Georgia Sex Offenders Sue for Right to Volunteer in Churches
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Thu, July 03, 2008
- Viewed 373
- (12) comments so far
But some religious leaders say the law would undermine the positive effects of religion.
“Thieves, robbers, murderers — we give them all a second chance,” said Mark Hanson, senior pastor at New Beginnings Tabernacle, a small evangelical ministry in Buchanan, Ga.
“It seems like under the sex offender law you’re banned permanently from society,” he said. “Without forgiveness and mercy, how do we expect anyone to start over?”
So… what do you think? Should sex offenders be able to sing in your choir (or worship band)? Should they be able to cook meals in church kitchens? Take of the offering? What would your church’s policy be?
According to Fox News: The Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights filed a lawsuit Tuesday on behalf of the 15,400 sex offenders on Georgia’s state registry. Georgia already has one of the nation's toughest sex offender statutes, and the center is hoping to stop the added measure.
The new provision would make it illegal for sex offenders to sing in adult choirs, prepare for events or cook meals in church kitchens. Violating the law could spell a prison term of 10 to 30 years, which sponsors said is a vital addition to help keep children safe.
"It’s designed to protect children, to keep people who have a history of pedophilia or sex crimes against children away from children so they’re less likely to repeat," said David Ralston, a Republican state representative and one of the measure’s sponsors.
"This latest filing is simply another tactic by those people who disagree with the whole purpose of the law and try to chip away at it until it’s abolished."
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Peter Hamm on Thu, July 03, 2008
Simple.
They can’t participate in any Children’s ministry or in any ministry where they might be alone with a minor. If I have minors on my worship teams (which I do) that would make it so that they can’t serve there. Anything else that requires a clearance would be something they can’t do. (All our kids workers have clearances, as do all our pastors and staff, even those of us who don’t usually work directly with minors.)
I recognize that God can save, restore, and redeem anybody (and often does) but we know from Scripture and plain reason that you still pay in the flesh for the deeds you have done, even though they are forgotten (by choice) by our magnificent savior.
Sam on Thu, July 03, 2008
Sex offender status also includes individuals involved in statuatory rape cases. Like an 18yr old having relations with his 14 year old girlfriend. This is where I feel the law is too broad in its classifying of sex offenders. While, i certainly see the sinfulness of fornication, a person caught up in this act should not be classified in the same group as pedophiles. Because of this, not all people currently classified as sex offenders are a danger to society or a local church.
Yes, priority 1 should be protecting the children within the church. But common sense and sound judgement should also be applied. The 25 year old unbeliever that made a mistake having sex with his underage girlfriend but who has now been redeemed should not be banned from service in the local church.
Yes, there are consequences in the flesh for our sinful acts but we should not add additonal consequences that go beyond the scope of the act committed.
Peter Hamm on Thu, July 03, 2008
Sam I agree with you on that front. However, most likely a church’s insurance company will insist that the individual can not serve in certain capacities. A necessary “evil” that we must live with, unfortunately.
Peter on Thu, July 03, 2008
Good points from both of the above. Common sense needs to prevail rather than an absolute ruling. If someone is a sex offender with minors, they need to not be alone with minors. Same for someone with women/men - don’t put them in a situation where they can repeat their offense.
As for serving in a ministry - I don’t see the harm in some of the above. Choir? Cooking meals? Prepping for an event? What do any of those have to do with the crime they committed? Sometimes you need hands to do the work and if someone is a good cook, singer, or can just move stuff around - why should this stop them?
I’m all for protecting the children, but I don’t get this at all.
Jerry on Thu, July 03, 2008
Having been divorced and re-married, I find it akin to being a ‘sex offender’ in some circles. Though I am faithful and committed to my wife of nearly 18 years, there are still those who consider me an adulterer, even though I never even met my wife until my first marriage was over and I lived alone for almost a year.
We must be able to restore those who have failed, but there is also the issue of being able to protect the church from predators. The focus should be on restoration with God first, then over time and observation decisions will have be made as to the appropriateness of whether a person can serve or not, though probably never, ever alone with a minor or someone of the opposite sex.
Greg Sporer on Thu, July 03, 2008
There are already safe guards in churches to deal with registered offenders who want to attend church to worship or volunteer. It is time to make decisions based on facts and not politics. Registered offenders do very well and succeed with accountability, treatment, and proper supervision.
The real threat to church kids are non-convicted church members who have a secret sexual sin with youth. There are over 800,000 church members across the USA offending on kids. Registered offenders are not the problem. It is the non-convicted offenders who are living a double life in churches
Greg Sporer, M.A
Co-founder, Keeping Kids Safe Ministries
Marcus Hackler on Thu, July 03, 2008
Wouldn’t churches have an incentive to protect themselves one way or another without state intervention?
I think the real question here isn’t where sex offenders should serve in a church - most churches act in such a way to protect their members from harm and themselves from liability. The real question is whether or not this should be codified as an activity of the state.
By allowing state regulation over the church in this or any area, the door could be open to more intervention down the road that would not be as welcomed.
Andy Wood on Fri, July 04, 2008
Is it an election year in Georgia? This proposed legislation is disturbing for a variety of reasons, starting with the fact that a legislator presumes to dictate policy and polity of a local church.
Moreover, the prohibitions, as already noted, have nothing to do with child safety. What’s next? Sex offenders forbidden to dry their hands with church paper towels? Forbidden to use a hand-held microphone? Banned from stacking chairs?
People who holler loudest about keeping children safe concern me with regard to their motives.
Moreover, as some have already noted, we’re dealing with a problem that’s partly legitimate, partly ridiculous (the whole statutory rape thing with 18 and 15-year-olds), and part hysteria. This is still the only crime in which you’re guilty until proven innocent, and banned for life because we ALL KNOW that not even JESUS can help somebody like that.
Jan on Sat, July 05, 2008
I think this law goes way to far.
We have two sex offenders in our church who are both on parole. Neither of them are what most of us think of as typical sex offenders and predators.
One had one experience way back in his past and no other history. The other at 18 ran away with his 16 year old girlfriend and was prosecuted as a kidnapper / pedophile, then became a Christian. He is now 20, never dated another girl since, and is walking with the Lord and wants to be a pastor.
Both have extenuating circumstances, admit they were wrong and are in the process of restoration and growing as Christians and fellowshipping with believers on a regular basis. Both attend Bible Studies weekly, are hard working and repentant.
Not letting them work in the kitchen?
Basically, this law says they can’t do anything but sit in a service and leave. I don’t believe that’s Biblical, though I adamantly believe sex offenders should not be working with children and should be supervised. And churches must be proactive in protecting children and youth. I’m just not sure this is the state’s role to set the boundaries.
Are they going to do this in other volunteer agencies? on the job? or is it just in churches?
Steve Dennie on Mon, July 07, 2008
I guess I’ve been around old-school Christians too long and have grown cynical. I was expecting a good number of hardline comments here, but every comment (thus far) has been reasonable and grace-oriented. Nice to see.
My church is located in a very low-income urban area. The Sex Offender Registry shows dots throughout our neighborhood, our prime ministry area. At least one of them comes to our church, a nice fellow with a really hard life. We keep an eye on him, but I don’t think he knows that we know. We show acceptance, rather than conspicuous rejection.
Unfortunately, I could see the day when insurance companies heavily penalize churches if they have anybody on the rolls who is a past sex offender. Imagine denying membership to someone because it would cause too much of an increase in insurance rates. Could happen, I suppose.
Jan on Tue, July 08, 2008
That would be really sad.
As much as I abhor this sin, the Christian life is about grace and restoration.
Leonard on Tue, July 08, 2008
We meet in a high school that is nearly impossible to govern. On any given Sunday there are hundreds of people who are not with us playing sports and a host of other activities.
Our policy is that until we gain some more size and are in a location that we can keep better protocols of safety we would ask someone who has been convicted of this particular crime to attend a different church.
This may not sound gracious but in reality it is for their protection as well as for kids. We simply lack the resources to properly supervise and monitor in the environment of a High School campus.
Does it bother anyone else that 365,000 dollars a year are being spent to monitor one person who committed a crime?
Page 1 of 1 pages
Post a Comment