September 25th / 27th, 2009
"’Sex Offenders at Church"
Lost in the recent hoopla over healthcare reform and the recession, is a
volatile public safety issue that, like its namesake, just won’t go away.
Convicted sex offenders, it seems, don’t want their movements restricted
after release from prison. In particular they want to be able to attend the
church of their choice.
Sounds like a harmless enough request except that, in accordance with a
2008 law, these sexual predators are prohibited from being within 300 feet of
children, and most churches operate day care centers and Sunday school
classes for kids.
North Carolina legislator Rick Glazier of Fayetteville wants the law
changed so that convicted predators can attend any house of worship so long as a
church official issues written permission. But the only way this would
work is for two important caveats to be added. First, the church must employ
an off-duty policeman to guard the children in its care. And second, the
preacher who gives permission for the predator to mix with kids, must have had
one of his own children sexually molested. This might seem an extreme
tongue-in-cheek proposal, but to do otherwise would be an affront to the
victims of that sex offender, and a threat to all children with whom he comes in
contact.
Preachers are a forgiving lot by nature, so unless their family has been
victimized, they are not qualified to expose other children to such
perversion and trauma.
And so, we are faced with a moral dilemma. Restrict the worship of a
convicted sex offender, or put our children at risk. Moreover, how can a man of
God turn anyone away from the Lord’s house? Justicefellowship.org reminds
us of how Jesus himself viewed anyone who might harm a child. “Whosoever
shall hurt one of these little ones…it would be better for him that a
millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he was cast into the sea”. And you
thought my proposal was radical. But Jesus knew of what he spoke. These sick
individuals have done irreparable harm to their victims and can never
again be trusted around underage children.
Glazier’s bill will come to a vote next year, so we have awhile to study
its implications and potential consequences. At the same time, we should
lobby for a more judicious definition of who a sexual predator really is.
After all, a seventeen-year-old boy who has consensual sex with a fifteen-year-old girl, is not a sexual predator. He does not deserve to go to prison,
and should not be prohibited from congregating around young children. If we
can clarify the parameters of who qualifies as a sexual predator, and uphold
and enforce reasonable restrictions on the movements of those who are,
then parents throughout North Carolina will rest easy. That’s because when it
comes to rehabilitation and second chances, sexual predators can’t do the
former, and don’t deserve the latter.
|
