Churches in Minnesota win another round on gun ban

[JerryM]

Hi Lance,

[As for me, I want to thank the Lutheran Church and the Episcopal church for proving once again that Jefferson was right on the mark with his observations. I'm not sure when Karl Marx replaced Jesus among the traditional denominations but it's always evident that such is the case.]

Would you list the traditional denominations?
How would you describe the way Karl Marx replaced Jesus? In fact I might agree with you on some denominations, but not all denominations.

Since you state such, what denomination do you belong to, or how do you know the doctrinal positions of the various denominations and local churches?

I ask these questions because I read/hear so much criticism of Christian churches and denominations, and it is usually by folks who belong to none, do not know the Bible, and are unsaved. It is just prejudice speaking, with little knowledge.

I would submit that most people who are so critical of Christianity and local churches just do not want to be submissive to Christ and the church He established. They do not want to be accountable to anyone, including Christ. They do not want to accept that there are absolute moral values and some day they will have to answer to God for their lives.
I am not saying all that applies to you, but that is the reason for my questions.

Regards,
Jerry

 

[Dimensio]

And they should be getting them. If you've ever lived near a good-sized church, you know that they can be actually quite a nuisance and they most certainly burden the city infrastructure a great deal. There's no reason why a church shouldn't pay for police and fire protection, sewage treatment, roads and sidewalks, same as any other business or individual has to, especially without even having the burden of demonstrating non-profit status.

I'm not arguing against taxing churches. I was just stating the current law on the matter.

 

[Ivy Mike]

maybe I'm missing the big picture here but last time I checked, churches are private organizations and are within their rights to prohibit firearms on their premises. If you don't like it, you are free to attend church elsewhere.

is it wrong that every time I hear "blessed are the peacemakers" I think of Sam Colt?

 

[princewally]

I would submit that most people who are so critical of Christianity and local churches just do not want to be submissive to Christ and the church He established. They do not want to be accountable to anyone, including Christ. They do not want to accept that there are absolute moral values and some day they will have to answer to God for their lives.

What a load of crap.

I am accountable in varying degrees to myself, my family, my employer, my society.

There are absolute moral values that have nothing to do with my religion. Moral relativism happens in churches at least as much as it happens outside of them.

I would submit that most of the people who react so strongly to criticism of a church are only in the church because it suits their need to...nevermind. I'm not stooping to that level.

Remember, a high horse isn't the High Road.

 

[princewally]

maybe I'm missing the big picture here but last time I checked, churches are private organizations and are within their rights to prohibit firearms on their premises.

You are missing the picture. Two churches have been suing for a couple of years to be an exception to the carry law. The law states specifically what is required to ban guns. They want to pick their own criteria.

They also want to ban guns in their parking lot, which is currently NOT allowed under the law. If you are going somewhere that bans guns, you are allowed to leave your gun in your car in Minnesota, instead of being forced to disarm at home.

 

[lance22]

Hi Jerry:

> Would you list the traditional denominations?

The old ones, but I'm thinking particularly of old-world protestantism.

> How would you describe the way Karl Marx replaced Jesus?

Well - when I was attending Luther Northwest Theological Seminary - as well as a couple smaller theological schools before that - I came under the distinct impression that my theology profs were a few notches to the left of my old sociology profs. Long story. But, do some reading of what's being written by prominent Episcopal and Lutheran thinkers and judge for yourself if Karl Marx has replaced Christ. I spent years reading that drivel until I finally had enough back in 1999.

> Since you state such, what denomination do you belong to,
> or how do you know the doctrinal positions of the various
> denominations and local churches?

A first rate theological education + 12 years as a minster.

> It is just prejudice speaking, with little knowledge.

I would encourage to re-read the topic of this thread. The old denominations have been the #1 opponent of MN's 'shall issue" carry law. Every time those guys write an article in the paper (their priests and pastors) all they can talk about is 'redistribution of the wealth' and 'corporations'. I live in MN and this is what's happening here as per the topic of this thread.

I recall once I entered an Episcopal church and the minister herself asked me to remove my Bible and put it out on the coatrack. She said "You should know better than to bring a Bible into an Episcopal church". Just goes to show where their thinking isn't coming from.

> I would submit that most people who are so critical of Christianity
> and local churches just do not want to be submissive to Christ
> and the church He established.

I couldn't possibly agree more. But some of us are critical because too much has been added to the Word of God in the name of tradition, and the further they get from the Bible the closer they get to Marx - which is why all these old churches in MN are trying to get "shall Issue" revoked - they want the state to have a monopoly on force because they believe in the state as all leftists worship the state.

On the very top of this page I quoted Thomas Jefferson. His words are still true today. Clergy always come down on the side of state power - even in Central America where they preach "liberation theology" all they do is install a dictator more powerful than the last. It is indeed ironic that Marx himself made the same observation.

I wish you nothing but the best ... I"ll shut up now and hopefully the mods won't close this down.

 

[Pilgrim]

As for me, I want to thank the Lutheran Church and the Episcopal church for proving once again that Jefferson was right on the mark with his observations.

There are a number of different Lutheran churches. The Lutheran church in this story is a part of Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. They are known by other Lutherans as being a bit 'liberal'.

On the other end of the political spectrum is Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. I assure you they are quite conservative, theologically and politically.

Pilgrim

 

[JerryM]

Hi lance22,

I do appreciate your response. In fact I agree with much of what you have said.
Most denominations have become liberal and preach a social gospel which is basically Marxist. They do not follow the Bible and do not intend to do so, and many of their practices are in contradiction to the Bible.

I might differ with you on the issue of a particular local church’s position on CCW in that church. Now as far as getting “Shall Issue” revoked it is none of their business and goes along with getting involved where they have no business while neglecting what they should be doing in spreading the gospel, and seeking to mature the saints as they serve Jesus.
But I do believe that any local church has the right to allow or prohibit concealed carry on their premises. I do not think prohibiting it is a well thought out position, but they have the right, and all who attend should respect that rule.
That would not be a factor in whether I would belong to that church or not as a good fundamental Bible believing church is very difficult to find, and CCW would not keep me from belonging to such a church.
My own pastor has no problem with it, and in fact is pleased that there are those of us who do not intend to let some thug attack our “family.”

But in the end, a Christian is obligated to submit to the rules of the leadership as long as they do not contradict clear Biblical teaching.

Regards,
Jerry

 

[ArmedBear]

But in the end, a Christian is obligated to submit to the rules of the leadership

Now that pushed it over the edge (especially since there's not much that can't somehow be justified by "leaders" using the Bible). As the son of two survivors of the Nazi regime and also as an ex-fundie myself, you people scare me and make me glad for the 2nd Amendment, even as I fully support your rights under the 1st. If there's a God, and you have a personal relationship with him, why would you consider it your obligation to follow human leaders? And why should liberty-minded people not find this to be potentially dangerous?

I do try not to let it rob me of my sense of humor, however.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

ArmedBear posted:

Malls are entirely different. If The Sharper Image said, "Buy this product now, or you will spend an eternity in Hell!" (as the poster wrote to me above), you could probably sue for false advertisement unless they could prove it, or claimed it was protected speech as parody. Churches, however, can say whatever they want within their doors, and this is protected by the Constitution as it should be. And they don't sell any of the necessities of life, so you really never have to go unless you want to. They're really not public like malls.

I don't believe churches can say whatever they want within their doors. I would guess that a church would have to follow equal opportunity laws, discrimination laws, OSHA regulations, ADA laws, etc. I would guess that if a church was engaging in too much political activity within the confines of their building, they could jeopardize their tax exempt status.

However, as a poster previous noted via the Professor from Hamline, this law is really all to do about nothing except scoring some political points against CCW laws.

 

[Richmond]

scope of decision

Once again, the court's syllabus:

1. Provisions of the Minnesota Citizens‘ Personal Protection Act of 2005 that effectively (a) require that before a church may order a person carrying a firearm to leave its premises, the church must (i) post at every entrance signs that conform to specific
requirements, or (ii) personally inform each person that guns are prohibited and demand compliance; (b) preclude churches from prohibiting guns in parking areas on church property; and (c) preclude churches from prohibiting their tenants and the guests of tenants from having guns on church property are unconstitutional under article I, section 16, of the Minnesota Constitution.

The relevant section of MCPPA, MN STAT 624.714, subd. 17:

Subd. 17. Posting; trespass. (a) A person carrying a firearm on or about his or her person
or clothes under a permit or otherwise who remains at a private establishment knowing that the
operator of the establishment or its agent has made a reasonable request that firearms not be
brought into the establishment may be ordered to leave the premises. A person who fails to
leave when so requested is guilty of a petty misdemeanor. The fine for a first offense must not
exceed $25. Notwithstanding section 609.531, a firearm carried in violation of this subdivision
is not subject to forfeiture.
(b) As used in this subdivision, the terms in this paragraph have the meanings given.
(1) "Reasonable request" means a request made under the following circumstances:
(i) the requester has prominently posted a conspicuous sign at every entrance to the
establishment containing the following language: "(INDICATE IDENTITY OF OPERATOR)
BANS GUNS IN THESE PREMISES."; or
(ii) the requester or the requester's agent personally informs the person that guns are
prohibited in the premises and demands compliance.
(2) "Prominently" means readily visible and within four feet laterally of the entrance with the
bottom of the sign at a height of four to six feet above the floor.
(3) "Conspicuous" means lettering in black arial typeface at least 1-1/2 inches in height
against a bright contrasting background that is at least 187 square inches in area.
(4) "Private establishment" means a building, structure, or portion thereof that is owned,
leased, controlled, or operated by a nongovernmental entity for a nongovernmental purpose.
(c) The owner or operator of a private establishment may not prohibit the lawful carry or
possession of firearms in a parking facility or parking area.
(d) This subdivision does not apply to private residences. The lawful possessor of a private
residence may prohibit firearms, and provide notice thereof, in any lawful manner.
(e) A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or
their guests.
(f) Notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions in section 609.605, this subdivision sets
forth the exclusive criteria to notify a permit holder when otherwise lawful firearm possession is
not allowed in a private establishment and sets forth the exclusive penalty for such activity.
(g) This subdivision does not apply to:
(1) an active licensed peace officer; or
(2) a security guard acting in the course and scope of employment.

Essentially, this has been the tactic of the anti lobby, that lost in the effort to defeat the MCPPA, Minnesota's "shall issue" legislation. Having lost on the legislation as a whole, they are still fighting to bit by bit erode the scope of the law.

The Court of appeals invalidates 3 provisions on grounds of unconstitutionality:
1. sign requirements
2. parking lot restriction
3. ability of church to restrict tenants and their guests (see (e) in the statute)

Looking at it in one sense, you could agree with Prof. Olson - that this is fairly insignificant, and that is probably a good way to present it to the media. On the other hand, this is a long term strategy by the anti movement, and I would not ignore any of their efforts or successes, however small.

And it isn't about religion - it is about guns.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

Jaenek posted:

Neither churches or malls are public property. If someone had to purchase the property, that makes it private property. The church bought the church land and the company that runs the mall bought the property the mall is on, therefore it makes it private property. They simply invite people onto their land and into their building. Same idea as a grocery store or McDonalds, those are private property as well. Hence the reason why they can tell you to leave and you have to comply. If it was public property they wouldn't have the right to tell you to get out.

I would tend to agree with you. However, with regard to the Mall of America specifically, the governing entity provided some tax free land and tax increment financing, IIRC, to the developer(s). The government used that against the MoA to say that this was truely a public place, essentially built with public funds. They found a judge to agree with them. At least I think that was part of the decision. I could be wrong and if so, I apologize. I don't have time to run and look into the details right now.

 

[DENALI]

These institutions really aren't even Christian, there just clubhouse's run by, and for secular progressives, who busy themselves with the business of poking there noses into our lives. This is actually far more problematic then many of you think. These secularists have continually attacked MN citizens right to carry, from the very beginning when right to carry was first an issue to the actual enacting of the protection act itself they've been there, lobbying for it's dismantling. These "Christians" seem to think that the money they tear from their parishioners hands each week funds their personal secularist legal crusade to govern you, and your neighbors, and further impose their world view on you at any cost. Honestly, if you're attending these clubhouse's, you really need to cut off their supply of cash!

 

[JerryM]

Hi Armed Bear,

[ If there's a God, and you have a personal relationship with him, why would you consider it your obligation to follow human leaders? And why should liberty-minded people not find this to be potentially dangerous?]

I might ask how you think God communicates with man in this dispensation?
He does it by His Word, the Bible. He has inspired the writers to record His message to mankind. In the Bible God has revealed Himself to mankind, and His plan to make sinful man acceptable to Himself through Christ.

In the Bible God has given some instructions as to how His people conduct themselves. No, we are not perfect but we desire to be obedient. Now the Bible is not that difficult to understand with study.
As to human leaders, God has called people to certain jobs and roles. If there were not authority within the local church it would be confusion without anyone in charge. It has always been so from the beginning that someone was head starting with Adam and Eve.

The Bible commands the Christian to submit/obey those who have the rule over you. In a local church that is the pastor and such government as has been established. He commands the pastor to feed, love, and care for the “sheep” as the under-shepherd of Christ.
As for liberty, all mankind is a slave to someone. It will either be Satan and flesh, or God. The unsaved cannot obey and understand the things of God. The redeemed/born again/saved person has been freed from the slavery of the Devil and self, and has the liberty to serve his real Master.
One must not follow without some knowledge of the Bible and its commands and precepts. I follow my pastor, and obey him as he follows and obeys Christ. I can compare what the Bible says with what he says and does, and as long as they are in harmony I obey and submit to his authority.

Nowhere does the Bible say that I have the right to carry in the local church against the rules of the church. Since it does not then I have an obligation to obey/submit.

If you understand the Bible it not dangerous, but a blessing. If you do not understand, but accept that the “leader” gets instructions directly from God and the flock is to follow blindly it is dangerous and that is how the cults begin and those like Karesh and Jim Jones take their followers to destruction.

Regards,
Jerry

 

[lance22]

+1 on Denali

 

[Groovski]

Religion is protected under the constitution, but religion can't have special, extra rights. For instance, a church has the same free speech rights as anyone else (and nothing more), but they cannot deny the free speech of others. Therefore, they have no extra rights as a church to be provided special exclusions under the law, as this law apparently does. Freedom of religion doesn't mean a church can deny other rights. A church cannot deny entry based on race or gender. Why should they be able to deny entry based on what a peaceful citizen wears on their hip?

 

[JerryM]

Hi Groovski,

Your premise is not correct. A church, practicing its religion, can exclude anyone they desire. It would not be Biblical to exclude women or certain races, but they could do it if they insisted. Do you remember when Bob Jones University prohibited black and white dating? They lost their tax exempt status, but held to what they believed. I did not and do not agree, but admire that they held to their beliefs and told the IRS to "go fly a kite."

Churches have Constitutions and By Laws as to how they operate, and they are free within some reasonable limits to do as they believe is Biblical.
For example, women cannot hold some offices. Not everyone agrees with all such things, but the individual church has the right and authority to do as they will.

They can regulate the speech in the church, and even for members when not in church within limits. So they can refuse to permit concealed carry in the church or on the premises.

Best,
Jerry

 

[ArmedBear]

It has always been so from the beginning that someone was head starting with Adam and Eve.

...except that there was no Adam or Eve and someone in what is now Egypt was building huge stone structures thousands of years before the Earth was ostensibly created.

But why waste my time? You think I'm a slave to the Devil, so of course your sole purpose is not to read or listen, or think anything through, but to repeat what you've been told to say. If you wanted information, you'd have sought it.

Let's just say I've studied a few things in my lifetime, and there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy.

Like I said, scary. But as long as you're not shooting at me or trying to make laws about victimless acts that will land me in jail, do whatever you want. It's a free country, so far, to an extent.

 

[Groovski]

Your premise is not correct. A church, practicing its religion, can exclude anyone they desire. It would not be Biblical to exclude women or certain races, but they could do it if they insisted. Do you remember when Bob Jones University prohibited black and white dating? They lost their tax exempt status, but held to what they believed. I did not and do not agree, but admire that they held to their beliefs and told the IRS to "go fly a kite."

Well, Bob Jones was not able to exclude any race they desired, primarily because of Runyon v. McCrary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runyon_v._McCrary

Bob Jones lost their tax exempt status, and paid a big chunk in back taxes, and eventually removed their racial dating policies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University#Racial

You are inferring that because those dating policies were never challenged in court, except with respect to tax-exempt status, that they were "okay" or constitutional. A lot of laws and policies stand on the books, even though they are unconstitutional, until some citizen or entity challenges them. A perfect example is the DC handgun ban which has been law for some 30 years or so. Bob Jone's policies were only tested with regard to tax status, not civil rights, and they lost. There's no reason to think they would not have lost if challenged on a civil rights basis as well.

Nevertheless, it's not clear to me based on the news article that the Minnesota churches ever contended that the carrying of arms in church is against their religion. Certainly, if that is the case, they have no right for specific exemption from the law over any other private entity.

 

[Groovski]

Churches have Constitutions and By Laws as to how they operate, and they are free within some reasonable limits to do as they believe is Biblical.
For example, women cannot hold some offices. Not everyone agrees with all such things, but the individual church has the right and authority to do as they will.

They can regulate the speech in the church, and even for members when not in church within limits. So they can refuse to permit concealed carry in the church or on the premises.

If only all this were unchallengeable. Since, by your logic, churches have the right to practice within "reasonable limits" according to their religious beliefs, I will hereby form the Church of John Moses Browning whereby, in order to obtain true salvation, every believer must possess, carry and be proficient in the use of a 1911 handgun and a semi-automatic battle rifle for as long as they remain on earth. For the state to restrict carry of these arms would be to deny me the right of freedom of religion, and it is unreasonable because I am a peace-loving man simply wanting to practice my religion...tax free, of course.

 

[ArmedBear]

LOL

We already refer to Sunday morning clay shooting as "The Church of the Broken Bird." Maybe the gun club should reincorporate as a religion! It'd save us some property taxes and give us other rights that vary from state to state.

 

[princewally]

If only all this were unchallengeable. Since, by your logic, churches have the right to practice within "reasonable limits" according to their religious beliefs, I will hereby form the Church of John Moses Browning whereby, in order to obtain true salvation, every believer must possess, carry and be proficient in the use of a 1911 handgun and a semi-automatic battle rifle for as long as they remain on earth. For the state to restrict carry of these arms would be to deny me the right of freedom of religion, and it is unreasonable because I am a peace-loving man simply wanting to practice my religion...tax free, of course.

I'm in. Can I get ordained by the Church of JMB, too?

 

[Johnnybgood]

I am both a Christian and a gun owner. I do not want my government dictating to my church any more then I would want the church to be able to dictate to me what I could and could not do. As stated by many before, IF my state (Illannoyed) ever gets concealed carry and the church I attend says "nope we don't want you if you have a gun" I will find a church that does.

 

[Doggy Daddy]

Thank you, Johnnybgood!

Concise, to the point, and correct.

 

[JerryM]

Hi Johnnybgood,

But whether you like it or not, the Bible gives the local church the right to dictate certain things to members of that church.
One is expected to submit to the leadership, and to live a holy life. Now no one goes around looking for something to discipline members about. However, if one is living an obviously, by Biblical injunction, immoral life, then that member must be disciplined to the extent of being excluded from membership and fellowship.

Christianity is not about doing whatever you want, it is about being submissive to and serving Christ. Christ has given you commands in the Bible, and if one does not obey he does not love Christ and is disobedient. The primary way the Bible says to serve Christ is through a good local church. In that you serve, learn, and contribute to the welfare of all plus support those who are carrying the gospel to the world, missionaries.

Those who make an idol of carrying a gun are putting that before Christ. Christ's Word, the Bible, tells one to obey those who are in authority within the church. If carrying is more important than the local church, then that person is a disobedient Christian if he is truly a Christian. A Christian is shown by obedience - his fruit. Rebellion or disobedience is not fruit that demonstrates that one is a Christian, but the opposite.

If carrying a gun is more important than being in a certain church then go to another, but the rebellion against the church leadership in such a situation is going against what the Bible tells the Christian to do.

Regards,
Jerry