I think it's a conundrum. Consider all the different scenarios. Put aside the assumption that a person convicted as a child sex offender is a pervert.

 

An 18 year old in some states can be convicted as a child sex offender for having sex with a 15 or 16 year old.

 

A man (for example) could be convicted as a child sex offender if he solicits a prostitute who presents herself, acts and looks of age.

 

A person can be convicted as a child sex offender if they are engaged in an online "relationship" with a minor....and they had no idea the other person was a child.

 

Those are some examples of how being convicted as a child sex offender isn't necessarily the heinous crime everyone concludes. (Not saying any are right...just saying they aren't the images of child sex offenders many assume)

 

The other part of the conundrum is strictly religious. We want, as Christians, sinners to be saved. By saying they can't worship in a community with others, we're placing an obstacle in the path of that goal for them.

 

I guess some will say that these offenders need to find an adult only place of worship. I'm personally having a hard time with that, not only from a religious aspect, but from a logistical and practical perspective.

 

I agree with laws to protect our children. I do wonder, though, if in some of the tough legislation enacted, we aren't creating serious unintended consequences. For instance, in Florida, there is now a "tent village" under an overpass in Miami (I believe) where convicted sex offenders live, because the restrictions on their living arrangements are so strict, there's literally no place to house all of them.

 

In Georgia, I believe it's Atlanta, there's a camp ground now being used by legal authorities to house sexual offenders after they're released from jail, because there's no permanent or semi-permenant housing available.

 

I'm not saying do away with the restrictions, per se. But, do believe that people who are released are expected to return to society and be productive citizens. By making it so hard to return, either by housing them or restricting their ability to attend such things as worship, we are actually creating communities of homeless, desperate people, who will likely commit more crimes and ultimately end back in jail. As well, these homeless are less monitored than those in a more permanent housing situation.

 

It's a conundrum for sure. I do see the perspective of it violating a person's right to worship. But I don't see it as a prevention of worship.

 

But, the whole issue is bigger than this one instance. And I think that the fairly recent tightening of restrictions has yet to be evaluated for it's long term effectiveness.

If the law is written such that a child sex offender must stay a certain distance away from children, then that law should apply EVERYWHERE as far as I am concerned. I don't see this as a separation issue at all. In fact, it's just the opposite. In many states the laws are written in such a manner that it doesn't matter WHERE the children are located, the distance from them must be maintained. I personally would have more objection with a law that has exceptions for churches.

 

Further, the theory that you must go to church to worship God is ludicrous. God should be worshipped constantly by anyone who is truly a Christian. Thus, to say you would be denying a child molester the right to worship because he can't enter a church where children are located is simply not true (imo).

 

Not to quibble, but your argument falls flat for a Jew, who can only properly worship at the synagogue, Mormons, who may only worship at the temple or ward building, and for Buddhists, as well as many other religious sects.

I think it's a conundrum. Consider all the different scenarios. Put aside the assumption that a person convicted as a child sex offender is a pervert.

 

An 18 year old in some states can be convicted as a child sex offender for having sex with a 15 or 16 year old.

 

A man (for example) could be convicted as a child sex offender if he solicits a prostitute who presents herself, acts and looks of age.

 

A person can be convicted as a child sex offender if they are engaged in an online "relationship" with a minor....and they had no idea the other person was a child.

 

Those are some examples of how being convicted as a child sex offender isn't necessarily the heinous crime everyone concludes. (Not saying any are right...just saying they aren't the images of child sex offenders many assume)

 

The other part of the conundrum is strictly religious. We want, as Christians, sinners to be saved. By saying they can't worship in a community with others, we're placing an obstacle in the path of that goal for them.

 

I guess some will say that these offenders need to find an adult only place of worship. I'm personally having a hard time with that, not only from a religious aspect, but from a logistical and practical perspective.

 

I agree with laws to protect our children. I do wonder, though, if in some of the tough legislation enacted, we aren't creating serious unintended consequences. For instance, in Florida, there is now a "tent village" under an overpass in Miami (I believe) where convicted sex offenders live, because the restrictions on their living arrangements are so strict, there's literally no place to house all of them.

 

In Georgia, I believe it's Atlanta, there's a camp ground now being used by legal authorities to house sexual offenders after they're released from jail, because there's no permanent or semi-permenant housing available.

 

I'm not saying do away with the restrictions, per se. But, do believe that people who are released are expected to return to society and be productive citizens. By making it so hard to return, either by housing them or restricting their ability to attend such things as worship, we are actually creating communities of homeless, desperate people, who will likely commit more crimes and ultimately end back in jail. As well, these homeless are less monitored than those in a more permanent housing situation.

 

It's a conundrum for sure. I do see the perspective of it violating a person's right to worship. But I don't see it as a prevention of worship.

 

But, the whole issue is bigger than this one instance. And I think that the fairly recent tightening of restrictions has yet to be evaluated for it's long term effectiveness.

 

Have we agreed twice today??? First on the Joe Biden article and that this is a conundrum.:thumb:

I am for the protection of children. The law says the violator can't be around children. If children are in church then the law just so happens to still apply. I don't see a violation of the church/state issue at all. But again, that's my opinion.

 

In this case, the state isn't saying he can't attend church. It's saying he can't be around children.

 

Hypothetical question:

 

A bomb threat is called in to police saying a bomb has been planted in a church filled with worshippers. The bomb squad enters the church and orders everybody out at once. Have they violated those peoples' right to worship or are they protecting the innocent?

 

The answer to your question is that they may have violated the churchgoers rights, believe it or not. Religious societies cannot be forced to vacate their buildings under duress, see, i.e., legal fallout from Waco.

Not to quibble, but your argument falls flat for a Jew, who can only properly worship at the synagogue, Mormons, who may only worship at the temple or ward building, and for Buddhists, as well as many other religious sects.

 

Not to quibble, but my argument was specifically citing Christianity. That's why I said "Christians". But I do get your point.

Not to quibble, but my argument was specifically citing Christianity. That's why I said "Christians". But I do get your point.

 

 

Point of order: Catholics must attend a Catholic Service. It doesn't count if you go to a Baptist church.

Have we agreed twice today??? First on the Joe Biden article and that this is a conundrum.:thumb:

 

 

We really aren't so far apart in our thinking on most things.

Point of order: Catholics must attend a Catholic Service. It doesn't count if you go to a Baptist church.

 

I miss our annual August Great Schism thread. Could this be the start of one?:sssh:

Not to quibble, but my argument was specifically citing Christianity. That's why I said "Christians". But I do get your point.

 

True dat.

I miss our annual August Great Schism thread. Could this be the start of one?:sssh:

 

 

Nah....I'm pressed for time these days. I'm behind on my Vatican updates.

Point of order: Catholics must attend a Catholic Service. It doesn't count if you go to a Baptist church.

 

Are Catholics Christian?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

j/k

The answer to your question is that they may have violated the churchgoers rights, believe it or not. Religious societies cannot be forced to vacate their buildings under duress, see, i.e., legal fallout from Waco.

 

How does that reconcile to the raids of the commune out west a while back where the children were removed from a so-called religious commune? I ask because if children or women were considered to be at risk wouldn't both situations call for possible action by the state? Just curious.

Point of order: Catholics must attend a Catholic Service. It doesn't count if you go to a Baptist church.

 

I have a completely unrelated question. If you were to attend a Christian church regularly other than a Catholic church, do you REALLY think that would affect your chances at getting to Heaven? Not trying to call you out but just wanted to get your take on the issue.

How does that reconcile to the raids of the commune out west a while back where the children were removed from a so-called religious commune? I ask because if children or women were considered to be at risk wouldn't both situations call for possible action by the state? Just curious.

 

Texas, and there is a lawsuit over it. Social services in that case, and the legal "pundits" think the commune-ists have a good case. The children were eventually returned, most of them, anyway.

I have a completely unrelated question. If you were to attend a Christian church regularly other than a Catholic church, do you REALLY think that would affect your chances at getting to Heaven? Not trying to call you out but just wanted to get your take on the issue.

 

C'mon, RM, give us what we want. :popcorn: