3 ms·

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 "comin

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 10y ago
> 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 10y ago
  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.
scarface74 10y ago
What is the practical difference between an armed police force that can only operate within a church and an armed private security guard?
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  A few things off the top of my head: Sworn law enforcement can detain someone in more cases than a private citizen may, up to and including using lethal force to do so. Assaulting a sworn officer is a lot more serious than assaulting a security guard. A sworn officer may carry a firearm under federal law in many instances where no one else has the ability to legally do so.

rayiner 10y ago

> 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 10y ago
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.

scarface74 10y ago

What is the practical difference between an armed police force that can only operate within a church and an armed private security guard?

LyndsySimon 10y ago
A few things off the top of my head: Sworn law enforcement can detain someone in more cases than a private citizen may, up to and including using lethal force to do so. Assaulting a sworn officer is a lot more serious than assaulting a security guard. A sworn officer may carry a firearm under federal law in many instances where no one else has the ability to legally do so.