Some county commissioners and the county attorney have recently begun questioning my Special Deputy Church Protection Program in terms of whether it poses liability to the County or violates the so-called separation of church and state.

The Special Deputy Church Protection Program is designed to better protect the safety and security of the public who attend church services throughout our county, just as the School Resource Officer Program is designed to better protect the safety and security of those who visit or attend schools throughout our county. Both of these programs grew out of a marked increase in crime and violence perpetrated in and around churches and schools across the nation and are designed to protect people, not promote one school or religion over another.

This program does not establish any religion, give preference to one religion over the other or support any particular religious observance or idea. It does help protect people who attend church from the threat of crime and violence, which is increasing across the nation. Protecting people is a “compelling interest” of the government, and one that is clearly established in law. The government itself was created “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” and includes the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, without undue fear that an armed intruder will enter a church building and begin shooting. My Special Deputy Church Protection Program supports the primary function and purpose of government, which is to protect its citizens.

There are countless examples across the country of law enforcement agencies working to protect religious groups from assault or violation of their right to assemble and allow them to engage in lawful religious activity without fear of harm.

For example, several years ago there was a rash of church burnings in the South. Law enforcement agencies began stationing deputies and police officers in and around churches to protect them from arson. Deputies and police officers routinely protect Jewish synagogues from attack by positioning plain-clothes officers inside the church during services and providing extra patrols outside. Police regularly direct traffic and assist church members with safe ingress and egress to and from their places of worship. I have been in New York City and personally observed the NYPD close entire city blocks around Saint Patrick’s Cathedral to protect activities there from the threat of armed assault. Here in Bradley County we regularly escort funeral services that are religious in nature to and from the cemetery. Several churches here are already using armed off-duty law enforcement officers with powers granted by the state to help protect their members from the threat of crime and violence. Billy Graham-type crusades and other religious gatherings are routinely protected by law enforcement to promote public safety and guard against violence. Across the nation, churches are often the focus of protests. Law enforcement will form barriers and station officers to protect worshipers and prevent disruptions of their assembly. Every year the City of Cleveland and Bradley County provide police protection and public safety services for the Mt. Olive Ministries’ Freedom Celebration, which is a church-sponsored event. Additionally, many public schools allow religious groups to hold services in their building without anyone questioning whether they are violating the separation of church and state. The practice is commonplace, not only here in Bradley County, but also across the country.

These activities do not violate the Constitution because law enforcement is not promoting any one religion or religious idea over another, but simply promoting public safety. That is the primary purpose of my Special Deputy Church Protection Program.

Regarding liability, the CTAS Sheriff’s Handbook states, “Anyone incurring any wrong, injury, loss, damage, or expense resulting from any act or failure to act on the part of any special deputy appointed by the sheriff but not employed by the sheriff or the county may not bring suit against the sheriff or the county. The sheriff and the county are immune from such suits. See Hensley v. Fowler, 920 S.W.2d 649 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).”

The concept of protecting people is not hard to understand. So far, the opposition I am receiving arises not from legitimate constitutional or liability concerns, but from the continued, politically-motivated attempts of some county officials to oppose and interfere with any activity I undertake as Bradley County sheriff, even to the point of jeopardizing the safety and security of private citizens.

I will again make it clear to all that while I am sheriff, I will do everything I can to protect all the people of Bradley County from crime and violence ~ even those who attend church.