The coverups being the cherry on top, so to speak.
Advertisement
by Fartsniffage » Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:27 pm
by Costa Fierro » Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:28 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:Costa Fierro wrote:Not really. For one thing they're mostly going to be patrolling the church's school and seminary and in that respect, they're no different to public or private police who do exactly the same thing. Do you honestly think that the church is going to start enforcing some sort of theocracy on the general public?
After further reading, I concede the point. The police department looks like it'll liaise with the church the same way other local law enforcement agencies do with local areas.
by Longweather » Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:33 pm
Salus Maior wrote:I mean, technically the Pope has his own police force. Swiss Guards much?
by Costa Fierro » Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:38 pm
Longweather wrote:Salus Maior wrote:I mean, technically the Pope has his own police force. Swiss Guards much?
Swiss Guards only have jurisdiction within the non-sovereign State of Vatican City that is ruled through the Holy See. Properties owned by the Catholic Church are subject to the laws and policies of the host nation. The Swiss Guard can't go Inquisition things up on properties owned by the Church anywhere but Vatican City.
Anyways, as others have stated, I don't see an issue.
by Aclion » Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:39 pm
The Black Forrest wrote:They aren't talking about a security guard.
by Ifreann » Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:46 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:I don't know the details, but it really seems to just be a group of people volunteering to protect church property. The Cossacks in Moscow already do this to protect from vandals, and nothing has really gone wrong there, so, I don't see why there is such a fuss over it.
Costa Fierro wrote:Ifreann wrote:Because the police should be accountable to the state, which is in turn accountable to the people. Not to Briarwood Presbyterian Church.
Then you have absolutely no idea how police actually function in the United States. Whilst most regular police forces by extension are accountable to the people (in theory at least), only state police and other law enforcement officers employed by the state government are accountable to that state's government. The same applies to federal law enforcement. All other publicly funded law enforcement is done at the local level, i.e individual counties and city councils. And that is before you get to the plethora of tribal police and campus police/security, as well as private police forces and security used to patrol and protect private property of large corporations. Hell, even transport agencies in the United States and Canada operate their own police or private security.
What is being proposed here is no different to a campus police force or a private police force. They have no jurisdiction outside of the campus' property and they are essentially glorified security guards, albeit with powers of arrest and a shiny new cop car (or second hand one, brand new cop cars are fairly expensive).
by Costa Fierro » Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:53 pm
Ifreann wrote:Oh, well, in that case the police should be accountable to the state, which is in turn accountable to the people. Not to Briarwood Presbyterian Church.
by Farnhamia » Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:55 pm
by Liriena » Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:55 pm
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Salus Maior » Tue Feb 21, 2017 6:14 pm
Liriena wrote:Well, this is a stupid and dangerous idea.
And offensive too, since it appears they don't plan on naming it the Spanish Inquisition.
Say, remember when right-wing Americans whined about sharia law and Islamic courts?
by Fartsniffage » Tue Feb 21, 2017 6:31 pm
Salus Maior wrote:Liriena wrote:Well, this is a stupid and dangerous idea.
And offensive too, since it appears they don't plan on naming it the Spanish Inquisition.
Say, remember when right-wing Americans whined about sharia law and Islamic courts?
Except it's not.
It's literally going to be like school security. They're subject to the law.
by Fartsniffage » Tue Feb 21, 2017 6:45 pm
Empire of Narnia wrote:This is my fantasy.
by Internationalist Bastard » Tue Feb 21, 2017 6:47 pm
by Minzerland II » Tue Feb 21, 2017 6:51 pm
St Anselm of Canterbury wrote:[…]who ever heard of anything having two mothers or two fathers? (Monologion, pg. 63)
by Fartsniffage » Tue Feb 21, 2017 6:53 pm
by Internationalist Bastard » Tue Feb 21, 2017 6:57 pm
by The Two Jerseys » Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:05 pm
by FelrikTheDeleted » Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:07 pm
by UCE Watchdog of the Puppets » Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:08 pm
by Internationalist Bastard » Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:09 pm
UCE Watchdog of the Puppets wrote:How big is this church? How many people attend it? It seems rather frivolous for them to ask for such a privilege.
by UCE Watchdog of the Puppets » Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:12 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Corrian, Forsher, Haink Trospent, Kostane, Riviere Renard, Sarolandia, Spirit of Hope, Tungstan, Washington-Columbia
Advertisement