Church has armed guards at daycare

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sportcat

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
893
Location
Anderson, SC
http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/04/05/51530767.shtml?Element_ID=51530767

Armed guards at child 'camp' questioned by state official


By CHRISTIAN BOTTORFF and SHEILA BURKE
Staff Writers


Church fighting efforts to regulate its center

A Nashville church that's fighting to keep from registering its daily child ''camp'' as a state-licensed day-care center posts armed guards on the church grounds, which is raising alarms for state human services officials.

The church also defied a court order yesterday and continued with its day camp, which accommodates more than 150 children up to age 5.

Priest Lake Community Baptist Church officials say that the guards carry their weapons legally and that the state is trying to force an ''atheist'' view on the congregation by requiring it to register as a day-care provider.

State officials say that under the law, any child-care provider cannot have any weapons around children.

''We have no intention or want to go and get a license,'' church spokesman Charles Bennett told reporters yesterday. Bennett is a deacon with the church whose 4-year-old son attends the day camp. ''We would more than comply with whatever the DHS has to offer as it relates to safety and child welfare. These are our kids; that's the thing that they seem to forget. These are our kids. If there's a safety concern there, believe me, as a parent I would be the first one to be concerned.''

Meanwhile, Michelle Mowery Johnson, spokeswoman for the state Department of Human Services, questions the church's heavy security in an area of town that's reasonably safe.

''What is so wrong with that area if they need armed guards? What is going to happen to the children? It's disturbing to think that they need to have armed guards. I do not know of any other child-care centers that have them.''

The pastor of the church and his son are both former Metro Police Department employees. Harold Frelix Sr. was as civilian counselor in the department's Police Advocacy Support Services, which offers psychological services to officers and their families.

His son, Harold Frelix Jr., was a Metro officer from 1988–95.

Bennett said rules and laws that govern weapons at a child-care facility do not apply because the church is not licensed as such.

Church officials say they are not offering child care; rather, they're holding daily church services 6 a.m.-6 p.m., and they should be exempt from state laws. Children's parents pay weekly fees to attend.

Every day and night, at least a handful of guards in orange shirts patrol in golf carts on the church grounds, Bennett said. They frequently stop, question and escort guests who come to the church property. The guards' weapons have not been visible; their orange shirts are pulled over their belt lines. The church also has an extensive surveillance system, he said.

Bennett said the armed guards have had extensive training through a gun-training course. The church guards receive monthly updates on their training and they are licensed by the state to carry firearms, he said.

''They're all trained by the best,'' Bennett said.

He would not say what types of weapons they carry and exactly how many guards are employed. Bennett said church officials say that the state is overstepping boundaries to exert ''power'' over the church, including what the church perceives is an ''atheist'' agenda.

Bennett said church officials are concerned that information is out about the security. He blames state officials for making that public.

He said the guards are on the premises ''just to have that presence'' and also to keep away criminals who would seek to vandalize the church buildings. The armed guards are present both day and night, he said.

State officials learned about the armed guards after an anonymous tip this week to DHS, which referred the matter to the state Department of Children's Services, Mowery Johnson said.

Child welfare officials yesterday launched a 60-day investigation into the welfare of the children at the church, said Carla Aaron, spokeswoman for DCS.

Aaron would not reveal the scope of the DCS investigation, although she said investigators will see whether any families at the church ever have had contact with DCS.

Frelix Sr. denied state officials access to the property yesterday. State officials cited state law, which allows investigators to inspect child-care centers and those ''suspected'' of conducting child care.

Chancellor Richard Dinkins said the restraining order he signed Monday, which was intended to stop the church from operating its day camp, was necessary to protect the public. The church ignored that order yesterday, saying it was not valid because it included incorrect information, and continued to accept children into the daily program. Dinkins set a hearing for tomorrow to give church officials a chance to respond to the DHS complaint.

Furthermore, Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle signed an order yesterday that requires the church to let state inspectors inside the property. That's expected to be served today, said Mowery Johnson. State officials would respond with further attempts to inspect the property, she said.
 
Maybe I am just suspicious, but something doesn't sounds right about this church. Maybe we have a THR member that goes there and could set me straight.

Why would a church need 24 hr security? If they are located in the hood it would make some sense, but I am getting the impression they are out in the Suburbs.
 
Good for the Church.

Teaching by example - personal responsiblity, being prepared, values of paying attention and taking preventative measures "before" not after. Kids will learn these values , including training.

Not dependent on the "gummit gonna take of". State can't stand NOT being in control - meddlin'...Kids learning that also.
 
Quote
-------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, Michelle Mowery Johnson, spokeswoman for the state Department of Human Services, questions the church's heavy security in an area of town that's reasonably safe.
-------------------------------------------------

Can someone define for me "reasonably safe":confused:

Like sportcat said - Columbine was "reasonable safe" as well:rolleyes:
 
I'm with the church on this one. Our church has a police officer or two on duty every time the doors are open. I presume they pay them pretty well. We are a high-profile church with lots of threats. What's the difference in hiring their own security who are civilians? Sounds like the local government is being a bully!
 
Why would a church need 24 hr security? If they are located in the hood it would make some sense, but I am getting the impression they are out in the Suburbs.


you never know when a mob might try to crucify someone :rolleyes:
 
Sounds like the children are in imminent danger. Where is Janet Reno and the ATF when we need them? Time for another government sanctioned church burning?
 
Keep kids safe!

It was just a few years ago that a group of terrorists attacked a Jewish Children's Day Care program in Los Angeles. Can you remember that? Terrorists want to spread terror. What better way to do that than to attack children. Good for those who are trying to protect their kids from harm!
 
There are several separate issues:

1. Is the church running a day care?

Probably. And although they are playing fast and loose with terminology to try to be classified and regulated as such, when you take care of children all day, every day, you are a de facto child care facility.

2. Are the children in danger?

Almost certainly not. It certainly sounds like the patrol crew are parents and congregants. They are said to be trained and carrying legally.

3. Is the church breaking the law?

Probably. From the story, it sounds like guns aren't allowed at day care centers -- a stupid law, but a law nonetheless. The right thing to do would be to challenge this law separately.

In making a political point, I can see choosing to disobey a particular law. But this church seems to be trying to break several at a time.

I am not particularly happy with the church claiming religious immunity from regulation, for exactly the same reasons that I'm not happy about Minnesota churches suing for immunity to Minnesota laws which stop entities from banning permit holders from having guns in their cars in church parking lots.

A church is simply another private entity, and not entitled to any special exemptions not available to the local VFW or pool hall.
 
I do not doubt the fact that it would be beneficial for the church to have members carrying while they are on church property. When I go to church with my parents in MN I always bring a gun along.

What made me wonder is that it sounds to me like they have taken this to a higher level then just having members carry. It has turned into 24 hr armed gaurds that patrol the entire perimiter. To say this is out norm for most churches would be the understatement of the year. Not as a rule, but often times when you see things so out of the ordinary, so against the norm it is easy to be suspicious.


After checking out the church website http://www.priestlake1.org/ I can't see anythign that doesn't look make it look like a standard church. Most likely what we are seeing is some journalistic embellishmant.
 
24-hour guards prevent people from placing nasty stuff (bombs, chemicals) on church property.

Bad guys don't just operate from 9am-5pm.
 
My suburban church was robbed numerous times of thousands of dollars in equipment. Most large churches have large quantities of sound and video equipment as well as computers, and other office electronics. They are a potential gold mine for thieves.

Don't know about terrorists though. I would think that any church could be target, but I haven't heard of any attack on non-Jewish churches.
 
A church is simply another private entity, and not entitled to any special exemptions not available to the local VFW or pool hall

Then why would it be appropriate to discrimate against their inherent right to self defense on their own property?

You can't have a double standard just because it is a church.
 
Sounds like the state is making trouble. The Church is not bending at all either. (which I think would be good idea) As far as armed security 24/7/365 why not? You may not know this but churchs have been burned/blown up/shot up in recient past. My sister church was broken into. They deficated on alter/piss on stuff/ tore up hymnals started them on fire/ Lit candles all over the place and even opened windows (I assume to give fire air.) They burned a stuffed chair and other stuff but building did NOT catch fire. (Luck does not cover this IMO) My church has been broken into many times. (average 2x a year EASY)
I bet the kids there are the safest/most well taken care of kids around.
 
Do they let CCW holders carry as well?

If I had to disarm to enter then I wouldn't let my kid be there (if I had a kid).
The Reverend Jim Jones,murdering "progressive" darling of the Bay Area had Armed Guards as well,only he wouldn't let you carry just his guards,who ended up killing a bunch of folks who wouldn't drink the kool-aid.

From what I can clean from the article,the Church seems like a cool place.
 
When I was a kid, the priest at the Byzantine Catholic church I attended several times ran off thieves and vandals with his rifle. He was a tough old guy.
This church, based on the information available here, seems to be doing pretty much the same thing on a bigger scale. Lots of places, from office buildings to schools to shopping malls, have armed security at night. Where they are getting in trouble is by running a de facto day care and then claiming they aren't running a day care. As has already been said, it would be a better idea to challenge the law than just to break it.
 
REPLY TO "Mark13"

what happened at Columbine and a protestant church in dallas tx. were terrorist acts even if they were not carried out by non americans.

i pity the pedifile that tries to take a kid from that church!
 
He would not say what types of weapons they carry and exactly how many guards are employed. Bennett said church officials say that the state is overstepping boundaries to exert ''power'' over the church, including what the church perceives is an ''atheist'' agenda.

I'm an atheist, and my agenda doesn't involve disarming people or trying to secularize churches. Right now it just involves getting some Cheerios and paying my damned insurance payments.

Church officials say they are not offering child care; rather, they're holding daily church services 6 a.m.-6 p.m., and they should be exempt from state laws. Children's parents pay weekly fees to attend.

While I do not mind and even agree with the church having armed guards and being left the hell alone, having them call this anything but child care is utter BS. They're trying to skirt around laws concerning day care. Legally, they're probably in the wrong... however, I can't help but cheer for them as the laws are bogus in the first place.
 
Breaking the law

Several have mentioned that the church may be in the wrong because they disagree with a law and are breaking it instead of trying to get it changed. Does it not take a great deal of work to get a law changed, over coming the bureaucratic inertia at ever step? The other option is to force the law to go under the scrutiny of a trial. This requires that you break the law in order to be charged so that the judge will hopefully declare it "unconstitutional". If you think that you have a better lawer the second option may be the better way.
 
Laws banning guns in certain places (schools, daycare, stadiums, etc.) are wrong and are done to appease the fence sitters and the people that are mildly anti-gun. That being said, why should this church get a pass? If I ran a private day care and tried this would I get in trouble? Ok, then I'll just call myself a church and exempt myself from compliance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top