A Church Can Have its Own Police Force, Alabama's Senate Decided!!

[Marion Morrison]

I fear this will open the door for Sharia.

You know, back in the day, men came to church armed anyways.

One preacher heard the call to battle mid-service, threw off his tunic with pistols in his belt, and rode out with half the congregation.

 

[Mike Dwight]

Oh OK, and back in a big circle, lets get on the Capitol Lawn, we'll spit on Jefferson Davis, wink at the Civil War Memorial, sing some Battlehymn of the Republic and see if they've gotten a McDonald's yet in Selma.

 

[bodecea]

Holly shit! Really? Church Police? This is frightening! Sure, the stated purpose is to fight crime on church property, there is no assurance that they wont abuse their police power. Will they be targeting minorities??? This is a racist, homophobic church. Will they be harassing people who don't come to church on a regular basis?

In any case, this is a clear violation of the constitution. The State of Alabama is about to bestow the power of the government on a religious institution!

Alabama's Senate just voted to allow a church to have its own police force

The move would be unprecedented in the United States. And, according to experts, it would also be unquestionably unconstitutional.

Violation of Church and State?
The church's original press release stated that it intended only to "mirror" a Alabama law that allows educational institutions to have its own police forces.

But vesting those state powers in the hands of a religious institution, no matter how large, would violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution—the separation of church and state—according to the Alabama chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"What the bill attempts to do is to take what is a quintessential governmental power—law enforcement—and vest that police power in the hands of a religious institution," legal director Randall Marshall told Newsweek. "That would give church officials who run a police department the decision as to what laws to enforce, who to arrest, what levels of force would be needed to effectuate such an arrest. It so intertwines the church with state powers that it truly is an establishment clause problem."

Yep; I read that on Faux Nuwz this morning. Now we will have the American Taliban enforcing the American version of Sharia.

America just keeps lowering itself to the lowest standards of the rest of the planet but what the Hell; it was bound to happen, sooner, or later.

More and more this christian sharia.

 

[emilynghiem]

There are 70 million catholics in the US, while Presbyterians started as a third to half of the Independence signers, converted an English populace and led one side of the Civil War, had 8 million followers At Least when Woodrow Wilson took the Theory of Confederacy to the World, they had 1950 7 million Presbyterians, Eisenhower makes up some junk, all the British states lose their Presbyterians, we're down to 1.5 million, and the goal was to clear out Catholics in the First Place like In Korea! Why, somebody correct me, somebody tell me where I'm wrong, the King of Korea who had not been yet Guided by the Bible, or capable of Good by himself, may have been sainted by the Catholic Massacres, especially with that meddlesome French Bishop from China, his on little Bishop war, is it safe to come over now, Romanists Romanist Romanists.

Dear Mike Dwight
None of these groups threaten to violate Constitutional limits
and impose their beliefs through Govt.
Can I ask you why not focus here:
1. The Political Parties are the worst violators right now. Can we start here?

If we start policing ALL collective organizations to respect Constitutional limits
and protections, that would cover BOTH religious organizations as well as
political and nonprofit, corporate and media organizations where these corporate/collective
entities agree NOT TO abuse govt authority to violate rights of individuals.

2. The Border and Right to Life issues can lead to SEPARATING FUNDING
so people could choose to fund DREAMER and AMNESTY type programs
PRIVATELY by claiming religious freedom to do so through CHURCH groups
like Catholic Charities or the peace and justice groups against the death penalty
(which can also be "defunded" on religious grounds so followers can fund alternatives)

If anything Mike Dwight, religious organizations could be the ANSWER to separating
funding and stopping abuses of federal govt and authority for social programming.

Can we address this issue where we look at SOLUTIONS?
Why can't churches/religious organizations be
the key to SOLUTIONS to get social programs out of federal govt?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Dear Emily, Try to express your thoughts in a more clear and concise manner. To be honest, I don't have the time or patience to read every word of your rambling essays and to try to figure out what you mean. I doubt if anyone else does either. Most of the time I'm taking a stab in the dark at what you seem to mean.

Okay to summarize it shorter
I do agree with you to enforce the First Amendment limits for Constitution protections
in this case.
[I am adding that you and I could get MORE support for this
by uniting on Constitutional education and outreach to the public
to stop ALL abuses of police and govt power, not just this case, but all cases.]

And what exactly would that look like in reality ? PS Looks like you have met your match in Mike Dwight

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
In reality, every person and group I've talked with
has their own issues they focus on. So I suggest
we organize likeminded advocates by party precinct,
by school district, and with their local city council reps,
county or congressional districts. That way we don't
all have to agree on every issue, but we can still organize
and collaborate anyway.

We work with teacher's unions and/or local schools
with parents/teachers with the same concerns about
civics and Constitutional education to stop abuses.
In this case it's the church issue, but with others it's
school shootings and security. The LGBT and Christian
issues are another one that schools are facing.

The BASIC principles to teach all people to enforce
are summarized in the Bill of Rights, and the Fourteenth
Amendment on equal protection of the laws for all persons.
www.ethics-commission.net
^ I INCLUDED the local Police Mission statement because
the Police are SWORN to uphold the Constitution and
democratic principles thereunder. So if you go to authorities
that answer to the Constitution, and invoke these principles,
they have to answer to the petitions based on those.

What CITY are you located?
If you are starting in your hometown, I would work with
you local party precinct and police/teacher union or
school district where you can find people willing to commit
to this outreach.

If you want to start with people protesting in Alabama,
we would contact party leaders and groups, and either
city, county or school districts there.

TheProgressivePatriot are you looking at starting
where YOU are, or focusing on helping protesters in AL?

Sure Emily. Better get busy. I admire your ambition but I have grown increasingly cynical in todays political climate and the rise of the religious right. I used to be into activism, but at my age I prefer to spend my days in my garden, at the gym , taking long walks by the lake and cooking. Oh, and knocking heads on the USMB

 

[Mike Dwight]

Federal Government purposefully likes trimming every branch off these Churches. We can see how this happened from the IRS! Anybody? To be not taxed, and not be a political organization, all charities need to be about not funding politics. What are you going to hand over to Churches? Religious Freedom meant the Offices of Government are not restricted to Anglicans. That still could mean we elect the Pope! Ya, anybody?! The Pope President. Separation of Church and State Hm let me think what Eisenhower would say um, that's like his private convictions.

 

[emilynghiem]

I never understand what Emily means about education. On the OP, aren't the town Police force rented out rather obsessively for traffic control? Besides, most of them don't believe in a Parish, so they don't have a beat, do they?

Dear Mike Dwight
Constitutional and civics education would involve 3 levels,
depending how far people want to go with this:
1. One is basically educating people on their rights BEFORE a conflict comes up.
This is mostly for prevention and protection by AVOIDING violations to begin with.
see www.ethics-commission.net for example policies I support for public distribution and education

2. The next deeper level is Conflict Resolution where people learn how to
set up and apply mediation so they can exercise freedom of speech and press,
and right to petition "each other directly", to protect their own democratic due process.

This is taking the above basic principles (Bill of Rights, Code of Ethics, etc.)
and applying them to democratic problem solving, participation and representation locally.

This also prevents and protects people from worse abuses and violations
from escalating out of their control. So they learn self-governance by addressing
and resolving their own issues locally.

3. The really deep almost "spiritual" level of education about laws and enforcement
is similar to what Christians teach using Biblical laws. This involves teaching people
that by invoking and COMMITTING to EMBODY and ENFORCE these laws themselves,
as Police and Military take a sacred oath of duty to uphold and defend the Constitution,
this is what "EMPOWERS" people to BE EQUAL AS THEIR OWN GOVT AUTHORITY.

Not everyone gets that level.

Most people understand level 1 and some know enough to want to promote level 2.

Still Mike Dwight I believe EVERY person especially to be a law abiding equal citizen
should have FULLY INFORMED CHOICES as to what level of protection they want.

Level 1 means at least you know to get help when your rights are at risk of violation.
You should at least know WHAT the laws are and what your rights are to seek protection
in the first place.

Level 2 means you have access to HELP to protect and enforce your rights.
You make sure your local govt or district/school or city officials have some
means of redress grievances where you can mediate and petition to get issues resolved in your
best interest so you don't suffer abuse and oppression.

Level 3 means you are aware that people who DO adopt laws by conscience
as Police and Military do (and Judges and other govt officials who vow to uphold Constitutional laws)
take on equal authority and responsibility of Govt. So if you do the same, so do you.

People need to know how the law works, and how authority of govt is vested in
responsibility for enforcement which we can all share equally.
Otherwise we cannot promise equal protection of the laws if
people aren't educated and don't have equal access.

 

[Mike Dwight]

This naturally suggests there are Lawyers going to be at Church as well as Cops?! Defend your rights, level 1 2 and 3. I feel bad for Catholic Confessions, Doctor-Patient and Priest Privilege, he confessed, he's right here officer, try out our Sanctuaries new Mercy Seat. Its in the Dungeon. ow.

 

[emilynghiem]

I never understand what Emily means about education. On the OP, aren't the town Police force rented out rather obsessively for traffic control? Besides, most of them don't believe in a Parish, so they don't have a beat, do they?

Dear Mike Dwight
Constitutional and civics education would involve 3 levels,
depending how far people want to go with this:
1. One is basically educating people on their rights BEFORE a conflict comes up.
This is mostly for prevention and protection by AVOIDING violations to begin with.
see www.ethics-commission.net for example policies I support for public distribution and education

2. The next deeper level is Conflict Resolution where people learn how to
set up and apply mediation so they can exercise freedom of speech and press,
and right to petition "each other directly", to protect their own democratic due process.

This is taking the above basic principles (Bill of Rights, Code of Ethics, etc.)
and applying them to democratic problem solving, participation and representation locally.

This also prevents and protects people from worse abuses and violations
from escalating out of their control. So they learn self-governance by addressing
and resolving their own issues locally.

3. The really deep almost "spiritual" level of education about laws and enforcement
is similar to what Christians teach using Biblical laws. This involves teaching people
that by invoking and COMMITTING to EMBODY and ENFORCE these laws themselves,
as Police and Military take a sacred oath of duty to uphold and defend the Constitution,
this is what "EMPOWERS" people to BE EQUAL AS THEIR OWN GOVT AUTHORITY.

Not everyone gets that level.

Most people understand level 1 and some know enough to want to promote level 2.

Still Mike Dwight I believe EVERY person especially to be a law abiding equal citizen
should have FULLY INFORMED CHOICES as to what level of protection they want.

Level 1 means at least you know to get help when your rights are at risk of violation.
You should at least know WHAT the laws are and what your rights are to seek protection
in the first place.

Level 2 means you have access to HELP to protect and enforce your rights.
You make sure your local govt or district/school or city officials have some
means of redress grievances where you can mediate and petition to get issues resolved in your
best interest so you don't suffer abuse and oppression.

Level 3 means you are aware that people who DO adopt laws by conscience
as Police and Military do (and Judges and other govt officials who vow to uphold Constitutional laws)
take on equal authority and responsibility of Govt. So if you do the same, so do you.

People need to know how the law works, and how authority of govt is vested in
responsibility for enforcement which we can all share equally.
Otherwise we cannot promise equal protection of the laws if
people aren't educated and don't have equal access.

Federal Government purposefully likes trimming every branch off these Churches. We can see how this happened from the IRS! Anybody? To be not taxed, and not be a political organization, all charities need to be about not funding politics. What are you going to hand over to Churches? Religious Freedom meant the Offices of Government are not restricted to Anglicans. That still could mean we elect the Pope! Ya, anybody?! The Pope President. Separation of Church and State Hm let me think what Eisenhower would say um, that's like his private convictions.

 

[emilynghiem]

Federal Government purposefully likes trimming every branch off these Churches. We can see how this happened from the IRS! Anybody? To be not taxed, and not be a political organization, all charities need to be about not funding politics. What are you going to hand over to Churches? Religious Freedom meant the Offices of Government are not restricted to Anglicans. That still could mean we elect the Pope! Ya, anybody?! The Pope President. Separation of Church and State Hm let me think what Eisenhower would say um, that's like his private convictions.

AGREE Mike Dwight
I totally support separating the religious and social programs
from federal govt. Give taxpayers the CHOICE what to fund instead of
mandating without agreement on terms. No more taxation without representation!
AGREED! Let's do this.

Who is your Congressional rep or the nearest one to you
who believes in tax reform similar to Ted Cruz who was
ready to ax the whole thing. Instead of that, I say we
take all the social programs, and give taxpayers a choice
which party or group to redirect their taxes to. And deduct
things like health care 100% if the payments are for services
at cost/nonprofit. Start separating taxpayer funding to get
federal govt back on track with just the policies we agree on as Constitutional.
Where we don't agree, separate that and give taxpayers a choice what to fund
and under what terms.

 

[Mike Dwight]

That's probably Mostly what Establishment of a Religion means. The Establishment of the Church of England , in Anglicanism, and the Church of Scotland, in Presbyterianism, and their different outlooks on establishing other Countries in their religion. Think of Ulster Ireland, and all that meant really is the peasants having to pay taxes to the Anglicans. I bet you don't actually want that here. Whose Religious Social program do we Optionally get to fund as Taxpayers?

 

[emilynghiem]

That's probably Mostly what Establishment of a Religion means. The Establishment of the Church of England , in Anglicanism, and the Church of Scotland, in Presbyterianism, and their different outlooks on establishing other Countries in their religion. Think of Ulster Ireland, and all that meant really is the peasants having to pay taxes to the Anglicans. I bet you don't actually want that here. Whose Religious Social program do we Optionally get to fund as Taxpayers?

Dear Mike Dwight
Most recently the Church of Obama declared health care as a right
to be the law of the land. And demanded that everyone pay tithes to
insurance companies or face tax penalties for not complying.

You must also bake cakes to appease the believers in LGBT as a class.
If you don't believe in participating in same sex marriages or messages,
you pay fines to courts, unless you pay legal fees to lawyers to absolve
you. Similar to paying INDULGENCES to Catholic priests to absolve
you from your sins. In this case it's your Christian beliefs about
marriage that are fined as against the law. Pay up, one way or another!

 

[Mike Dwight]

That's probably Mostly what Establishment of a Religion means. The Establishment of the Church of England , in Anglicanism, and the Church of Scotland, in Presbyterianism, and their different outlooks on establishing other Countries in their religion. Think of Ulster Ireland, and all that meant really is the peasants having to pay taxes to the Anglicans. I bet you don't actually want that here. Whose Religious Social program do we Optionally get to fund as Taxpayers?

Dear Mike Dwight
Most recently the Church of Obama declared health care as a right
to be the law of the land. And demanded that everyone pay tithes to
insurance companies or face tax penalties for not complying.

You must also bake cakes to appease the believers in LGBT as a class.
If you don't believe in participating in same sex marriages or messages,
you pay fines to courts, unless you pay legal fees to lawyers to absolve
you. Similar to paying INDULGENCES to Catholic priests to absolve
you from your sins. In this case it's your Christian beliefs about
marriage that are fined as against the law. Pay up, one way or another!

Sorry, wasn't too sure what we were talking about. Of course everyone is totally surprised around the world when we are at the Church of Car Dealership. The Crusade of Black Friday, and the similar Hedonist school offshoots. I think the Insurance Responsibility Payment at least Seems ridiculous to me. You'd be a fool to support businesses that choose to disclose and enforce a preference formed from religious backgrounds, vs anyone who needs fair treatment from media disclosure or the public concerning the Common University practice of not recognizing the violation in listing religious backgrounds of students in rejection letters. Its true you'll see they have a blindspot requiring education on university staffs, and they don't seek to mask with any other qualities the academic rejection of "obnoxious" religious background.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Holly shit! Really? Church Police? This is frightening! Sure, the stated purpose is to fight crime on church property, there is no assurance that they wont abuse their police power. Will they be targeting minorities??? This is a racist, homophobic church. Will they be harassing people who don't come to church on a regular basis?

In any case, this is a clear violation of the constitution. The State of Alabama is about to bestow the power of the government on a religious institution!

Alabama's Senate just voted to allow a church to have its own police force

The move would be unprecedented in the United States. And, according to experts, it would also be unquestionably unconstitutional.

Violation of Church and State?
The church's original press release stated that it intended only to "mirror" a Alabama law that allows educational institutions to have its own police forces.

But vesting those state powers in the hands of a religious institution, no matter how large, would violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution—the separation of church and state—according to the Alabama chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"What the bill attempts to do is to take what is a quintessential governmental power—law enforcement—and vest that police power in the hands of a religious institution," legal director Randall Marshall told Newsweek. "That would give church officials who run a police department the decision as to what laws to enforce, who to arrest, what levels of force would be needed to effectuate such an arrest. It so intertwines the church with state powers that it truly is an establishment clause problem."

Hopefully theyre proto right wing death squads for the upcoming spicy times

 

[Mike Dwight]

Just depends what Alabama you guys are looking for. I see what these guys want, its Communist Russia from a 1913 perspective.

 

[Yarddog]

Holly shit! Really? Church Police? This is frightening! Sure, the stated purpose is to fight crime on church property, there is no assurance that they wont abuse their police power. Will they be targeting minorities??? This is a racist, homophobic church. Will they be harassing people who don't come to church on a regular basis?

In any case, this is a clear violation of the constitution. The State of Alabama is about to bestow the power of the government on a religious institution!

Alabama's Senate just voted to allow a church to have its own police force

The move would be unprecedented in the United States. And, according to experts, it would also be unquestionably unconstitutional.

Violation of Church and State?
The church's original press release stated that it intended only to "mirror" a Alabama law that allows educational institutions to have its own police forces.

But vesting those state powers in the hands of a religious institution, no matter how large, would violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution—the separation of church and state—according to the Alabama chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"What the bill attempts to do is to take what is a quintessential governmental power—law enforcement—and vest that police power in the hands of a religious institution," legal director Randall Marshall told Newsweek. "That would give church officials who run a police department the decision as to what laws to enforce, who to arrest, what levels of force would be needed to effectuate such an arrest. It so intertwines the church with state powers that it truly is an establishment clause problem."

relax, theres another name for that. It's called "Security Guard". Ever hear of that before? no that doesn't mean the Spanish Inquisition is coming back .

Dear Yarddog
If these are just Security Guards
why would additional legislation be needed?
Churches can already hire their own Security Guards!

Am I missing something here?

Well Dear Em, I may have been a little over the top, however... this would not be the first time or the last there would or has been a privatized police force in the US and in South Carolina, privatized security already have the same authority as Sheriffs.
I just think the OP was over reacting. The motive for establishing the police force is very important I think and had it not been for this recent spate of shootings you would probably not see this happening. Maybe they feel like the police will only show up after the fact, and security guards for hire can be unreliable. They would basically be hiring security that is trained to their own specifictions and standards.... that is not entirely bad.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Stupid?? Please explain, Bubba

The level of your hysteria is astonishing. You immediately descend to accusations of behaviors that only progressives loons, like you, engage in.

I am not in the lease bit hysterical.

Of course you are, your hormones have you completely off kilter. If a Church wants it's own security/police force who are you to say no?

My hormones? You fucking idiot. I'm 72 years old. It's not me who is saying that a Church can't have a police force.Its the fucking constitution!

Where exactly does the Constitution say that a church can't have a police force?

Exactly, what the heck is he talking about?


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The level of your hysteria is astonishing. You immediately descend to accusations of behaviors that only progressives loons, like you, engage in.

I am not in the lease bit hysterical.

Of course you are, your hormones have you completely off kilter. If a Church wants it's own security/police force who are you to say no?

My hormones? You fucking idiot. I'm 72 years old. It's not me who is saying that a Church can't have a police force.Its the fucking constitution!

Where exactly does the Constitution say that a church can't have a police force?

Read the first amendment


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have you?

Congress shall not.



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Read it again

I know what it means and I know well the history of why the founding fathers wrote the 1st.

Is there a state religion in Alabama or anywhere in the U.S.?

No. Nor will there be.

Why not?


.

 

[P@triot]

Holly shit! Really? Church Police? This is frightening!

Easy, snowflake. There are many (and I mean many) private institutions that have their own police force. Here is a perfect example. This is a hospital:

Cleveland Clinic Police Department