any way AFAICT.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@XT

More importantly, afaik nothing in the Constitution or anything else says they shall NOT have every right that universities (or similar organizations) do, or that by having the right to a similar ‘police force’, operating within the laws and regulations of the state is a violation of the Constitution. If the Constitution wanted or needed Churches to be special cases for something like this it would have defined them that way. That it didn’t seems, to me at least, to mean wrt this issue they aren’t any different and should be able to have a similar security force under similar constraints and terms. No?

So where the constitution is silent, the church has an affirmative right to have a police force?

As long as the government is not interfering with the free exercise of religion and not promoting religion over other religions or over secularism, why is the government forced to let churches have everything that they let universities have?

[Czarcasm]

Would Church Police be allowed to have standardized religious insignia on their uniforms?

[Shodan]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I don’t recall the word university anywhere in the constitution. Can you point it out?

The word “university” is not in the Constitution. The words that are there say that the government may not interfere with the free exercise of religion.

Wait, how are they treating a religious organization better than a non-religious one?

They aren’t. Nor should they. Nor should they treat a religious organization worse than a non-religious one.

ISTM they may be treating a religious organization less favorably than a secular one but that disparity does not interfere with their free exercise of religion in any way AFAICT.

If they are treating a religious organization less favorably than a non-religious one, then they are interfering with the free exercise of religion.

Put it this way - if the law says that black-owned businesses may not hire private security guards, but white-owned ones can, do you see how that would be interfering with the free exercise of business? Even if it let the black-owned businesses continue to run?

Regards,
Shodan

[Sicks_Ate]

Comprehensive list of organizations that should be allowed to operate their own police department:

501c3Lookup.org - U.S. IRS 501(c)(3) Non-profit List

I must admit, I’m much more inclined to be involved in the school PTA now.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Shodan

The word “university” is not in the Constitution. The words that are there say that the government may not interfere with the free exercise of religion.
They aren’t. Nor should they. Nor should they treat a religious organization worse than a non-religious one.
If they are treating a religious organization less favorably than a non-religious one, then they are interfering with the free exercise of religion.

Put it this way - if the law says that black-owned businesses may not hire private security guards, but white-owned ones can, do you see how that would be interfering with the free exercise of business? Even if it let the black-owned businesses continue to run?

Regards,
Shodan

ISTM you are conflating discrimination with free speech. Treating different entities differently does not violate the 1st amendment unless the 1st amendment is actually violated.

What part of their religion requires them to have a police department? None? Then ISTM that’s not a free exercise issue. If you think its a discrimination issue, then you can try to make that argument.

Telling a business that they can’t hire security does in fact interfere with their ability to conduct a business. Telling a business that they cannot form their own police department does not interfere with the conduct of their business even if a university does have their own police force and not simply a bunch of security guards.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Sicks_Ate

Comprehensive list of organizations that should be allowed to operate their own police department:

http://501c3lookup.org

I must admit, I’m much more inclined to be involved in the school PTA now.

cub scouts and little league are frequently run by the local police departments. or is it the other way around? :eek:

[Shodan]

@Damuri_Ajashi

ISTM you are conflating discrimination with free speech. Treating different entities differently does not violate the 1st amendment unless the 1st amendment is actually violated.

The First Amendment also covers freedom of religion.

Telling a business that they can’t hire security does in fact interfere with their ability to conduct a business. Telling a business that they cannot form their own police department does not interfere with the conduct of their business even if a university does have their own police force and not simply a bunch of security guards.

So it would be acceptable to say that white-owned businesses can create their own police, but not black-owned? That’s not discrimination?

Regards,
Shodan

[CarnalK]

I just wanted to go on record saying that I don’t find religion or churches “icky” so I’m afraid if that’s what you’re getting from my posts I’m pretty sure it’s your own defensiveness.

[CarnalK]

@Shodan

There is no violation of the principle of separation, as has been explained repeatedly. And since you state that the possibility of abuse isn’t what you object to, nor making up new law books, nor the possible presence of crooks and fraud, and since those objections don’t disqualify private organizations from having their own police force, I can see no reason besides “religion is icky” to prevent this church from doing what other private organizations have done.

Regards,
Shodan

Look my regardful friend, it inarguably violates the principle of separation of church and state. A priest is choosing the head law enforcement officer. You have no leg to stand on here. You may think it’s perfectly constitutional but I’m afraid the few dozen words in the first amendment doesn’t capture the entirety of the principle.

[Blue_Blistering_Barnacle]

@Shodan

There is no violation of the principle of separation, as has been explained repeatedly. And since you state that the possibility of abuse isn’t what you object to, nor making up new law books, nor the possible presence of crooks and fraud, and since those objections don’t disqualify private organizations from having their own police force, I can see no reason besides “religion is icky” to prevent this church from doing what other private organizations have done.

Regards,
Shodan

What happens if my Church of Barnacles PD abuses its power? Who can come in and regulate it? Can the State come in and regulate a Church’s police force? Can they take it away? Would that violate separation?

What if My church doesn’t have a police force, but Church of Mussels (who HATE Barnacles) does have one?

It’s not as if counterexamples of University PD’s and railroad PD’s make everything hunk-dory- there are issues with those as well.

[Shodan]

@CarnalK

Look my regardful friend, it inarguably violates the principle of separation of church and state.

No it doesn’t. And the fact that you are not presenting any new arguments means that your bare assertion is arguable.

A priest is choosing the head law enforcement officer. You have no leg to stand on here.

I don’t need a leg - I have the Constitution. And we are talking about Presbyterians here, not Roman Catholics.

@Blue Blistering Barnacle

It’s not as if counterexamples of University PD’s and railroad PD’s make everything hunk-dory- there are issues with those as well.

If the issues with private police are enough to ban all private police, then we as a society can ban all private police. Since they are not enough, the First Amendment means that we cannot discriminate against religious organizations by banning private police for them but not others.

Regards,
Shodan