
A church in Alabama could soon get its own police force - ourmandave
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/12/us/alabama-church-police-force-trnd/index.html
======
dade_
This is what happens when people watch too much sensationalized news. What
will stop home owner associations and condo complexes from getting their own
police forces? Who would they report to? What about privatizing the judiciary
too?

Maybe the church should be (paying higher taxes/start paying taxes) to the
local government so they have better policing in the community?

~~~
humanrebar
> This is what happens when people watch too much sensationalized news.

I understand but there have been mass murders at both schools and churches in
the last couple years. And churches routinely have lower-level keeping-the-
peace issues, especially involving people with psychiatric issues.

Security isn't optional because churches need to keep their members and guests
safe. Having uniformed police officers enforcing normal laws involving
assault, stalking, disturbing the peace, etc. isn't a horrible idea compared
to having less regulated private security making citizen's arrests. That's why
many (not all) churches hire off-duty uniformed officers, at least for traffic
management needs.

As for the tax rate, churches do pay the officers already, so if it's not
enough to offset the costs of the officer, the rates should be raised. Seems
like a fee based payment structure makes the most sense when particular
services are needed.

~~~
michaelt
As a foreigner, I've never really understood why places like universities in
America are allowed to have their own police forces.

After all, it creates a conflict of interests - is my job to enforce the law,
or to protect the organisation that pays my wages? It's important because if I
find myself faced with a nonviolent but disruptive protest against my
employer, and I have a truncheon in my hand, there's a risk my loyalty will
drive me to do the wrong thing.

Here in the UK, universities' security guards are equivalent to mall cops and
nightclub bouncers - they can deal with minor things, but their powers are
limited. If someone needs to be arrested, they have to call the real police.

~~~
maxerickson
Is it even weirder than you think?

In many places in the US you will have a municipal police force and also a
county sheriff (and then layered over that a state police, other state law
enforcement officials (game wardens and such) and the various federal agencies
that do law enforcement).

------
dev_head_up
> The church said its "police officers would be restricted to the church's
> campuses and be able to respond to emergency situations while coordinating
> with local authorities."

How's this any different from the various University police forces? In terms
of numbers, seems about similar (4000 people). They're not going to be
enforcing religious law from reading that, so... what's the problem?

~~~
willvarfar
Wait a sec, back up, please explain to us europeans, what on earth is a
university police force and why do universities need them?

~~~
ocschwar
Because in many parts of the US, the major universities were plunked down in a
10km by 10km square of wilderness, with literally nothing else around.

Sometimes a big town grew alongside.

Sometimes it didn't.

Given that universities are non-profits, and therefore are not required to pay
any municipal property tax, there were many that simply could not be patrolled
by the neighboring towns. So they had to hire their own police forces.

~~~
goalieca
Ok. So here's an example from Canada. The university of British Columbia
technically had its own government. It has to do with the history of the land
grant. They have a police force but this police is RCMP (royal Canadian
mounted police). They are a federal police force but contracted to smaller
towns and cities that don't develop their own. In Ontario many small towns
have OPP (Ontario provincial police). Is there a reason why universities
simply couldn't contract from a state police force?

~~~
ocschwar
Historically, land-grant universities predate state police forces. In fact, in
most of the US, state police forces are there primarily to enforce traffic
safety laws on the highways, because out in the countryside, drivers cross
county lines too quickly for the sheriff's police forces to fill that role.

Also, regardless of the formal chain of command for a university police
department, the licensing of police officers (i.e. certifying someone as
eligible to wear a badge) is a state matter. A university cop doesn't draw his
salary from any government, but he can still get his badge taken away by the
state if he misuses it.

------
ocschwar
Church of Satan, please come to the smoldering sulfurous courtesy phone.
You're needed in Alabama again.

~~~
r721
"While the Church of Satan supports clear separation of church & state, we are
not an activist group & do not partake in protests or lobbying"

[https://twitter.com/ChurchofSatan/status/852241434551791617](https://twitter.com/ChurchofSatan/status/852241434551791617)

------
vwcx
I can't wait for the outlash when an Alabama mosque exercises their privileges
under this new statute.

~~~
csa
For various reasons, this is very unlikely ever to happen.

Freedom to do whacky stuff like this is unfortunately a privilege, not a
right, in Alabama -- even if the law allows it. Briarwood is a ridiculously
rich and well-connected church, so they might be able to make this happen.

My guess is that Briarwood will basically be held to a standard that only a
very wealthy church can meet in terms of facilities, training, or something
like that. These standards will effectively be a moat to prevent non-rich
churches (all or most non-white non-Christian churches fall into this
category) from having their own police.

That, or the legislation doesn't get passed for precisely the reasons you
mentioned.

------
rayiner
I don't see the constitutional issue. The University of Chicago (among many
others) is a private entity that has a private police force. Not permitting
churches to have them just because they're churches would be a free excercise
of religion violation.

~~~
lmm
> The University of Chicago is a private entity that has a private police
> force.

How come that's legal? I agree that the fact it's a church isn't the big issue
(though I would hope a university would make at least some effort towards
political neutrality in a way that a church wouldn't (and indeed shouldn't)),
but why are we allowing private organizations to run their own police at all?

~~~
rayiner
> How come that's legal?

Because states have passed laws to that effect (like the one in this article).

------
noarchy
>The Alabama Senate voted Tuesday to allow Briarwood Presbyterian Church to
hire fully deputized officers who would carry weapons and have the authority
to make arrests.

So presumably the church is paying for these officers? If so, I'm fine with
that. Private companies pay for security all the time. But the fact that the
officers are fully deputized (having the powers of government police) gives me
pause, and _may_ be the thing that makes this unconstitutional.

~~~
Radle
It becomes unconstituational in the moment those officers make arrest that a
normal police office wouldn't. It's highly questionable that this church needs
police instead of normal security officers.

~~~
dade_
Not questionable if it is a Mosque in 2017, which is the next logical place
for this to head. Then we can also have Jewish police, born again police,
Catholic police. And what if 2 churches are next to each other? Maybe they can
build a wall with turrets.

~~~
humanrebar
...neighboring police forces routinely battle each other in the present day
U.S.?

~~~
wccrawford
They argue about jurisdiction, etc, but they don't usually actually clash.

But government police forces are all working for the same people. These
religion-based police forces are definitely _not_.

~~~
LyndsySimon
> But government police forces are all working for the same people.

Not really.

In Arkansas, the county sheriff is elected - as is the Justice of the Peace,
who has limited police powers as well. There are also state police, municipal
police, and various state and federal agencies with law enforcement powers.
Each of these groups work for different entities, some of which are mutually
exclusive.

> These religion-based police forces are definitely not.

A police force operated by a church is no more "religion-based" than the
Securitas guy standing outside the grocery store is "retail-based".

~~~
drivingmenuts
That depends. To whom do the police officers swear their loyalty?

If their highest authority is The Constitution and they are trained and act as
if it is, then maybe it's OK.

But, this is a church. The church's highest authority is not The Constitution
and that immediately calls into question who is the highest authority for any
police officer hired and sworn by the church.

------
efriese
This decision is getting a lot of hate here in Alabama and I'm surprised to
see some support here. The knee jerk reaction is to think this a separation
issue, but its really not. States can delegate authority for law enforcement
to anyone they choose.

With that being said, its still a dumb idea. Our government is wasting time
debating this issue when there are so many topics that are real issues. This
church could hire full time security people or outsource to a security
company. My alma mater had a university police force, but decided to contract
the local police instead because it was more cost efficient.

And Christ never said life was going to be safe. He actually said the
opposite.

------
csa
Since the church and the school are in quite nice areas, this strikes me as a
bit of security overkill. The folks affiliated with this church are typically
quite well off and are typically staunch Republicans with values that match. I
can imagine that they perceive the need to defend themselves with more guns
from potential attackers that statistically speaking only exist in their
imaginations.

I get the sense that their security plan in general (either with their own
police or just hired security) is just based on generating a perception of
safety via a display of largely unnecessary force.

~~~
humanrebar
> I get the sense that their security plan in general (either with their own
> police or just hired security) is just based on generating a perception of
> safety via a display of largely unnecessary force.

Churches often have policing needs, both routine (Sunday traffic, filing
reports for legal purposes) and acute (murder, domestic disputes, people with
psychiatric issues).

And even if it is just about perception, why not? If your offering counseling
services to people, a sense of safety is certainly important.

~~~
csa
They have very real routine security needs (esp. traffic). These can easily be
handled by minimum wage security or volunteers.

They do not have any reasonable expectation of acute needs.

As for a sense of safety, if you go to their campus (I have been there), you
will feel very safe even if no police around.

There are potential ethical and legal issues about why churches shouldn't have
_police_ (rather than just security) that strike me as being far more
important than protection from an imaginary assailant, but that's a matter
that is beyond the scope of this reply.

~~~
true_religion
Why not pay more and give your security better training like police have?
Certainly it will get a better result than minimum wage or volunteers.

~~~
csa
Sure. They could, and that would be totally reasonable.

That said, I personally don't think that they actually need as much "security"
as they have or claim to want/need.

The reason this is an issue is not so much that they are seeking more security
as much as they are trying to start the process (potentially a slippery slope)
of blurring the distinction between church and state.

~~~
humanrebar
> ...they are trying to start the process (potentially a slippery slope) of
> blurring the distinction between church and state.

That's news to me. Citation please.

~~~
csa
Remove the "try to" from what I said.

Whether they are intending to or not, they will be if this is allowed.

I'm banging these out over lunch, so some reading comprehension empathy would
be appreciated.

~~~
true_religion
Well, rather than calling it a separation of church and state, I think US laws
are more intended to enact a _protection_ of church _from_ state.

Historically the church informed everyday practices and morals and was the
basis of many laws.

The worry was that a singular church would rise up in a region, and aim to use
governmental power to put down its rivals.

The idea of a total atheistic separation where _no one_ talks about morals and
laws in a religious context was truly alien.

------
dcole2929
This is objectively speaking a bad idea. First, there is the whole issue of
conflict of interests. If I report to church officials is my primary job to
uphold the law of the land or to protect the interests of the people who pay
me. Second, it sets a precedent that it's ok for religious organizations of a
certain size to demand their own police force. If this church feels that it's
congregation isn't adequately protected it should be sufficient for the
current local police department to grant them a permanent fixture of officers.
This is how many colleges work. The officers are actual policeman and work a
beat on campus but still report to the normal chain of command. Third, is the
constitutionality of this. Police are inherently a government function.
Okaying a religious police force is at best dubious, per the Establishment
Clause (law experts can debate that). Fourth are the obvious bad optics of
this, for all of the previously outline reasons. Fifth, this is almost
guaranteed to blow up in their faces the second anything even remotely
questionable happens. It's such an unnecessary risk to take, because there is
going to be a questionable call made (because that happens everyday in police
departments everywhere) and they are going to get point blank asked whether
they've just deputized a religious police force, and they are going to get
sued, and boycotted, and it's really more a matter of when not if.

------
pensatoio
This is a terrible idea, in my opinion. The answer should be to hire private
security and foster strong relationships with the local police. You don't get
to create your own police force.

~~~
Cthulhu_
Why not? It's America, land of the free, right to bear arms, born out of an
armed revolution. If you believe in liberty and the tenets the country was
based on, you should also believe in the right to create your own police force
or whatever.

------
jimlawruk
If I was a member of this church, I would be upset by the seemingly
misappropriation of resources. Has anyone in the leadership calculated the
likelihood of an attack. Have they considered other safely improvements that
might statistically save more lives? On-site ambulance during services, speed
bumps, etc. What services are going to lose funding? Wouldn't you rather have
an extra youth director, give more to the local charities, or have a few free
concerts?

------
LyndsySimon
A couple of thoughts on this I've not seen addressed here:

First, it seems that the fact that this is a church is largely irrelevant.
Colleges, including private colleges, have had police departments for quite a
while. I don't see what reasonable distinction can be made between a private
college, a church, or even a large retailer.

Second, active and retired police officers enjoy some interesting freedoms
other civilians cannot access. For instance: under the Law Enforcement
Officers Safety Act[1], it would be legal for a person who is sworn as an
active police officer for this church in Alabama to carry a concealed handgun
on their person in New York City. It is effectively impossible for any non-
resident to do so legally who isn't covered by the LEOSA. Under the same law,
anyone who retires from an agency after serving for 10 years or who is deemed
by their agency to have a service-connected disability enjoys the same
protections for life.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safet...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act)

------
phd514
It makes for really poor PR, but the substance of the situation is that they
want to hire off-duty police officers for security with greater regularity
than is possible given the availability of off-duty officers in the Birmingham
area. This is essentially the only way they can fund the additional officers
that would be necessary to staff their security needs.

------
scarface74
I don't see the problem with this. If it is only on the church campus, why
should I care? If I don't like it, just don't step foot on their campus.

~~~
wedowhatwedo
Perhaps you need a reminder:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_..](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_..).

In this case, no one is "coming for" anyone, but when one religion is asking
for special rights, that makes me pause. When the ACLU is against it, that
really makes me pause.

Think about Scientology having their own police force with guns. Does that
scare you? If it becomes legal for these fine people in Alabama, it becomes
legal for Scientology.

~~~
rayiner
> In this case, no one is "coming for" anyone, but when one religion is asking
> for special rights, that makes me pause. When the ACLU is against it, that
> really makes me pause.

The Establishment Clause precludes the government from establishing a state
religion, or preventing the free exercise of any religion. Of course there is
a tension between those two prongs: when you have a government sponsored
activity, allowing religious organizations to participate raises the concern
of appearing to confer official government sanction to the religion. On the
other hand, prohibiting religious organizations from participating in a
government-sponsored activity that is open to non-religious organizations is a
burden on the free exercise of religion.

The ACLU tends to focus on the establishment prong and ignore the free
exercise part, which in my opinion is incorrect. If the Establishment Clause
was just about "separation of church and state" (which is what Jefferson
believed), it would say that. But the actual language was a compromise among
many people, many religious, and protects the "free exercise" of religion. The
ACLU tends to see Establishment Clause violations where religious
organizations are permitted to participate in activities open to non-religious
organizations (and for various reasons, operating private police forces is
something non-religious organizations are permitted to do). But precluding
such participation would of course single out religious organizations for
different treatment and thus burden the free exercise of religion.

~~~
wedowhatwedo
In America, some christian religions want more and more rights and want to
take away the rights of other religions and people that don't practice their
religion. They feel that is what the founding fathers wanted when forming this
country so it is OK to do this. This is the "literal meaning" of the
constitution in their mind. This is why some other people are very sensitive
to issues such as this and why these people feel that a christian prayer at
the beginning of a government activity or christian artifacts on government
property should be banned. That prayer would not be allowed if it were a
prayer to satan, right? It is not about freedom to exercise religion, it is
about freedom to exercise a christian religion which is different.

In my opinion, the option that is the most fair to all citizens would be that
everyone should be free to practice any religion they like in their private
home and in their church. Religion shouldn't be mixed with government, in
statues, in prayers unless it is in private.

------
codeisawesome
History truly is a cycle isn't it? It might certainly be hyperbole to claim
this is going to be a slide-back process from 'Separation of Church and
State', but I wonder if the people in charge at this specific Church are now
feeling a special new sense of power - and enjoying it.

~~~
Cthulhu_
Would you feel differently if the article said "A church in Alabama has some
security guards"?

~~~
codeisawesome
Yeah, likely would feel a lot less discomfort. But do regular security guards
have the privileges mentioned in this report? Officer status and arrest making
for example? What about covert / undercover operations at a small scale? I
think these 'private officers' will be able to do those things from the looks
of it.

------
isk517
Usually we talk about exchanging freedom for safety and about how it is not a
good deal. Maybe we should rethink are philosophy because this church believes
it's so valuable that it would sell it's soul for it.

