except, you know, those that aren’t. Including a lot of the big ones, like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Northwestern, Stanford, Chicago, Notre Dame, etc.
I’ll reiterate the point made a few times in this thread, but ignored, if Notre Dame and Georgetown, Catholic universities, can have private police forces for campus, how is that different from a church having a private police force?
Those are residential campuses.
From what I can tell, this is not a residential church.
That’s not a point, it’s a question. And the answer is one is a church and one is a university.
It’s obvious that churches and universities are different in a big way.
The question is, are they different in any way that is relevant to this particular matter? If so, what is that difference?
So?
I can see that being a relevant difference if campus police were confined to the areas where the dorms are. But they’re not.
Yes, I don’t see those differences to be all that meaningful. Does that mean that campus police are not or should not be allowed at commuter campuses? And what is the meaningful difference between a religious university and a church in terms of a police force presence. Simply saying it doesn’t suffice.
We don’t start with the presumption that every organization is just allowed to start up their own police force. That’s why this is a piece of legislation bound for the legislature. So I don’t have to explain “why not?”, someone has to explain “why?” If you think all the arguments that allowed railroads and universities to have police forces are just as valid for churches, lay it out for me.
I think that allowing the Church to have their own police force is safer for the general public rather than the Church hiring private security personnel … if the local laws prohibit police from lying … saying some behavior is illegal when in fact it is perfectly legal … private security personnel may not be so constrained …
For example, there’s a luxury hotel down in Southern California built right along the beach … the hotel hires private security personnel to go down on the beach and tell non-customers that they’re trespassing and if they don’t leave they’ll be arrested … when in fact all the beaches in California are public … the hotel is lying …
If the Univ. of Oregon Campus Police comes out onto the city sidewalk and arrests someone for smoking a cigarette … the case will be thrown out of court and UO will be subject to a false arrest lawsuit … however one step over the property line and not only is it a valid arrest, the smoker is going to be convicted for trespassing … tobacco is strictly prohibited on campus grounds …
Bottom line … if the city police can’t arrest someone, then the Church police can’t arrest either … if the Church doesn’t believe this then a few expensive lawsuits may well change their minds …
Anyways, here is a Vox article on why universities had private police forces (in 2015, but still would apply, I think):
[Quote=Vox]
College presidents began to lobby state legislatures for the right to create their own police departments, where officers would have a constant presence and become part of the campus community rather than being seen as “some kind of invading army” when something went wrong, Sloan said.
“It doesn’t look good to have county sheriffs or local police officers patrolling the campus,” he said. “It’s far better to have your own department, your own officers who can be trained appropriately, because this is somewhat of a different setting.”
[/Quote]
I think that a similar justification can apply for this church. In addition, it wants to have a decided force on its campus rather than straining the local town’s police force, which also would be better for the locality, I’d imagine.
Well, the answer to this seems to be in the title here. Should churches be able to have their own STATE-SANCTIONED police forces? I’m going to go with ‘yeah’ as the answer to this. What this means, to me, is that the ‘police force’ is operating as a private security force for the organization and is sanctioned by and presumably vetted by and acting in accordance with the state.
I guess I’m not seeing what everyone is having issues with, skimming back through the thread. They seem to be hinked out over a church having its own ‘police force’, I guess because they think that the church would use said ‘police force’ to enforce church law or something. 
That doesn’t seem to be a reasonable read on what is happening or what is being proposed, however.
As to why a church would want or feel they need it, I’d guess it’s the heightened concerns all organizations seem to be having about security lately (schools, theaters, even large buildings and business…hell, local government facilities even seem to be getting on this bandwagon), especially in light of some incidents such as shootings and the like. Personally, I don’t think it’s necessary, as I think the threat is too random, but I feel pretty much the same about the searches by the TSA at the airport and similar things, and I can understand why folks want to take precautions that they think are necessary and helpful.
It does if you allow it for other non-profit organizations.
Can you please cite the laws that keep churches from endorsing candidates that do not apply to other non-profits of the same sort?
You are missing the point of the First Amendment. The government may not single out any religion for special privileges, as would be the case if it allowed a church to have a private security force but not a private university. Nor may it single out a religion for special prohibitions, as would be the case if a private university was allowed but not a church.
But once we have allowed it for some organizations, it is impermissible to not allow it for a church.
OK - because the government may not single out religious organizations, or if they do, they must have a compelling secular reason. Therefore you do, in fact, have to explain “why not”.
Because it is already allowed for railroads and universities. Therefore, it has to be allowed for churches. Unless you can come up with a compelling secular reason why churches should not be allowed to do so. “Well, they might abuse it” isn’t good enough - a railroad or a university might also abuse it, and we allow it for them.
So you are mistaken about where the burden of proof lies - it does not lie with the church to prove they should, it lies with the government to prove they shouldn’t.
Regards,
Shodan
No. If that were true, the church would just be filing some government forms for a police department rather than having to get special legislation passed to allow it. So question is indeed why rather than why not.
I don’t see how that follows. Could you cite where private universities merely had to fill out some forms before forming a private police department?
Regards,
Shodan
Well, it’s pretty well obvious that this church needed a special bill to have a private police force, otherwise they wouldn’t be pushing to get this bill passed in the first place. If you don’t think this is necessary, then maybe you should contact their lawyers and tell them.
I never said universities are all automatically allowed to have a police force. You basically did though by saying it’s now a free for all and everyone is allowed one. Do you have a cite for that?
This is of critical importance … apparently the Church needs a written law that specifically allows them to have a police force …
IF the legislature and governor are require to state “why”, and they don’t, THEN we’d have a court case … otherwise it would be up to the plaintiffs to prove “why not” … that Church police could abuse their power in ways City police cannot, in Alabama, seems to me very thin …
What about the opposite situation? Let’s say someone does something that would get them arrested by local police but the church police look the other way, such as the drug bust mentioned earlier. What would be your reaction to that situation?