Are churches above the law?

[village_person]

Peter Dutton warns churches over sanctuary to asylum seekers

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has warned churches and cathedrals offering “sanctuary” to asylum-seekers facing deportation to Nauru that the government expects them to obey the law “no matter who you are”.

As reported in The Australian today, more than 10 churches across Australia have today begun offering to shield asylum-seekers under the ancient Christian tradition that people fleeing unjust civil authorities can reside permanently inside a church.

With a series of rallies scheduled to commence starting today at 12.30pm in Sydney, Mr Dutton said the churches would receive no special exemptions from the law.

“Churches provide a lot of assistance to refugees and they feel very strongly about these issues, I understand that. In the end people have to abide by Australian law, no matter who you are,” Mr Dutton told Sydney’s 2GB radio.

[...]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/peter-dutton-warns-churches-over-sanctuary-to-asylu...

It would seem that theomania is rampant in Dr Peter Catt's house of worship.

[***super_nova***]

Actually it is not just a tradition, there is a law about giving sanctuary, which may apply.

[moonflyte]

They are bound by the law of the land.

[debra9275]

Peter Dutton warns churches over sanctuary to asylum seekers

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has warned churches and cathedrals offering “sanctuary” to asylum-seekers facing deportation to Nauru that the government expects them to obey the law “no matter who you are”.

Dutton seems to be a fool

[***super_nova***]

Law can be interpreted in many ways, and the goverment is arguing what they do is legal, but others say it is not.  That is why it takes so long to become a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

---

@***super_nova*** wrote:

Actually it is not just a tradition, there is a law about giving sanctuary, which may apply.

---

which law is that?????

[the_great_she_elephant]

Dr Catt (Dean of Brisbane) said the concept of sanctuary had never been tested under Australian law.

"But my hunch is that if the authorities chose to enter the church and take people away, it would probably be a legal action," he said.

"So this is really a moral stand and it wouldn't be a good look, I don't think, for someone to enter a church and to drag people away."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-04/churches-offer-sanctuary-to-asylum-seekers/7138484

[Anonymous]

well, the church has in the past

provided sanctuary to those who 

were considered to be breaking the

law and look how that ended up 

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@*julia*2010 wrote:

well, the church has in the past

provided sanctuary to those who 

were considered to be breaking the

law and look how that ended up 

---

Not sure exactly what you are referring to. How did what end up?

In England during  the Middle Ages anyone being hunted by the law could seek sanctuary in a church, I guess it was a similar situation to Julian Assange seeking sanctualy in the Ecuadorian embassy. It  was not permanent. I think you had 40 days after which you either had to yeild to the legal authorities or confess you crime and go into exile.   James l declared the practice illegal in 1623 - since he was both head of state and head of the state churcjh, this was not a problem. How or if this injunction applies to Australia I'm not sure - as Dr Catt said, it has never been tested. 

[lloydslights]

I wonder where the good Dr Catt proposes to house the five famillies (as previously reported) within the Church confines.  

The wedding reception area with a loss of vast income? With hardly any trees or grass in the outdoor areas of the car parks.

What sort of pictures will the children be drawing when asked by the advocates to show the UN?  High impenetrable sandstone walls, coloured glass gothic windows depicting a man nailed on a cross?

DEB