Discussions
Churches and National Security. Huh?
Posted by Anok • 7/24/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
OK, I heard a wild one this morning. The old Church I used to belong to now has armed security guards during mass.
Err, weird. I knew they were a little extreme but armed security for a non denom church? Okey dokey...
Then the explanation as to why they "need" security is even more bizarre. The congregate told us that they were required, by law to provide themselves with security due to national security concerns and it all has to do with their 501(c)3 tax status.
Huh? That makes no sense at all. Has anyone heard anything like this at all? Anywhere?
User Comments
-
Well, I heard that they're increasing security at the RNC because some Catholics have been sending death threats to blogger PZ Myers and they have an irrational fear of retaliation. Other than that, no.
Security in a church? What's this world coming to?-
Yeah I know that, but that' snot what I'm talking about here. It's all so...weird. Apparently the church goers - or the Parrish itself has told the church goers that the security is for their protection at the request of the government.
That makes no sense at all.
-
-
It's to protect the crackers.-
I don't remember them ever having communion services.
Otherwise;
-
@flaming ya but from whom?
Which Hate Crimes Are Newsworthy?
www.wcr.ab.ca/columns/charlesmoore/2000/charlesmoore032700.shtml
society portrays the good as bad and the bad as good go figure. -
"It's to protect the crackers"
Was that a racial comment or a comment about Catholicism? -
crackers is a racist term for Southern Americans primarily in the bible-belt so it's derogatory tone applies to a wider populous than merely Catholics in the South.
flaming shouldn't think himself funny, I think it's a colour thing for him -
Er, it has nothing to do with the Southern Americans. It has to do with the communion wafers (see: It's just a frackin' cracker!).
-
Yea, i live in the south...that is why I asked.
-
Guys, it has nothing to do with race. A cracker is also a food item, and a religious communion item.
FP is talking about the communion wafer.
Turning it into a racial thing makes no sense in the context of the conversation
-
@voodoo
"Er, it has nothing to do with the Southern Americans. It has to do with the communion wafers (see: It's just a frackin' cracker!)."
even worse, that is seen as an attack on God.
@Anok it isn't a cracker and I'd like to remind those who wish to be treated with respect, try respecting others around.
flaming you should apologize for your bad choice of words. -
or an attack on crackers. -
kevin and gt - it's not so much that FP is dissing catholicism or even, as kevin suggests, god. it's a reference to the PZ Meyers posts. that's why voodoo posted those links. most other people in this thread have read the PZ Meyers threads and so caught that the reference was not about rednecks, but about a disturbance around a communion wafer which one blogger who is not here called a cracker.
good grief. -
Cracker (food), a thin crisp biscuit or wafer, usually salted or savoury.
Crackers and wafers are synonyms. I apologise for the lack of reading comprehension skills. No child left behind was not my idea. -
@ender,
there was no way for me to know from flaming's original post that he was quoting someone. I now understand this Myer's person was the one using the term cracker. I would still like others to be respectful and not follow Myer's poor example and lack of professionalism. -
yea, don't want any crackers getting kidnapped. -
I think he was referring to communion wafers as a case like this arose not long ago on the forum.
-
-
I think it may be to do with this.
liberallenny.blogspot.com/2007/09/martial-law-in-america-how-feds-will.html-
I've heard that before too - but it still doesn't add up. People are claiming that the tax status has to do with it because (apparent;y) they have interpreted the political requirements as a statement saying that churches cannot speak out against the government, which isn't true.
:/
-
-
Lets hope this church doesn't require armed guards,
english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2007/03/2008525184821608334.html
because ancient Christian (Catholic) communities are being attacked in Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey everyday by Muslim extremists.
additional articles:
Pope seeks Bush's help as Iraqi bishop killed
www.independent.ie/world-news/middle-east/pope-seeks-bushs-help-as-iraqi-bi...
Fr. Andrea Santoro a missionary killed in Turkey
www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&size=A&dos=70
Kidnapped Christian girls, judge ratifies marriage and conversion
www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=12771&size=A
a tons of other articles on attacks on Catholics are out there, I think instead of trying to be funny about the issue people should widden their scope of news worthy sources.-
It's all a case of religion attacking other religion, in my eyes.
-
-
Inter-faith prayer to honour the memory of Father Prakash, Nepali martyr
www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=12762&size=A
Fr Prakash Moyalan who was killed on 1 July by a group of four gunmen.
In China
Catholics are beaten, threatened for demanding the return of Church property
www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=12741&size=A
Underground priest, layman in police hands for two months
www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=12758&size=A
sometimes I really thing some of you (flaming) don't know who the bad guys are. You really should educate yourselves-
Religious fanatics are the bad guys, regardless of their denomination or their particular brand of faith. If you are willing to beat up someone over a wafer, then there is something wrong with you mentally.
-
@flaming,
"Religious fanatics are the bad guys"
fanatics come in many flavors and the first link I posted, Which Hate Crimes Are Newsworthy?, makes the case quite well. A Fanatic isn't necessarily religious. -
No, but a fanatic does not necessarily strap bombs to himself and blow up cars to get virgins in the afterlife, or blow up abortion clinics. Take Star Trek fanatics, many of whom are obsessed with Star Trek to the detriment of their personal hygiene. I am not aware of Trekkies making death threats to someone because someone kidnapped captain Kirk's chair, Spok's ears, a Klinon's frown or any other relic.
To get that kind of dangerous fanaticism, you need to suspended the critical faculties - something religions are virtually designed for by their own admission. Ask yourself why you need armed security at places of worship, but not necessarily at Trekkie conventions?
My view is that you already know religious followers are willing to believe in something without evidence, so it is just a matter of stretching these belief systems and you end up with soldiers who will not second guess orders. You specifically require a religious fanatic to do something like strap bombs to himself, blow up abortion clinics, attack Catholics in Asia or make death threats to people who took a cookie/cracker/wafer/biscuit out of a church.
-
-
@voodooKobra
"It's all a case of religion attacking other religion, in my eyes."
Well you are missing the attacks by secular atheists upon the religious, look again-
oops wrong place
-
-
A) I'm talking about the US, churches in the US, and US policy, tax codes, and national security.
B) Religious warfare is nothing new. Christians did their fair share of pillaging and disrespectful attacks, too.
C) Calling it a cracker is not disrespectful. No more so than calling it a "wafer".
D) none of this racial, or semantical BS answers my question.
Why are churches getting armed security, and why do the congregates believe it has something to do with tax status and national security?-
Maybe they're paranoid.
India sometimes provide security to high fly places of worship; whatever religion they may be; but its always temporary : like in the wake of a terrorsit threat or communal tension.
That said, a church hiring armed guards to protect itself is really odd. Maybe the church thinks too much of itself. Or the administration thinks its the end of times. I'm not joking : it's possible.
As for national security and tax status I personally think that's a load of hogwash. Why would the US govt allow private security in the name of national security ? -
@Anok
1. because of flaming's lack of respect the entire original question has degenerated.
2. Calling "IT" a cracker is totally disrepectful I'd encourage you to stop putting up an argument defending this position as there is no wiggle room, flaming and anyone suggesting the host is a cracker should a) apologize or b) remove their comments from the discussion.
3. regarding vandalism, murder and intimidation by Catholics Christians upon others in our secular world, how many articles do you read on a day to day basis Anok?
4. Ya lets return to the original question and not poke fun at it but find the answer. -
I dunno, Alex - that's what I am trying to figure out. So far as I know, other churches have not opted for security (Catholic churches, as far as I know).....but it all sounds very...conspiracy to me.
-
It should. Any place of worship that hires pivate guns is looking for trouble. What if these people are fanatics who happen to be trigger happy ?
-
Kevin - get over it. Seriously. It' s a word.
Religious warfare and Christian attacks on others throughout history are a fact, get over it. It doesn't make any of the actions right - but bringing it up now with regards to this conversation is moot.
FP was referring to an article where CATHOLICS were sending death threats to someone. Try reading those articles.
Then get down off the religious high horse, and tell me why churches here in the US "need" armed security.
And, at the risk of sounding like a hall monitor, stop derailing the conversation into some persecution nonsense.
Oh, and if you think it's offensive, report the posts with "cracker" in it, or stop participating. -
Always good to hear the other side of the story,
MYERS TO DESECRATE EUCHARIST AND KORAN
www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1464
basically Myers is inciting a gross sacrilege, he doesn't have to agree with the doctrine but should keep his mouth shut and be respectful of the believfs ofother communities.
The student was committing a sacrilege by not consuming the eucharist. Other groups have entered churches and committed similar acts with bad intentions. In any other situation this would be seen as a trespassing crime. Was the student a Catholic? What was his intentions? What did he plan on doing with the bread? -
And apparently, you've missed the point entirely.
Death threats are not an appropriate reaction to what some consider a blasphemous act. Violence, and threats of violence, particularly from Christians over a blasphemous act are way out of line....and furthermore have little to do with calling it a "cracker", nor does it speak to your previous claims of tolerance by Christians. -
"Death threats are not an appropriate"
I'm not saying they are neither do the Church authorities.
Perhaps we should examine how non-religious have become more militant towards religious and what you are observing could possibly have more to do with frustration on the part of the religious instead of simply summing it up as a one side story of attacker and victim. -
"More militant" yeah, by asking the religious to keep their religions out of schools, and out of the faces of people who are not part of said religion.
In the US - no one is being militant - no one is threatening violence or making threats of any kinds - people are challenging religions and religious organizations however.
Religious organizations, on the other hand are working diligently to undermine social progress and equality for others, through the law.
Hmm... -
...he doesn't have to agree with the doctrine but should keep his mouth shut and be respectful of the believfs ofother communities.
So if Catholics hold wafers sacred, the rest of the world has to hold wafers sacred too?
I don't agree with that. You don't have to respect the beliefs of others. You have to respect their right to believe what they want. There is a difference. -
"Calling the Holy Eucharist a "goddamned cracker" isn't about free speech; it's really about some baseline civility. Myers' rant is the rant of an anti-Catholic bigot. And atheists and agnostics can be bigots too."
source: andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/07/moore-award-nom.html
"The irony is the rusty nail part. Of all the things to do, to actually put a nail through the Eucharist ... how is it that when we fight God, we prove His point? I'm sure PZ thought he was being clever, not recognizing the irony behind it." IB Bill
www.haloscan.com/comments/chezami/5642686087334892133/
Evil Man Proclaims Himself a Victim
PZ Myers is busy painting himself as a victim for desecrating the Eucharist. He's driving a bunch of traffic to my site so that his goons can stop by to gibber. Some might wonder why I won't return the favor. It's easy: He's got nothing but a demented rant and a picture of a desecrated Host to offer. Who needs that?...
@flaming, regarding to your accusations against the religious or a majority condoning or supporting violence, you'll soon discover your assumptions are not as accurate as you wish them to be
"....The only real revelation here is that Myers is crazy and evil. And for that, the only possible remedy is prayer and forgiveness. Lord, do not hold this sin against him"
markshea.blogspot.com/ -
But, Kevin, free speech allows people to be less than civil. That doesn't mean that they should, but they certainly may. As an attorney friend of mine is fond of saying, "It is not against the law to be an ass."
-
-
wow, anok, i'm sorry this thread got so incredibly derailed by someone who missed the point entirely.
i think what's happening at your old church is nuts and i, too, would like to know WTF is going on with that crazy explanation. it just doesn't make any sense.-
OK, good to know it's not only me
I mean, the Mr tried to explain it to me too - but something just was not clicking into place...
I think the place has simply gotten too hummm, "extreme" for it' sown good. I left it a while back and for good reason.
OK, thunderstorms are back, and I am OFFLINE! *eek*! -
what, you're getting offline before you're struck by lightning for starting this thread?
-
I don't understand the tax status thing.
-
Ack! No, we keep getting hit by strong thunder storms and I'm afearded that my 'puter will blow up or something. We had one lightening bolt early this morning that struck waaay too close to my house. I have never been up and downstairs and actually functioning at 5 am before.
It was electrifying!
Kevin - I don't understand the tax references either - which is why I'm wondering if anyone else has heard of such things. Churches here get a 501(c)3 tax exempt status, and there is a clause or requirement in this tax status that states churches cannot use their congregation (or monies?) to endorse or undermine presidential candidates or elections or election progress.
Some have taken that to mean that churches cannot speak out against the government (/me huh?) and have then further related the whole of that with national security, and the government using the tax status to force these churches into providing private security.
Lest they lose their tax status.
or something like that.
I'm just as confused as you
-
-
Now this is weird. What is your church's affiliation? Does they have a website? (I'd like to see as it sounds so odd and doesn't make sense in the slightest, unless they are a cult of sorts?)
-
Oh it's not my church anymore, I left it along time ago. But it is a non denominational Christian church, with no website so far as I know.
The last time I was active with that church they were a normal non denom church. They had services twice on Sundays, a Wednesday service, and i think a Saturday night service, they were active within the community, offered classes and activities for kids, had several different types of bible studies (I ran the "punk rock bible study ), as well as a bible study for the bible study teachers, did social services and had church get together, etc.
I left because to me, they seemed to be getting a bit extreme in their view points - in the bible studies which reverberated out into the congregation (obviously) but the services and pastors and such were still normal.
I tried to go back about two years later and they had become very extreme in their viewpoints, and have not looked back since.
I have no idea what this is about, but like I said, I haven't seen any other churches adding security to their services.... -
Maybe they're turning into a cult.
-
I am wondering the same thing, Alex. It is worrisome because I do still have friends that attend that church
-
Yikes, that is troublesome.
Look, if it really bothers you try getting back in ... just to see what's going on. You can do that, cant you ?
It's what I would do. -
Last time I tried that (in earnest) the reception I got was....not welcoming.....at all 0_o
I had never felt so uncomfortable in my life
-
-
I'm not suprised.
-
yeah but, what's it about? And have you heard anything similar?
-
-
Security as in "6 Shot At New Life Church; Gunman, 2 Churchgoers Dead"
www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14808321/detail.html
Security, armed or not, uniform or not, have been beefed up for several years...but there was a call for more security personel after the above incident.
Any questions?-
Not fer nothin' but from the article and linked articles it sounds like this was an isolated incident by a teen or young man who had issues with the New life church, and the youth mission, specifically. I'm sorry people were killed, but that does not mean churches all over the country have an actual need for armed security. That's like saying because a grocery store in California was held up at gunpoint, the grocery stores here should all hire armed security guards, and say it has to do with national security
It has nothing to do with national security, either.
Not to mention there has not been, nor has there ever been violence towards the churches here.
It's tragic, but what's the point? Violence occurs - this church (the one I am speaking of) does not carry out dangerous missionary works, doe snot engage the public, is not evangelical, is not high profile, has a small congregation, and is certainly not the center of controversy.
Apples and oranges. -
Maybe it was extra protection for the crackers!
-
Maybe...but like I said up above, I don't remember this church having communion in it's services.
The whole thing is just bizarre
-
-
Geez. My church has been like that for years. Only difference is no one needs to be hired. The number of concealed carry permits in the pews exceeds the number of driver's licenses.-
LOL
But seriously, has ANYONE heard of this or is this church just one crazy church?
-
-
never heard of that before. We just defend our church with bolts of lightning and fire balls from our eyes. It's okay - only heathens can be affected by them.
We also have ramparts around the church proper where boiling holy water can be poured upon the non-believers. We crucify the wounded. -
Those darn crackers!
-
Remind me NOT to visit your church.
Ever.
Heh. -
@Anok...you'd be missing out! One of them I attend is pastored by Barry Minkow...Google him!
-
They will burn me with laser beams and boiling holy water! No way!!
I aint goin'!
I am a Pagan, afterall
If they don't tar and feather me over there, the building will probably burst into flames at the arrival of my Pagan self *LOL* -
Oh, sorry...I thought you were referring to my church and not kdwag's...yeah, THAT church sounds scary!
I bet the crackers are locked up in a vault! -
And guarded by a three headed alien dog!
-
Careful Anok...someday, humor may not be allowed unless its "on topic"!
-
It may not be on topic, but it's always on point!
-
-
I haven't heard of security armed churches here, but then again where I live just about everyone carries concealed permint weapons like DonLewis mentioned. Even to church and to the grocery store, ya never know when you will run into a rouge per--er bear.
I have no idea what it would have to do with the non-profit 501 status. Sounds like a bunch of huuuuey to me!
There has been a step up on security at some of the larger churches, because of thieving (break-ins and vandalism when no one's around) But not threats of any kind.
Does make me curious on what's up with that church and if others are experiencing the same thing. hmmmmm!-
As TT pointed out in her link, the government has set up grants for national security of churches.
Hmmm, now more questions...
-
-
@Abok
Have you read this? It seems like beefing up security is an act that the chruch(es) choose to take and not one that they are compelled to take by the government.
www.thestar.com/article/284371
209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:92J56f-f7c0J:www.newlifechurch.org/db_images2...
Some of the U.S.'s estimated 1,200 megachurches – places where more than 2,000 worshippers gather each week – have been quietly beefing up security in recent years, even using armed guards to protect the faithful.-
Thank you TT, the last paragraph explains a bit:
"There have been security concerns generally for many years, but they have certainly been heightened since 9/11," said Nathan Diament, public policy director for the Orthodox Union, which represents Orthodox synagogues in North America.
The U.S. Homeland Security Department created a grant program of nearly $50 million to improve security for religious and secular nonprofits considered at risk of terrorist attack.
Several Jewish groups have received individual grants, according to the Orthodox Union.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations also distributes a detailed security checklist.
SO they are saying that large church gatherings (stadium style, which do occur frequently) are at risk for terrorist attack. THAT seems more in line with what this guy was talking about, although the particular church I am talking about has all of a couple hundred members
Maybe they applied for the grant.
-
-
My feeling is that church members at that church you were attending may have seen that you were a bit distressed and just wanted to give you an obscure answer. Had you pursued your question with maybe more forthright members you possibly would have been given the answers you are finding out here.
The fact of the matter is both domestically and internationally, churches have become increasingly more viewed as sitting targets.-
Distressed?
Why would I be distressed at seeing a church member? Why would they want to give an obscure answer, when the clear answer is best to avoid confusion and...distress?
I think the congregate is simply a bit confused about why they now have security -
I answered that above...
Had you pursued your question with maybe more forthright members you possibly would have been given the answers you are finding out here.
possibly mind you. -
I didn't pursue the church for answers though, this was a conversation elsewhere, with an acquaintance that had been run into, socially speaking.
We didn't bring it up, and didn't even know about it, until he brought it up
-
-
At a point in time when America has simultaneously achieved record high military budgets and record high poverty rates, the American taxpayers are providing financing (grants) for providing security for mega churches that have tax free status. It's not security for their "good works," which presumably are feeding the hungry and healing the sick and other acts of charity. Instead, they are providing funding for christian stadium events for preaching to the converted. Separation of church and state in America? Yeah sure.
-
Isn't it interesting that the American churches have not made it known to one and all how grateful they are to the American taxpayers for providing these mega church preaching and teaching to the converted stadium event grants?
Gosh, Jesus never got government grants. Apparently he made do with only a couple of fishes and some bread. Not only that but for the first 200 years of the early church Christians were persecuted pacifists who rose to the challenges that Jesus presented them with. But today in America, they are carrying weapons and are prepared to resort to violence. That in itself is remarkable given that the New Testament provides no support whatsoever for resorting to the use of violence, even in the case of self defense.
A growing sector of the population, currently 14%, does not identify itself as a member of any religion. How many Americans identify themselves as members of religious groups? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States -
That's a good point, TT. I had no idea that there were budgets for this sort of thing, and I pay attention to politics rather closely.
-
Timethief: I respect your opinion, but I wish you would stop bashing American churches, or at least lumping them all up as one big entity, not all churches are the same.
We do not have government grants in our church, everything we have done has been provided by the people that attend, of their own free will, and we have done a lot to improve community, feed the hungry etc. And there are a lot more of these types of churches then Mega Churches in America. -
From the OP: "The congregate told us that they were required, by law to provide themselves with security due to national security concerns and it all has to do with their 501(c)3 tax status. Huh? That makes no sense at all. Has anyone heard anything like this at all? Anywhere?"
I have right to share the references I found on the internet with Anok on the subject that was posted. I also have a right to state my opinions based on what I found. Specifically, in this case, I have a right to call attention to American legislation that directs taxpayer dollars into government programs for providing security for "mega church stadium events".
The points I made above are exactly on point when it comes to the discussion topic Anok has posed. I have broken no guidelines and/or rules.
If you read this discussion thread from top to bottom you will find the posts of those who have diverted the discussion from the topic Anok defined and I am not among them.
-
-
In addition...there are mega churches involved with building hospitals, homes, orphanges, and such all over the world.
Also, there are mega churches involved with providing food, medicine, clothing, shelter all over the world.
So, the "church" in America and in the world works in more ways than we can even comprehend. It's kind of the half empty/half full thing...isn't it!
I would recommend not getting caught up in stereotypical judgements of this church or that church. I have attended large and small...modern and traditional...and I would put there positives first before anything. -
Note: other than tax exempt status, I have never heard that the U.S. goverment funds churches as the norm. Church programs? Yes, maybe those that provide a social service.
-
Yes, but we are discussing the grant program, funded by tax dollars, that has been allocated by the government for church security, for "national security".
Which is weird to me.
-
-
@Anok
It would appear that I am the BC member, who posted to this thread, and addressed the exact topic you posted, and uncovered the specific information that you were looking for. Now further research, particularly, in the context of the upcoming Presidential election can be undertaken.-
Yup, it seems you have solved at least part of it!
-
-
Distressing
Oh Lord.-
What's distressing is the lengths that apologists will got to in order to divert attention away from the relevant subject matter.
(1) American taxpayers have a right to full disclosure of the specifics with regard to this and ALL other "faith based government programs" being financed with their tax dollars.
(2) American taxpayers have a right to know where both of the Presidential candidates stand on these issues before they go to the ballot boxes in November. -
Except, Timethief, that there has been no indication of any tax dollars being spent. Anok's initial post says they were required by law to PROVIDE THEMSELVES SECURITY. That's followed by a number of comments from you on spending government dollars to provide them security, but Anok didn't say that, so where did you get that idea?
-
TT had found a grant program offered by the government for national security. It would seem that the person I had spoke to about this (or the man who told us, anyway) was just talking out of his you-know-what.
-
-
Anok, I can't make any sense out of that for the simple reason that most churches (which hold the same exempt status) DON'T have that kind of security. Perhaps there has been some sort of threat that you're not aware of, and they either think that's a less threatening answer or have been required to act specifically because of an assessed risk at that location?
-
I'm thinking it had more to do with wanting a monetary grant, so they had to put up a bit of security, and prolly used the rest for something the church wanted/needed.
I talked it over with the Mr last night...and he brought up that maybe they just used the whole national security threat as a means to get the grant money. I mean honestly, what terrorists would go out, into the boondocks to find this itty bitty church, with all two hundred, maybe three hundred members, and wreak havoc? There are much bigger, and more poignant targets of terrorism that are far easier to find (in the area) and would do a great deal more damage than this tiny church
SO, after all the conspiracy talks and what the...? head scratching, I think it just comes down to money afterall.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
