Sharp as a Marble
HomeAboutContactSyndicationLogin
 

Churches in Minnesota win another round on gun ban

Court of Appeals: Churches can lawfully ban guns from their premises. Court agrees to exempt religious institutions from the 2005 law.

In another victory for churches wanting to ban guns from their premises, the state Court of Appeals issued a 32-page decision Tuesday agreeing with the district court that religious institutions are exempt from the so-called Minnesota Citizens' Personal Protection Act of 2005.

Exempt. Meaning they're better or more deserving of special treatment that other entities. And I grouse about this as a religious person. So, instead of simply asking their parishioners to not bring in guns, they have to threaten them with legal action?

Churches also are not required to post the statutorily proscribed signs that say that the building operator "BANS GUNS ON THESE PREMISES."

"The uncontroverted affidavits before us establish that the sign provision does compel churches that wish to exclude firearms to act in a manner that is inconsistent with their religious beliefs by requiring that they place specific, conspicuous signs at every entrance to the church," said the opinion written by Judge David Minge and signed by Judges Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks and Terri Stoneburner.

Horseshit. I don't remember the 11th Commandment "Thou shan't place signs up at the doors of churches".

Are churches also exempt from following the fire codes and putting up lit exit signs? Do they not require the same building codes as everyone else or can a church use asbestos for insulation and lead paint. Because of religious stuff?

The decision means the Edina Community Lutheran Church can continue to legally bar guns with signs saying "Blessed are the peacemakers. Firearms are prohibited in this place of sanctuary." Other churches may choose their own wording.

The decision also means that parking lots, day-care centers and other charitable, educational and nonprofit facilities owned by churches may ban firearms.

I have zero problem with a church asking it's idiots... sheep... members to disarm. As long as they continue to dole out the cash in the offering plates, so be it. If my church were to put up a sign like that, I'd honor it and they can kiss my tithe (and my preschool money) goodbye. God doesn't "keep you safe, physically". If he did, we'd never need to go to a doctor, wouldn't have to wear shoes while walking on nails and broken glass, nor would we need to wear clothes in the snow. Do these same people not wear seatbelts because God will protect them? Do they not strap their babies in child seats for the same reason?

I understand that the house of God is not a place for evil violence, but like gun laws, only the faithful follow that rule. And, like I've said before, if during service some idiot comes in to show how weak God is and start shooting, everyone is going to pray that God protects them. I'll be the answer to that prayer.

Unity Church of St. Paul also sued, arguing that compliance with the sign requirement "would be inconsistent with its mission to provide a safe sanctuary and welcoming place of worship."

Nice. A church that lies. Requiring a specific sign has nothing to do with keeping guns out of your property. And what if a church down the road actually cared about its parishioners and didn't mind them protecting themselves? Your blanket ban runs roughshod over their wishes.

Pastor Erik Strand of Edina Community Lutheran Church said he was pleased with the decision, as did Marshall Tanick, the lawyer for Unity Church. "We're especially thankful that the court recognized and protected our congregation's witness to peacemaking and nonviolence in all relationships," Strand said in a written statement.

Because God knows, he never commanded anyone to march around a city, slay a giant, beat their plowshares into swords, or fight for him. I wonder if these churches take a black Sharpie to the pew bibles and cross those parts out or do they just rip the pages free and burn them?

This is why I'm mostly agnostic. There's a lot more to this universe than we're ever going to be able to determine (Thank you, Herr Heisenberg) and I truly believe that we get a generalized sense of right and wrong from something spiritual. I also doubt that God requires me to simply stand there while someone murders my family, other people or myself. Violence in and of itself is not the bad thing, its why you are employing it that determines its place on the "bad" scale.

I'd have no problem if this wasn't a legally binding issue. Like employers' parking lots, as long as the only "punishment" is between me and the landowner (i.e. I can be asked to leave or be fired) then I believe in your right, however stupid and uninformed, to make a no guns sign. But for an organization that wants all the benefits of not being controlled by the government (something I approve of), they sure as hell want to use the force of government to push their wishes on the public.

rolled out on Tuesday, February 05, 2008 7:50 PM
Comments
# re: I guess we can skip that whole separation of church and state thing - Tom

Rolled Out On: 2/6/2008 5:11 AM

great...it just HAD to be some Lutherans.

Wasn't there something in the Heller argument about churches and folks being required to carry TO AND IN church? If not, where the heck did I read that....

Yeah, it was the argument:

See, e.g., 19 COLONIAL RECORDS OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA, PART 1, 138 (1911) (churchgoer “shall carry with him a gun, or a pair of pistols, in good order and fit for service, with at least six charges of gun-powder and ball, and shall take the said gun or pistols with him to the pew or seat”). Page 65.


I have never once see or read ANY reference to not posting signs. If I can't see a sign and nobody's out there telling me I can't carry then guess what.... What about people who can't read (or read english) or what if the sign was posted in another language?


I think they should be reminded that Cain didn't have a gun and was "Abel" to murder just fine. (sorry, just had to slip that in)

# re: I guess we can skip that whole separation of church and state thing - Gregory Morris

Rolled Out On: 2/6/2008 2:20 PM

This is not a disagreement with your conclusions, but rather an analysis and a nit-pick-fest. Since I am being more critical than usual, I'm sending it directly to you first, instead of just posting it. I also get a little off-topic, and this isn't very well organized. I understand that you are attacking a stupid law, and not condemning religion, but I don't think your arguments regarding Christianty are ideal. So let us begin…

Regarding your statement: "If he did, we'd never need to go to a
doctor, wouldn't have to wear shoes while walking on nails and broken glass, nor would we need to wear clothes in the snow." Deuteronomy 6:16 states, "Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God..." and this Old Testament scripture is later quoted in both Matthew and Luke. No Christian with even the basic understanding of scripture would believe you can "tempt" God and He will save you. I'm just saying this, because I don't particularly care for your argument, and it seems somewhat uninformed.

On the other hand, having the ability to defend yourself has nothing to do with putting your trust in God. In the end, what a devout Christian will say is "I put my life into God's hands," rather that "I trust God will save my life." There is a very important distinction here. As a Christian, I am not required to have faith that God will protect me no-matter-what. There is nothing in scripture, or holy tradition, that even implies that. Instead, Christians should allow themselves to be guided by the Holy Spirit, to act in accordance with God's will. In the end, regardless of whether or not you choose to defend yourself, it is not up to you when you die (regardless of your religious belief.) All of us gunnies know that simply having a gun will not make us invincible, it will only even out the odds of our survival, and hence we choose to carry. Through God's grace, our souls may receive eternal life, but there is no foundation in Christianity stating one way or another that God has decided each and every one of us must live as long as possible, and not die at the hands of another. Saying "God, protect me from the deranged murderer" is akin to saying "God won't ya buy me a Mercedes Benz?" In the end, you must live your life, provide for your own defense, ask forgiveness for your iniquities, and truly mean it when you say "Thy will be done."

So how does this relate to self defense, in a Christian sense? In my opinion, self defense does not equal violence, and in that regard does not run counter to Christian beliefs. Rather, self defense is putting an end to an act of violence. (Just picking a nit over: "Violence in and of itself is not the bad thing"...) If you shoot someone in self defense while your life is in jeopardy, it was the assailant's choice, not yours, and you are free from his guilt. My personal, Christian choice is to be non-violent at all costs and given every scenario, except when my family or I are put in mortal peril. Being a pacifist means not participating in violence, but it does not imply you may not act to end it in an expedient fashion.

# re: I guess we can skip that whole separation of church and state thing - Gregory Morris

Rolled Out On: 2/6/2008 2:21 PM

(continued)
In Matthew 5:39, Christ states, "But I say to you, do not resist an
evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." This is an admonishment to not be quick to anger or retaliate. Likewise, in the Lord's Prayer, Christ asks us not to seek retribution for wrongs against us but rather to forgive. Christ's words are not an order to give up on all possibility of self defense, but rather an order to be peaceful and to abhor violence, even in the face of your own suffering. Scripture must be read not only for what it says, but for what it does not say. Remember, if you are dead, there is no way to "turn the other cheek," which implies that Christ tells us not to physically resist the minor evils of men, which ultimately have no bearing on our eternal life. Lethal self defense is only appropriate when your life is at risk, and using lethal means in such a situation would still be in line with the teachings of our Lord. In fact, scripture demands that you provide safety for yourself and your family. Timothy states, "If any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

Since I am tackling the subject of self defense, from a Christian
standpoint, I figure I'd point you to my post from last June about it
(in case you didn't see it before):
http://www.gregandbeth.com/blog/index.php?action=view&id=274

# re: I guess we can skip that whole separation of church and state thing - Gregory Morris

Rolled Out On: 2/6/2008 2:23 PM

Random protestant rant...
"I wonder if these churches take a black Sharpie to the pew bibles and across those parts out or do they just rip the pages free and burn them?" Churches have misinterpreted, misunderstood, or omitted parts of scripture since the very early years of the church. You make a good point there. Protestant churches in particular have abandoned any guidance from the holy tradition of the church, which has left them vulnerable to the capricious and arbitrary interpretations of individual clergy, and the society at large. It isn't so much that they remove portions of the Bible they do not like, rather they ignore or misinterpret them. Again, I'll point you to a post regarding my feelings on this:
http://www.gregandbeth.com/blog/index.php?action=view&id=415

Random philosophical/semantic rant...
"This is why I'm mostly agnostic."
FYI, there is no such thing as mostly agnostic. That's like saying, "she's mostly pregnant." There are four categories to describe your religious beliefs: Theist - i.e. you believe in one or more god(s); Atheist - you explicitly do not believe in any god; Agnostic - you are unsure if there is a god; and Non-cognitivist - you think even the question "is there a god" is not logical. No offense, but "mostly agnostic" implies you are either confused about your uncertainty, or you are too lazy to make up your mind. If you believe in a higher power, but you aren't quite sure what that power is, I'd argue you are simply a theist who doesn't have a definition of what "god" is. That being said, you began the post with "...as a religious person." It seems to me that you separate your "religion" from your faith (or lack thereof.) In other words, you believe a "religion" or "church" is a purely secular body where people of similar faith go to meet up, while your actual faith is entirely personal. This is a distinctly western/protestant stance. If this were truly the case, then a church building ought to be treated no different from a grocery store. Of course, the word "church" in the phrase "separation of church and state" does not refer to white buildings full of pews and with bright red doors. It has to do with the individual freedom to worship how one sees fit. Exempting a specific subset of buildings from signage requirements really doesn't matter, in the context of "separation". All that really matters in this legal matter is the fact that it is a terrible idea to create a geographic zone where people have no knowledge of whether they are in violation of the law or not.

Comments have been closed on this topic.
 
TipJar
2A Blogger Bash
Other bloggers with guns.

News

Recently upgraded to Subtext 2.0.

Article Categories


General

Archives


October, 2008 (24)
September, 2008 (114)
August, 2008 (93)
July, 2008 (93)
June, 2008 (77)
May, 2008 (79)
April, 2008 (53)
March, 2008 (46)
February, 2008 (46)
January, 2008 (63)
December, 2007 (69)
November, 2007 (63)
October, 2007 (83)
September, 2007 (73)
August, 2007 (84)
July, 2007 (59)
June, 2007 (63)
May, 2007 (35)
April, 2007 (30)
March, 2007 (37)
February, 2007 (32)
January, 2007 (38)
December, 2006 (14)
November, 2006 (28)
October, 2006 (25)
September, 2006 (24)
August, 2006 (28)
July, 2006 (27)
June, 2006 (28)
May, 2006 (14)
April, 2006 (17)
March, 2006 (35)
February, 2006 (33)
January, 2006 (26)
December, 2005 (15)
November, 2005 (22)
October, 2005 (35)
September, 2005 (37)
August, 2005 (50)
July, 2005 (34)
June, 2005 (55)
May, 2005 (53)
April, 2005 (56)
March, 2005 (57)
February, 2005 (77)
January, 2005 (72)
December, 2004 (79)
November, 2004 (76)
October, 2004 (59)
September, 2004 (74)
August, 2004 (69)
July, 2004 (75)
June, 2004 (56)
May, 2004 (28)

Post Categories


Humor (rss)
Views (rss)
Catblogging (rss)
News (rss)
Politics (rss)
Geekdom (rss)
Recipes (rss)
Blogging (rss)
Wingnuts and Moonbats (rss)
War on Terror (rss)
Photography (rss)
Brewsky (rss)
Guns. Lots of Guns. (rss)
Daughter Blogging (rss)
TMI (rss)
Anxiety & Panic Attacks (rss)
Gun Myths (rss)
Reloading (rss)
Range Time (rss)
Anti-Rights Idiocy (rss)
Firearm Safety (rss)
A Cancer Story (rss)
Second Amendment Blog Bash (rss)
Gun Rights (rss)
Gun-Free Zones (rss)
Self Defense (rss)
The Line Is Here (rss)
Getting old sucks (rss)
NRA (rss)
2A Blog Bash (rss)
Out of sight, out of mind (rss)
Video Podcasts (rss)
Para Blackwater Training (rss)
GTI (rss)
You need this (rss)
Competitive shooting (rss)
PSH (rss)

Image Galleries


Beyond the Pale brewing session

::Other Digs


The Line Is Here

::Sharpest Marbles


Eject! Eject! Eject!
Instapundit
Iraq the Model
Protein Wisdom
QandO
Sharp as a Marble
Vodka Pundit
WILLisms
Witting Shire
Wizbang

:Second Amendment


A Keyboard and a .45
Alphecca
Another gun blog
Anthroblogogy
Armed and Safe
Call Me Ahab
Carnaby Fudge
Days of our Trailers
Double Tapper
Dustin's Gun Blog
Fighting for Liberty
Great Blue Whale
Gun Owners Against Violence
Gun Pundit
Guntards
Justin Buist
Live from the (upper) Texas Gulf Coast
MArooned
Mausers and Muffins
Mike-istan
Musings of the Geek with a 45
Notes from the American Outback
Oleg Volk
Papa Delta Bravo
Pro-Gun Progressive
Random Nuclear Strikes
Ride Fast and Shoot Straight
Roberta X
Say Uncle
Sear and Hammer
Snowflakes in Hell
The Anarchangel
The Armed Schoolteacher
The Bitch Girls
The Breda Fallacy
The Countertop Chronicles
The Law Dog Files
The Liberty Sphere
The Mad Rocket Scientist
The Madman Raves
The Other Side of Kim
The Real Gun Guys
The Sentinel
The Smallest Minority
The View From North Central Idaho
The War on Guns
View from the porch
Walls of the City
West, By God
Xavier thoughts

Blogroll


Guide to Midwestern Culture
Basil's Blog
Captain's Quarters
Coalition of the Swilling
Cold Fury
Cranky Neocon
Daily Pundit
dorkafork
File It Under
Florida Cracker
Garfield Ridge
INDC Journal
Is Full Of Crap
Medium at Large
Notes from the trenches
One Ping Only
Sean Gleeson
Sekimori
Sissy Willis
Six Meat Buffet
Speed of thought
Squeaky Wheel Seeks Grease
The Belmont Club
The Munchkin Wrangler
The Spoons Experience
The Unforgiving Minute
Tim Worstall
UNSpace
Vern's Blog

Extended Blogroll


21st Century Paladin
Bill Peschel
Cowboy Blob
Craziness
Flight Pundit
Hubs and Spokes
In the Right
Pajamaverse
PEER Review
TechnoChitlins
The Tygrrrr Express

Funny, as in Ha-ha


Ace of Spades HQ
Cox & Forkum
IMAO
ScrappleFace
The Superficial
Topic Drift
Wuzzadem

Good Reads


Drink This
Evil White Guy
Leaning to the Right
Ramble Strip
Save the Soldiers
SondraK
The Resplendent Mango
Triticale
You Big Mouth You

Tampa Area Blogs


Tampa Film Fan

My Technorati Conversations

Hang in there Mom

Cool Post-it Note Icon