Alabama senate votes to allow church to form own police force

Cabaal

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/11/alabama-church-police-force-senate-vote

Alabama senate votes to allow church to form own police force

Lawmakers vote 24-4 to let Birmingham church establish a law enforcement department despite critics’ concerns it could be used to cover up crimes

Seriously bad idea to have a church running its own police force....in another while they can start enforcing their religious believes on people....once they get enough power.

smacl

Cabaal wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/11/alabama-church-police-force-senate-vote



Seriously bad idea to have a church running its own police force....in another while they can start enforcing their religious believes on people....once they get enough power.

Gives the good ol' boys from the KKK something to do during the daylight hours I suppose. Christians finally cottoning on the all the advantages a system like Sharia law offers to the true believer. Must be great to live in a secular country like the US of A, home of the brave, land of the free and all that guff. :rolleyes:

Trent Houseboat

Sounds like a job for the Satanic Temple. Or muslims, a muslim police force would, I'd imagine, scare the sh!t out of Alabamians who think a Presbyterian police force if a good thing.
Or the supreme court.

recedite

If they need private security inside church grounds, that would be no problem to arrange. If they want police with guns and the full power to arrest felons, there should be a mechanism to privately hire (pay the wages of ) the municipal or state police, and then have them patrol inside.
When the Gardai attend inside GAA or rugby grounds in this country, do the organisers have to pay them?

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

If they need private security inside church grounds, that would be no problem to arrange.

Indeed, any country can do this.

If they want police with guns and the full power to arrest felons, there should be a mechanism to privately hire (pay the wages of ) the municipal or state police, and then have them patrol inside.

Why do you need full powers?
As it is in America security can have guns, why do you need to make them police? Just have them call the police.

When the Gardai attend inside GAA or rugby grounds in this country, do the organisers have to pay them?

Not sure,
But one way or another they remain employee's of the Irish state, they don't suddenly turn into a GAA Gardai Force.

Hotblack Desiato

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Sounds like a job for the Satanic Temple. Or muslims, a muslim police force would, I'd imagine, scare the sh!t out of Alabamians who think a Presbyterian police force if a good thing.
Or the supreme court.

Yeah. There's nothing like turning the tables on these morons by saying that the rights of [religion they're comfortable with] should be conferred upon [religion they're not comfortable with].

You'd swear they'd never read the US constitution :rolleyes:

robindch

recedite wrote: »

When the Gardai attend inside GAA or rugby grounds in this country, do the organisers have to pay them?

So far as I'm aware, yes, the organizers pay for Gardai to attend.

FA Hayek

Cabaal wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/11/alabama-church-police-force-senate-vote



Seriously bad idea to have a church running its own police force....in another while they can start enforcing their religious believes on people....once they get enough power.

That is of course if there are religious laws passed in the first place to be enforced, which would be unconstitutional, so a big red herring this thread is. It is not uncommon in the US for various organisation to have its own police force, Universities being the obvious one.

Absolam

There's precedent in the States for similar police forces; their approach to policing is somewhat different from our own. My concern is that Alabama might not handle such applications even handedly. It may be churlish to think that they would reject a similar application from a mosque with a congregation of 4000 and school of 2000, but the suspicious is there. If they would in all honesty say yes to both then fair enough.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

There's precedent in the States for similar police forces; their approach to policing is somewhat different from our own. My concern is that Alabama might not handle such applications even handedly. It may be churlish to think that they would reject a similar application from a mosque with a congregation of 4000 and school of 2000, but the suspicious is there. If they would in all honesty say yes to both then fair enough.

Your attitude is similar to your position on school patronage; ie any religion big enough to commandeer the role and authority of the state should be allowed to do so. Equal opportunity makes it fair, in theory.

IMO there is nothing wrong with multiple police forces. We tend to forget in Ireland that we are an outlier in having a single centralised police force. This is due to historical chance. The Gardai evolved from the RIC which itself was only one of the the many regional UK police forces. Even in Ireland there was the RIC and also the Dublin Metropolitan Police.

But the thing about regional forces is that they are
1. Secular, and
2. Geographically divided. Not divided on ideology.

So this is again similar in some ways to the idea of a secular schools system in which any admissions priority can only be based on geography.

Going back to the US policing system, a secular university campus can be considered as geographical microcosm or subdivision of the city, which itself is a subdivision of the state, which is a subdivision of the federal republic. A church or a church-run campus of some kind cannot be considered in that way. It is a private community with its own ethos/ideology, therefore it cannot be allowed to wield the authority of the federal state.

me_right_one

As a practicing Catholic, I disagree with this idea.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Your attitude is similar to your position on school patronage; ie any religion big enough to commandeer the role and authority of the state should be allowed to do so. Equal opportunity makes it fair, in theory.

No, not really. That's not the position I take on either subject at all. On this particular subject I'd say in ireland we tend not to look at policing the way they do in the States, and introducing the idea of the police force as being secular is rather a red herring; the Church in question has given no reason to think that their police force, trained and accredited along with all the other police will be any more or less secular than any of the other police forces, have they? They haven't said the police will enforce any religious laws, or indeed any laws at all other than those every other police officer enforces. Which is just as it should be.

If the article were about a university, or a town, there wouldn't be a blind bit of notice paid. Consider it in terms of a community putting money into local law enforcement and additional protection for students and everyone would be applauding; it's just the word Church tends to grind the gears of anti theists.....

looksee

There's a great idea, put the Vatican in charge of the Gardai. They would of course be a secular force, but it would save the state the cost of administration and ensure integrity, honesty and decent values in our policing.


Edit: do I need to put a :rolleyes: in there? Yes probably I do.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

If the article were about a university, or a town, there wouldn't be a blind bit of notice paid. Consider it in terms of a community putting money into local law enforcement ..

That was my point. But when is "a community" not "the community"?
Answer; when it is only one particular religious, ethnic, or ideological subset of overall society.
Another way of looking at it would be if "the black community" or "the white community" decided they wanted to have their own police force. Just because they are willing to pay the police salaries does not make it OK. If they needed extra police on a private site, there should be a mechanism for them to pay cash over to the municipal police which would fund the extra police officers to do the patrolling.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

There's a great idea, put the Vatican in charge of the Gardai. They would of course be a secular force, but it would save the state the cost of administration and ensure integrity, honesty and decent values in our policing.

Edit: do I need to put a :rolleyes: in there? Yes probably I do.

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about; this is obviously not an organisation reaching across the world attempting to co-opt the policing of another country, it's a community contributing over and above to the security and safety of their own State. But say Church and suddenly the Pope is interfering in the business of other States....

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

That was my point. But when is "a community" not "the community"?
Answer; when it is only one particular religious, ethnic, or ideological subset of overall society.

. That seems a rather artificial distinction to me. This particular community is the community that is looking to contribute more to a community that includes everyone in the State of Alabama that is served by their police officers; they want to pay for an extra police officer to protect everyone in the community, particularly students, rather than employing off duty police officers to do so, as they currently are. No one is actually saying the officer won't protect and serve people who aren't members of only one particular religious, ethnic, or ideological subset of overall society, are they?

recedite wrote: »

Another way of looking at it would be if "the black community" or "the white community" decided they wanted to have their own police force. Just because they are willing to pay the police salaries does not make it OK. If they needed extra police on a private site, there should be a mechanism for them to pay cash over to the municipal police which would fund the extra police officers to do the patrolling.

I dunno.... 'things I don't like are just the same as racism' is getting to be a bit of a tired old hobby horse at this stage. This particular Church already pays cash over for police to do this work off-duty; their proposal is that they would pay for a police officer whose actual job is to patrol these areas instead, freeing up existing police and guaranteeing coverage. If a white (which lets be honest, these guys probably are) or black community was stumping up for the same thing, I'd still say let 'em, after all, it's not as if they'd be asking for the police to only protect and serve the black or white community, is it? Just to make sure the areas they live and go to school in are fully protected and served. Anyone who is prepared to put their hand in their pocket for the greater good should be applauded.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Anyone who is prepared to put their hand in their pocket for the greater good should be applauded.

Yes, but not when they expect to get their own police force in return.
I gave the example of the GAA in this country; nobody has a problem with them paying for Garda overtime to patrol inside Croke Park, but I would not want to see a separate GAA police force with full powers of arrest etc.. and answerable only to the board of the GAA.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Yes, but not when they expect to get their own police force in return.
I gave the example of the GAA in this country; nobody has a problem with them paying for Garda overtime to patrol inside Croke Park, but I would not want to see a separate GAA police force with full powers of arrest etc.. and answerable only to the board of the GAA.

That is oddly apposite; the Birmingham church currently pays for police officers to undertake this work in their off duty time. Do you think anyone would have a problem with the GAA saying that in future they will simply straight up pay the salaries for Garda officers who patrol GAA stadia? I doubt it.

Since the Bill specifies officers would have the duties as well as the powers of a State police officer (primarily, enforcement of the law); who they answer to doesn't make a difference (just as with the police forces created for universities and other institutions). I don't see why if you pay for a police force you shouldn't expect to get one in return; it'd be a bit of a gyp if you didn't.

robindch

^^^ Absolam, can you please attempt to write straightforward sentences which have a clearly-identifiable meaning and which convey some thought or idea?

The above is word-soup.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

the Birmingham church currently pays for police officers to undertake this work in their off duty time.

I'm not sure whether police doing nixers have the same powers to arrest/shoot people as they would "in uniform". In Ireland the Gardai are forbidden from taking on second jobs AFAIK, which seems a better system.
If you and I were billionaires in the USA, and we got to have our own police departments, we might run them in different ways. One might choose to turn a blind eye to illegal immigrants, the other might choose to turn a blind eye to consuming alcohol in public. Its a question of focus, even if the law is technically the same.
Just because you are wealthy, you should not get to control your own PD (police department).

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

I'm not sure whether police doing nixers have the same powers to arrest/shoot people as they would "in uniform". In Ireland the Gardai are forbidden from taking on second jobs AFAIK, which seems a better system.
If you and I were billionaires in the USA, and we got to have our own police departments, we might run them in different ways. One might choose to turn a blind eye to illegal immigrants, the other might choose to turn a blind eye to consuming alcohol in public. Its a question of focus, even if the law is technically the same.
Just because you are wealthy, you should not get to control your own PD (police department).

I think the key point here is their primary duty is to enforce the law. There's no provision there for turning blind eyes, no opt out for whoever is paying them to make exceptions. Their duty is to enforce the law.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

There's no provision there for turning blind eyes, no opt out for whoever is paying them to make exceptions.

Doctors differ, as they say....

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Doctors differ, as they say....

States certainly have a proud history of disagreeing with the federal government, and passing their own laws (which State police officers uphold) to prove it.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

States certainly have a proud history of disagreeing with the federal government, and passing their own laws (which State police officers uphold) to prove it.

And the federal govt. has a proud history of overruling them, either by sending in the army or taking them to the supreme court.

I wonder whether the Methodist Police Department would prefer to recruit Methodist policemen? And would they enforce any specific by-laws on the church campus in addition to state/federal laws which they would be "expected" to enforce in a similar way to the local municipal police?

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

And the federal govt. has a proud history of overruling them, either by sending in the army or taking them to the supreme court.

So the federal government can place checks and balances on State governments, but State governments can't oversee their own police forces? I'd say they have far more facility to compel police in their own jurisdiction to enforce the law.

recedite wrote: »

I wonder whether the Methodist Police Department would prefer to recruit Methodist policemen? And would they enforce any specific by-laws on the church campus in addition to state/federal laws which they would be "expected" to enforce in a similar way to the local municipal police?

You can wonder I'm sure, but would it not be more fruitful to simply find out if State law allows them to? I imagine all educational institutions can pass campus by-laws which can be enforced on campus, by any police officer at all, but I rather doubt they can run contrary to State law. What do you think?

Peregrinus

As Ab points out, private police forces are a thing in the US, and a long-established thing. The idea is just bizarre to us (and long may it remain so) but the fact that it's so very foreign makes it difficult for us to understand how a church police force would operate in Alabama.

Rec asks if the church police force, as well as enforcing state law, also enforce (hypothetical) church "bye-laws"? The answer in principal is "no"; the power to run a police force and the power to make local bye-laws are two separate powers, and so far as I know there is no proposal to confer any law-making power on the church. So, there won't be any church bye-laws to enforce.

But the police could exercise any powers that an ordinary citizen or group of citizens could exercise. For example, as we all know there's a constitutional right to bear arms in the US. But a property owner can lawfully impose a condition of entry which prevents visitors to his property from carrying arms - basically, you can't come into my home/bar/cinema/store/church if you are carrying a gun. Many churches do have such a rule (though I don't know if Briarwood Presbyterian Church does). If somebody does come in with a gun, you can ask him to leave. If he refuses, he becomes a trespasser, and you can then take whatever action is open, under the laws of the state concerned, to eject a trespasser. And if your employees happen to include police officers, well, they can take that action on your behalf. And if the result of that is that the trespasser commits an offence (like, say, hitting an officer who is attempting to escort him off the premises) they can arrest him.

And no doubt the church could have other similar policies, not having the force of law, that could nevertheless be the kind of thing that law enforcement officers could properly be involved in implementing.

Can the Briarwood Presbyterian Church Police Department employ only Presbyterians? Probably not. Churches do get some exemptions from equal employment legislation in the US (as they do in Ireland, and indeed in most countries that have employment equality legislation) but not a blanket exemption. In general religion can be a factor in employing those who perform ministry on behalf of the church (including educational ministry - i.e. teachers) but not those in non-ministerial roles. And law enforcement officers would definitely be seen as non-ministerial since, as LEOs, they are considered to act on behalf of the state (regardless of who pays their wages) and the state and its agents can't be engaged in religious ministry since that would violate the non-establishment clause. So your hiring policies for LEOs would have to be non-discriminatory.

For what it's worth, I think the idea of a church police force is a really, really bad idea. But my view is no doubt coloured by the fact that I generally don't think private police forces are a good idea in principle. It's reasonable to ask the question, given that the US does in general allow private police forces, should churches be singled out and forbidden to run police forces when other private groups are permitted to run them? Again, I'd say yes, this crosses a line and should not be allowed, but I think there's probably an argument to be made to the effect that a church wanting to run its own police force should be assessed according to the same criteria as a university or a railway company or any other body that might apply, and that those criteria should not reference religion.

Nick Park

I'm with Peregrinus on this one.

As a Christian, I think the idea of a church having a police force is appalling.

As a secularist, I think that no special privileges should be afforded to churches, but neither should any special restrictions or discriminations by imposed against them. So, if other private organisations are permitted to set up police forces, then that legal right should be granted to religious groups as well if they wish.

The most sensible solution in this case would appear to be for the Presbyterian headquarters to pass a rule that their churches cannot set up police forces. However, as a bishop, I know all too well that denominational headquarters aren't very good at implementing sensible solutions.

Peregrinus

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm with Peregrinus on this one.

Actually, you're not. Not quite, anyway.

Nick Park wrote: »

As a secularist, I think that no special privileges should be afforded to churches, but neither should any special restrictions or discriminations by imposed against them. So, if other private organisations are permitted to set up police forces, then that legal right should be granted to religious groups as well if they wish.

This is where we part company. In general I agree that the state should disregard religious questions, and should treat religious and non-religious citizens/groups/bodies according to uniform criteria which makes no reference to religion, and which aren't framed with a view to advantaging or disadvantaging religion. So schools, hospitals, etc with a religious character should be treated in the same way as those with no religious character.

But I make an exception when it comes to acting on behalf of, or as an agent of, the state. Schools derive their authority over children from the parents of the children, not from the state. Medical providers derive their authority to treat patients from the patients, not from the state. But when it comes to police powers, imprisonment and similar issues, whoever carries out those functions is an agent of the state, doing things that can only be done on the authority of the state.

I'd prefer not to see these functions privatised at all. But, if they are to be privatised, then I would accept and indeed argue for a rule that says they cannot be privatised to churches, because that crosses a separation-of-church-and-state line that is not crossed when public funding is provided to churches to do things they would be perfectly entitled to do without any public funding, like provide a school or a hospital.

Nick Park wrote: »

The most sensible solution in this case would appear to be for the Presbyterian headquarters to pass a rule that their churches cannot set up police forces. However, as a bishop, I know all too well that denominational headquarters aren't very good at implementing sensible solutions.

Is that because they're not very sensible, or because they're not very good at implementing solutions?

Peregrinus

Fascinating trivia; it turns out that Briarwood isn't the first. In addition to religiously-affiliated universities which have a campus police force (including Georgetown University Police Department and The Catholic University of America Department of Public Safety), there's already the Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation Police. A couple of English cathedrals also have their own (rather modest) police forces.

How fortunate we are to live in a republic where the separation of church and state is taken more seriously!

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

How fortunate we are to live in a republic where the separation of church and state is taken more seriously!

Well, the separation of church and police is, at least.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.