The Indiana State Police has fired a controversial trooper who had been sued twice in the past 18 months for allegedly preaching to citizens after traffic stops. Senior Trooper Brian Hamilton, 40, was a 14-year veteran of the agency.
While I have long supported cases defending religious freedom (including representing those claiming denial of such rights), I do not see why Hamilton has become such a rallying cry for some advocates. Drivers like Wendy Pyle complained about being questioned about her church and whether she was saved. There is no allegation of Hamilton did more than question on faith and invited drivers like Pyle to attend services at his church and gave her directions. However, citizens should be able to deal with an officer of the law without being questioned on her faith.
Pyle filed a formal complaint with the Indiana State Police. Her complaint joined an earlier complaint by driver Ellen Bogan. Bogan claimed that Hamilton asked her several times about her religious beliefs and gave her a pamphlet from First Baptist Church in Cambridge City and advertised a radio broadcast titled “Policing for Jesus Ministries.”
The police department correctly told Hamilton not to “question others regarding their religious beliefs nor provide religious pamphlets or similar advertisements.” However, Hamilton insisted that he was following the command of the Lord “and you can’t change what the Lord tells you to do. So if the Lord tells me to speak about Jesus Christ, I do.”
Putting aside the meaning of such a commandment from the Lord (and whether he meant to proselytize to everyone at all times), Hamilton was using his official authority to impose religious questioning on citizens. It is doubtful that his supporters would have such a warm reception to a Muslim or Jewish or atheist officer pressing citizens about their faith. Clearly Hamilton feels a calling to be a preacher but he had to make a choice between being a preacher and a police officer. That choice was ultimately made for him.
Source: FoxNews
@ Roland: “My Kingdom is not of this world.” Your Kingdom is of this world. Enjoy it while you can. When Christ haters like you read or hear of Scripture, they read mail addressed to persons not themselves. My note was not addressed to you, but to believers wrongly misled by so called “teachers.”
Thanks for reading it, anyway.
Paul S., generally officers have the authority to place themselves back on duty when they are off-duty and a law enforcement intervention is warranted. However, upon placing themselves back on duty, they also stop acting in a private capacity and start acting as an agent of the state. Certainly, an off-duty officer can preach. However, it is up to him to ensure that others understand if he places himself back on duty and begins acting in an official capacity. This officer used the power of his office to impose his religious beliefs on members of the public. He was ordered not to do so, and did it again. That is both insubordination and a misuse of the power given to him by the state. Given his stated intentions to continue the misconduct, firing would be the only option.
I can’t help but wonder if he does the same when interacting with someone who has power over him (e.g., does this kind of speech preface a request to change shifts with a co-worker or job interviews).
@ windbag Joseph Jones:
It was not that long ago historically that Protestants & Catholics were doing to Jews & each other the same sorts of things extreme Muslims do today. So yeah, clutch your book and polish your halo. Ever hear of “the banality of evil” ? The Milgram experiment et al showed nobody is above committing evil.
You said: “Is it not interesting that surrender is exactly consistent with every admonition of Christ in the gospel and NT?” You sound like those extreme Muslims:
“In Islam, Peace is Based on Submission & Surrender to God.”
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/blfaq_islam_islam.htm
So go ahead, surrender to your skygod, and you will be ridiculed for it.
I agree with Paul that it is not a firing offense. It reminds me of a somewhat similar case I read about a few years ago where an IRS Agent gave tax payers a religious pamphlet at the conclusion of the audit. Some hypersensitive person got his panties in a twist over it and filed a complaint. The Agent had a master’s in accounting and 12 years of excellent fitness reviews. The IRS simply transferred him to a position where he had no interaction with the public. I think the same disposition should be made with this cop.
No big issue here, correct discipline by the PD.
By contrast, refusing to let people pray at football games, or, refusing to let the kids put on a Nativity play in a public school, that’s where a less dogmatic application of anti-religious secular principles is required.
john smith – let’s look at this a little differently. Off-duty cops generally are supposed to attuned to at least felonies committed in their presence. So, if off-duty cops are really never off-duty, when can this guy preach. If he were to go door to door, the police dept would expect that if he saw something hinky, that he report it or arrest the people on the spot. Therefore, since he is really never off-duty, he has a right to preach while on duty. Whatever, it is not a firing offense.
“Religion has long been an excuse for committing atrocities.”
Doglover,
Duh! However it would be absolutely narrow-minded to only identify “religion”.
Fill in the blank,…has long been an excuse for committing atrocities.
The oath of office to follow the U.S. Constitution (which includes the Bill of Rights) only applies to official job duties and authorities, or acting “under color of law” when not on duty.
Any police officer has the right to worship freely at any church or religious institution when not working but they can’t use their position of authority to impose religion onto other citizens under color of law.
It would also be illegal for a police officer to obtain private information under color of law (since regular citizens can’t obtain information about Non-Baptists in their community), then for that off-duty officer to go to that person’s house or employment with information obtained under color of law.
What Olly said. A cop has a high degree of power in a traffic stop. Asking if you about your religious beliefs is totally wrong.
I really don’t think this is a firing offense. The man is not compartmentalizing. Either the department or his church should help him with this. He has to learn to separate the two jobs.
The notion that Christ desires persons to inflict physical violence (carry a gun in the police or military) on any other human being for any reason, including self-defense, is the exact polar opposite of every admonition in the entire N.T.: “Pray for and do good to those who righteously abuse you…feed those who steal from you…if someone steals your cloak, give him your tunic…” It goes on and on and on. Open a page of the Gospel and it screams at you.
Peter cut off the Roman guard’s ear (the guard was simply doing his job); Jesus healed it and admonished Peter to cease. Jesus was the perfect Lamb without blemish, lead to slaughter, following the will of His Father. Jesus orders His followers to “Carry your cross,” not to kill on orders of the King and for the King’s own self-centered interest.
The mere process of taking the oath of office is an abomination in Christ’s eyes because this puts the earth King’s Law ahead of the true King’s Law.
The thought that Jesus wants anyone to inflict the King’s will (Law) on human subjects is an abomination. If you are in the military or a police and you follow Christ, resign this very day.
Jesus says it is better for you to be tied to a millstone and tossed into the sea than to harm a little child (and BTW, believers are called “children of God.”). Of the 140k Japanese the US killed in Japan with one nuclear bomb, of the 40k civilian Germans the US helped incinerate in a purely civilian target Dresden, of the 66k (US’ own # in the Snowden docs, more like 600k) Iraqi civilians the US murdered: how many of these were innocent children, killed by alleged “followers of Christ?” Killed on orders of the earthly King, in God’s name? How many “Believers” incinerated babies while suckling their mother’s dear breast? (It’s for good reason of brainwashing that G. Bush used Biblical terms immediately post 9-11…a call to arms for all alleged Christians.)
Suppose two alleged followers of Christ oppose each other on the battlefield? Who does Christ support between these two alleged believers? Which one is righteous in Christ’s eyes? Neither.
If you are a so-called Catholic who wrongly believes in Rome’s teaching in support of war: suppose your earth King orders you to drop a bomb, to defend your nation, and said bomb shall certainly incinerate The Vatican and the Pope? Which King to you follow?
The Catholic Church relies on St. Thomas Aquinas’ so-called “Just War Theory” to wrongly support its defense of war. Rome’s conclusion is wrong because it is based on ignoring Aquinas’ own words. Aquinas says that war is just if/when “there is no other option.” At least one option always exists. In no circumstance does the Catholic Church forbid “surrender.” This being the case, if surrender is never forbidden, then indeed surrender is always an option to avoid war.
Is it not interesting that surrender is exactly consistent with every admonition of Christ in the gospel and NT?
The problem that so-called believers have with this teaching is that they cling to the OT (eye for an eye), while the NT is the exact opposite (see quotes above) Believers can not get it into their little heads that the OT is fulfilled and now gives way to “a new and better covenant…the OT Law could not save…”
There are at least two incidents in the OT that hint at the NT transformation: Jonah resisted God’s order to go and save the Ninevites, by spreading to them knowledge about God. This is a hint of the NT faith in which all would be saved, not just the Ioudaios (wrongly translated “Jew).
Also, when Babylon enslaved the Ioudaios, God ordered His Hebrew people to “pray for their captors.” Now just imagine how strange and impossible was it for the Hebrews to accept God’s order to pray for the very persons who enslaved them (in the OT, all non-Hebrews are “unclean…dogs.” Just as difficult as it was a few C latter for the Hebrews to accept that God had saved the Gentiles too.
Every government official, including police officers, take an oath of office to follow the U.S. Constitution and their subordinate state constitution. This oath includes the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. This is the one and only loyalty oath police officers swear to uphold, police officers do not take an oath to protect and serve.
However, I’m not aware of any police chiefs or federal agency heads nationwide that provide adequate loyalty training for their officers. There is not a constitutional culture in most police agencies which creates problems like this.
Religion has long been an excuse for committing atrocities. Because so many violent crimes and atrocities are committed by people insisting that god instructed them to do it, those stopped by such an armed policeman reasonably fear for their lives.
That is reportedly how minorities feel, knowing that many policemen are racists – probably claiming that god supports racism.
Instead of advancing religion, decent cultures need to advance kindness, compassion, inclusion, and tolerance.
Turn it around and consider the atheist officer questioning someone about their belief in God. Either way it would be intimidating to have someone with the power to kill you questioning you about your religious beliefs.
This cop has a “calling”. He needs to preach the faith. I hope he gets a church to work in. He can go door to door and preach. He can go to the state capital and preach to those who enter the legislature. But we do not need pigs telling us where to vote or which Lord to listen to.
QUOTE “Why are people so threatened by religion? ”
Not by religion, but by the wacko’s that say they were told by the Lord to preach his word…(or anything else the ‘Lord’ told them)….these people don’t seem stable.
The WSP sacked a trooper here twenty or so years ago for something similar. During a traffic stop for speeding, a young couple stated they were lost and later indicated they were going to a Planned Parenthood clinic. The trooper attempted to dissuade the woman from having an abortion and lectured them on abortion practices.
Later, the county prosecutor charged him with unlawful imprisonment. I believed the county had a weak case on that issue. The subsequent trial resulted in a hung jury. Nevertheless the patrol fired him.
If a cop tried to proselytize me and gave me a religious pamphlet, I would consider it a bit odd, but I wouldn’t file a complaint. Why are people so threatened by religion? Now and then I get a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness knocking on the door and trying to interest me in their faith. No biggie. I just tell the person I’m busy; politely accept the pamphlet, and close the door.
What if his God had told him to kill those who didn’t answer those questions correctly. I would have been very concerned hearing that kind of question from a police officer.
He should have been fired after the first incident. Questions about ones relgion have no place in “policing”.
The same applies to the city that wants to buy “in god we trust” decals on every public vehicle.
If they have to have stickers, because they’re 4th graders apparently, how about the actual motto of the country (out of many, one) rather than the garbage 1950s’ motto.
Correction in the last sentence–that choice wasn’t ultimately made FOR him–that choice was ultimately made BY him. He chose his profession; it wasn’t forced upon him or decided upon by another being. After 14 years in the position as a trooper, he should have been well aware of the guidelines and limitations that accompany the job that he, himself, chose as a career. He may be more suited to work, saving souls, in the ministry–from the photo, he obviously has an outfit ready and available for the pulpit.