Does anyone know what's going on with the frivolous case that the churches brought, claiming posting was against their religion
Is there any known date for some action/decision in this case.
| Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive http://ellegon.com/forum/ |
|
| Church goofyness http://ellegon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=816 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | bab [ Thu Jan 26, 2006 7:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Church goofyness |
Does anyone know what's going on with the frivolous case that the churches brought, claiming posting was against their religion
Is there any known date for some action/decision in this case. |
|
| Author: | phorvick [ Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
They were not claiming that posting was against their religion. They were, if memory serves correct, stating that the seperation of church and state was such that the State requiring the posting was a violation of that doctrine. |
|
| Author: | Andrew Rothman [ Thu Jan 26, 2006 11:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Edina and St. Paul churches -- and only those two -- won a court order allowing them to notify people "in any lawful manner" that carry is prohibited. It's a small thing, really. I don't know if it was a temporary order pending further proceedings. |
|
| Author: | bab [ Thu Jan 26, 2006 11:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
phorvick wrote: They were not claiming that posting was against their religion. . phorvick wrote: They were, if memory serves correct, stating that the seperation of church and state was such that the State requiring the posting was a violation of that doctrine. Um... seperation of church and state means the state can't form its own religion, which is not what was happening here. It doesn't meen the state can't legislate that a church follow laws. For example, a church can't build a stucture that doesn't follow building codes, a church can't practice slavery, a church must post exit signs, etc.... Now it's also true that the state can't make punative legislation to favor some churches over others. But again, that wasn't what was happening here, because all churches were treated equally. Also, the posting requirements could hardly be considered a financial burden. Anyway... I thought I recalled that it was a temporary order, and was wondering what the time table was for a long term permanent solution. |
|
| Author: | Macx [ Thu Jan 26, 2006 11:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
It baffles me that churches would be against carry. I think if I was a member of a church that started to go that way, I'd have to sit down with the church board and explain, reality, scripture and the law. It isn't like anybody that carries is wanting to do target practice during services. As far as I am concerened, cell phone ringers are far more disruptive to services. You carry, you worship, you leave, same as anybody with an ink pen, wallet or I-pod in their pocket. It is just stuff you have on your person. You might get through the whole service without using your ink pen, what you do with your wallet is your choice, and using an I-pod during service would certainly be rude, but probably not diruptive . . . I'd imagine that carriers could go through a service without un-concealing and waving their pistols around. It ain't the church's business what is in my pockets. I guess I could see posting on a Mennonite church or Amish, one of the pacifict churches, but then their values are kinda known and the idea of a Mennonite or Amish carrying (outside of hunting land) in the first place is pretty far fetched. But it seems like the churches I have heard of posting, don't have an injunction against violence (in self defense). It is just liberals imposing their "feel good" crap on what is supposed to be a refuge from the world and its ruled by liberals restrictions and impositions. |
|
| Author: | phorvick [ Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
bab wrote: Um... seperation of church and state means the state can't form its own religion, (...snip) Your analysis that other governmental regulations also can be enforced upon churches (building codes, fire exit signs etc) is all part of the three pronged test used to determine if the particular legislation is in violation of the establishment clause. Most scholars that I know would suggest that if this specific case were to work to a final decision, that the alleged offending legislation likely would be permitted. As Andrew noted though, it in reality is a lot ado about not very much 
|
|
| Author: | bab [ Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
phorvick wrote: Most scholars that I know would suggest that if this specific case were to work to a final decision, that the alleged offending legislation likely would be permitted. Thus my question. Is this case going to work to a final decision? If not, why not? It doesn't feel like a trivial matter to me. Perhaps it is because I go past one of these churches often, and am constantly reminded by their silly signs of their nonsensical argument, but it seems to me that they are trying to be more equal than the rest of us, and justifying it based on their Christianitudiness. There is also the "thin edge of the wedge" aspect of it, i.e. once one special interest group gets an exception to following the posting law then who is next ??? |
|
| Author: | phorvick [ Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thus my question. Is this case going to work to a final decision? If not, why not? The timing is really dictated by the Plaintiffs here...right now it it quiet. One can only speculate what that means, if anything. |
|
| Author: | mobocracy [ Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Macx wrote: It baffles me that churches would be against carry. I think if I was a member of a church that started to go that way, I'd have to sit down with the church board and explain, reality, scripture and the law. IMHO a lot of churches have gone down the peace/justice/pacifism route since the 1960s. Or at least that's my impression as an atheist, which is why I'm not too concerned about what churches want or don't want, as long as it stays in the church. |
|
| Author: | thurianknight [ Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: IMHO a lot of churches have gone down the peace/justice/pacifism route since the 1960s. I don't know if that's true or not, but my pastor got his carry permit before I did. It probably helps that he has a pro-carry cop for a son-in-law
In any case, I suspect that it isn't so much that *churches* have gone pacifist, but that society has gone pacifist and many churches have simply followed suit. One might say that this is yet more evidence that we Christians have become too "worldly" (affected by the secular world), but I'm not sure I would go that far. Of course now I've taken us even further off-topic for this forum, so apologies to all -- it just seemed like an interesting side-note
TK |
|
| Author: | Macx [ Sun Jan 29, 2006 3:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I am inclined to agree. I think that the less than gun friendly views expressed by some churches are due to the Leftward drift (our)society has been suffering. I don't mind speaking my mind. . . . even our republicans are too far toward the communist end of the scale. The center point between democrat and republican is well left of the communist youth movements of a couple decades ago. As this country declines into moral decandence, I am reminded the Pax Romana and how it went away long about 430 A.D. give or take a year or 20. |
|
| Author: | goalie [ Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The argument being used by the churches in question is best looked at through analogy: -The church's in question are claiming that posting signs that are required to be posted if they want to ban permit holders from carrying concealed in their church in accordance with state law and statute is violating the separation of church and state. Keep in mind that no church is being required to post the signs, they are only required if the chuch CHOOSES to discriminate against people who are legally carrying a handgun. -Those same churches are already required to post lit exit signs, handicapped parking signs, and other state-law required signs in accordance with state law, and they have NEVER gone to court to claim that being required to do so violated the separation of church and state except in the case of the neon orange slow-vehicle signs on Amish buggies, and last time I checked, the Amish community in MN didn't give a rat's ass about permit carriers in their churches. Those same churches are required to follow state and local building codes. Those same churches are required to do a whole lot of things that are more intrusive than what they went to court over. The churches in question are becoming political entities, and are taking a purely political stand. |
|
| Author: | Macx [ Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
EXCELLENT points. Well written and right on target, Goalie. |
|
| Author: | ttousi [ Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Macx wrote: EXCELLENT points. Well written and right on target, Goalie. Ditto.............. |
|
| Author: | BigRobT [ Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm surprised the the Church shooting incident in Texas(?) hasn't surfaced in this thread. Old news, but very apropos. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|