TTSOML #76: Mt. Angel Abbey Has Contract To Pay Police

To separate and clarify from the last post, where I state how the Mt. Angel Abbey, a monastery, owns its own town, I make this post, wherein I repeat,

Mt. Angel Abbey has a contract, a written annual contract with the adjoining secular town, of City of Mt. Angel, which pays for police services.

So a religious organization, a unit of the Catholic church, has a monetary contract for secular police services (but actually, half the police for the "secular town" are Catholic), and THEY, the Mt. Angel Abbey officials, get to decide who should be "cited" and for what.

Incidentally, I was never cited for doing anything on their property, in "their town". I was always in the secular town of City of Mt. Angel, and yet the influence and authority of the Catholic clergy extended to this town, to the extent that the Abbey's Human Resource woman, Lynn Morris, was the one to request the City of Mt. Angel police cite me for things I hadn't done, in THEIR town, not the Abbey's town of "City of St. Benedict".

A picture:

The City of St. Benedict is town #1. The City of Mt. Angel is town #2. These two separate and unique towns adjoin eachother. One is religious, and one is supposedly secular. Since when does the United States of America allow religious organizations to have their own towns? and then use and exert influence over adjoining secular town police?

I believe it's an infringement of the guarantee of separation of church and state. It creates problems.

The U.S. certaintly felt other "sects", such as the Rajneeshi, shouldn't own their own towns. But it makes allowances for the Catholic church? Since when?

Since no one speaks up about it and asks for an injunction and non-monetary relief by form of incorporating City of St. Benedict into City of Mt. Angel?

I was pissed, and still am, because I don't care if it's a Catholic organization or a Muslim or Jewish or Protestant organization, they should be treated equally and yet it seems to me the Catholic church is getting away with things other religions deemed "sects" do not. And that's not only a violation of separation of church and state, it's religious discrimination and says the state believes one church is good and another is bad, and gives certain priviledges to some and not to all.