3 ms·

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

by csa 10y ago

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.

humanrebar 10y ago
> These can easily be handled by minimum wage security or volunteers. You at least need to coordinate with the police to direct traffic in a public street. In many communities it's not that big of a deal to just hire local police officers to do the job. It's even seen as good community engagement by some. > 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. You're speaking generally. I'm speaking specifically. Some people have abusive ex's and take comfort that actual police officers are around to help with various crazy ex situations if they happen again. > There are potential ethical and legal issues about why churches shouldn't have police (rather than just security)... Fair enough. I was just pointing out the reasoning in the other direction. There are also implications to having uniformed Happy Brooks Church Security people handcuff people and remove them from the premises. There are clearly lots of expectations, fair or not, in the training, professionalism, and regulations that apply to a uniformed police officer versus someone with "SECURITY" on his t-shirt.
true_religion 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    > ...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 10y ago
      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 10y ago
        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.

by csa 10y ago

humanrebar 10y ago

> These can easily be handled by minimum wage security or volunteers. You at least need to coordinate with the police to direct traffic in a public street. In many communities it's not that big of a deal to just hire local police officers to do the job. It's even seen as good community engagement by some. > 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. You're speaking generally. I'm speaking specifically. Some people have abusive ex's and take comfort that actual police officers are around to help with various crazy ex situations if they happen again. > There are potential ethical and legal issues about why churches shouldn't have police (rather than just security)... Fair enough. I was just pointing out the reasoning in the other direction. There are also implications to having uniformed Happy Brooks Church Security people handcuff people and remove them from the premises. There are clearly lots of expectations, fair or not, in the training, professionalism, and regulations that apply to a uniformed police officer versus someone with "SECURITY" on his t-shirt.

true_religion 10y ago

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 10y ago
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 10y ago
  > ...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 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      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.