You are here

Shelter discrimination blurs separation of church, state

By Sandy . . . It’s official. Winter is here. Temperatures are plummeting in states across the nation. Cold-weather emergency shelters are opening in response, most of them managed by Christian churches and organizations.

The post I wrote dealing with one of these elicited much interest and a high number of comments. This is largely due to their policy, by no means unique to them, of excluding those on sex offender registries.

Articles of other, similar situations have crossed my desk, and using the criteria of a Christian-based ministry and one that excludes those on the registry, these are the first four.

The Allied Churches Shelter in Burlington, North Carolina: “No matter what, sex offenders can’t be taken in because of children at the shelter.”

I placed a phone called and determined that North Carolina state law, though convoluted and confusing, forbids the presence of a registered sex offender in any place intended for the primary use of children even if children are not present and almost any public place at all if children are present. State law also makes it a crime for a minister (or anyone else) to knowingly allow a registrant to worship in the church if a child is on the premises. (See N.C.G.S. 14-208.18 and 14-208.11(A)a, respectively)

The House of Hope Shelter in Danville, Virginia: “Those who stay at House of Hope must not be registered sex offenders or wanted by law enforcement.”

I spoke with Steven Anderson, the director, who said that their shelter is next door to a school and state law forbids anyone on the registry from being there. He said there are women and children staying at the shelter, and it isn’t a good idea for them to be there. I tried to question him on this point and was told that it’s not going to change, no matter what.

Positive Avenues in Eau Claire, Wisconsin: “…registered sex offenders are not allowed at Positive Avenues because children often stay there.”

I left a telephone message and have not yet received a call-back.

The Ministry Center Warming Station in Conway, Arkansas:  “Peden [the center’s manager] emails the Conway Police Department to check for active warrants and to ensure none of the guests are registered sex offenders. ‘They haven’t had to come pick anybody up yet,’ Peden said.”

I also have not received a return call from my message left there.

I understand that in most if not all cases, the policies in place are officially the result of state laws governing those who are registered sex offenders. Nevertheless, I would pose these questions for those responsible for implementing the policies.

Where would you draw the line? What if the state said you cannot take anyone who has ever been convicted of any charge that resulted from the death of another person? Or anyone ever convicted of arson? Or of domestic violence? Or armed robbery? Or, since the presence of children seems to drive the policies, of child neglect? Or of selling or giving drugs to a child?

How do you reconcile your acceptance of the current policy with the answer you give yourself if you ask what Christ would do? Did he minister to all except those who engaged in sexual sin? Did he accept the law of the state in all cases, or did he try to show the leaders of the day that people were more important than man-made laws and that “Love your neighbor” means everyone, especially those most shunned by society?

Does not this serious violation of the separation of church and state bother you? Does the state have the right to dictate how you practice your faith and serve your fellowman?

And finally, if there were no such state law, would you open your shelters to all the homeless and needy, including those on a sex offender registry? Would you at least accept them with the same criteria and the same guidelines for safety that you use for everyone else?

Or would you find another reason to exclude those who, in emergency situations, when life and death are often at stake, need your help more than any other?

 

This topic contains 28 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  Henry 1 week, 1 day ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #31082 Reply

    FredAdmin

    If you get to talk to those two remaining churches, can you ask them; What about the registered sex offenders who are women and children?

    • #31122 Reply

      Robert Saunders

      I came out of Prison and went right to work for a ministry (men’s recovery center) in Middle Tennessee. I got to know the pastor while I was incarcerated and he knew everything about my charge and why I was on the registry. The Probation Officer I was assigned to report to under Community Supervision for Life (CSL) tried for a year to discredit the job of Associate Director but relented when there was no violation of the additional rules placed on those on CSL.
      Now to my point; After leaving the ministry, because they could no longer afford to stay in business, I found many rejections by the other community churches on the grounds of CSL. I am almost convinced that Registerd citizens are forced to start their own churches and hide in the shadows. I feel like those who desperately sought relief from slavery and resorted to the “Underground Railroad” for the escape and to reach freedom from the violation of their human rights. However, I will not hide but fight for the rights of us on the registry at every turn!

      Robert Saunders
      Vice-Chairman/Treasurer
      Tennessee 4 Change INC.

  • #31085 Reply

    Dennis

    I am a registered sex offender. Yet I am staying in 1 of the only shelters I know of that allows this.
    It is an all male shelter, operated only by donations from Churches. Originally opened to be a prison ministry for men leaving the prison system behind. Starting over with Christ as one’s guiding source.
    I praise MY GOD AND SAVIOUR for City Gate mission, and all the churches that support it.If one did not know of my past, one might wonder how I ended up here. I have been blessed with a job, vehicle, and a place to stay out of the elements. I do not drink or do any illicit drugs. I work and come back “HOME” to the mission and follow their simple rules.
    Now the director of City Gate does not discriminate about one’s past life. He tries not to fill it full of sex offenders due to pu li. outcry and misconceptions.
    if it were not for GOD placing me here I would be back up state in prison. For not being able to give a valid address to the State police. It is required in Pennsylvania, to do so prior to release.
    The Pennsylvania department of parole and probation keep playing games with home plans. Maxing out sex offenders by denying home plans, sometimes weeks before release from prison.
    But there are placing where men can go, who are former sex offenders. 1 is in Jefferson county, another in I believe Northampton county, and here. But BECAREFUL because of misconceptions and pre-judgements, the public fights having sex offenders live nearby. But would rather have drug dealers, and thieves, or persons having constant run ins with the police, live next to them in the neighborhood.
    Just do not give up hope, pray things will get better.

  • #31081 Reply

    ALAN

    The Little Sister’s of the Poor case and Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, seem to shed clear light on how the United States Supreme Court, as liberal as it is, views state laws telling religious entities what they are and are not able to do. The trouble seems to clearly lie with the “churches” not being willing to stand up to the laws they cite when denying shelter (and attendance to church services) to sex offenders. If only the churches had the intestinal fortitude to challenge these laws like those little nuns do/did.

    While the consensus view seems to be that the Supreme Court “punted” today by sending the Little Sisters of the Poor case back to the lower courts, I must respectfully dissent. Although the Court didn’t rule on the merits of the case, the Little Sisters won a significant victory — one that is likely (though not yet certain) to persist through the next administration. First, the Supreme Court vacated the lower court ruling holding that the Little Sisters had to facilitate access to contraceptives and denied that the mandate substantially burdened their religion. Speaking as a person who’s argued a few cases in courts of appeal — when the court vacates the ruling you’re challenging, that’s a win. Second, the Supreme Court provided a roadmap for an excellent resolution to the case — by outlining the accommodation it suggested, the Little Sisters endorsed, and the government reluctantly agreed to: Following oral argument, the Court requested supplemental briefing from the parties addressing “whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’ employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners.” Post, p. ___. Both petitioners and the Government now confirm that such an option is feasible. Petitioners have clarified that their religious exercise is not infringed where they “need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception,” even if their employees receive cost-free contraceptive coverage from the same insurance company. Supplemental Brief for Petitioners 4. The Government has confirmed that the challenged procedures “for employers with insured plans could be modified to operate in the manner posited in the Court’s order while still ensuring that the affected women receive contraceptive coverage seamlessly, together with the rest of their health coverage.” Putting this in plain language, the Court suggested an accommodation that was far more respectful of the Little Sisters’ religious liberty than the challenged Obamacare regulations, and the government will now have extreme difficulty credibly arguing in lower courts that the Supreme Court’s own suggested compromise should be set aside. Third, this ruling was unanimous. That means the DOJ should be far from confident that it can simply wait out the new presidential election and pursue its original claims with the same hope for success — especially if it spent the intervening years rejecting a compromise that it already seemed to accept. Fourth, we can’t forget the context. This the second time a unanimous Supreme Court has turned back the Obama administration’s regulatory efforts to restrict religious freedom (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC was the first), and it represents yet another setback for the administration’s contraception/abortifacient mandate. The Obama administration has pushed hard against religious liberty — on occasion too hard even for the Supreme Court’s more liberal justices. There’s no doubt that it would have been preferable to win the case on the merits, but this is not the outcome the Obama administration hoped for, and it’s better than the 4-4 tie that most people predicted. A tie would have let stand rulings against the Little Sisters and most of the other religious organizations challenging the mandate. This outcome, by contrast, provides a judicial roadmap for a national victory for religious liberty. Congratulations to the Little Sisters, their fellow petitioners, and their capable counsel. Today is a good day for America’s first freedom.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/435446/little-sisters-poor-just-beat-obama-administration-supreme-court

  • #31088 Reply

    gene kliewer

    fortunately Im attending a church that allows me to attend w/ restrictions ,but at least I can feel like an accepted member of society , but Ive been told not to come back in 2 other churches ,i consider them hypocrites and Pharisees ,plus thoses who call themselves christians have kicked me under the bus ,like relatives,some old friends, and a girl friend that I loved said my children wont allow me to see you , its been hard to cope,but fortunately Im 75 years old and I dont have long till I see my loved ones that have gone before me ,one being my deceased wife of 36 years who passed on 11 years ago ,Im encouraged that progress is being made to get rid of the SOl ,thanks to the attorneys fighting for us who carry the scarlet letter

    • #31112 Reply

      Jonny everyman

      In the same state of you and understand they labeled you a l3. Remember the Lord has forgiven you even if some people choose not to.

  • #31092 Reply

    Darrin

    There is obviously such an issue regarding the separation between church and state, in m opinion. But first to the question. What would I do? If the priority is to help the poor and the needy, then I would have to find a way to allow the offender in my shelter. They are human, and they are in need. One must find a way to help those in need. I’ve said it many times… we are all more than the sum total of our mistakes.

    But the bigger problem here is the separation issue. However, the church is at fault for allowing this to happen. The church has always been the one place where people in need could go, and in fact, should go. Society complains when the church becomes involved in government, crying foul for lack of separation. But when the government wants to dictate who can and cannot attend a church, we are back in England again. The state should have zero authority as to who worships, and where they worship.

    There are huge human rights violations occurring in these United States, and we should make sure that international human rights groups are aware.

  • #31094 Reply

    Michael can Christianson

    Of interest here, is the fact that Necessity is a defense to any criminal law – though the elements vary from State-to-State. I would encourage every registered citizen to get to know the Necessity defense for their State. Those shelters should be using the Defense of Necessity” to house registered citizens during winter weather, storms, and the like.

  • #31095 Reply

    TS

    @NARSOL

    You should also check with the Salvation Army and Gospel Rescue Missions across the nation too to see what their winter shelter polices are as they represent the Christian faith, but are not associated with any one church. You’d find they follow the same as the churches do when it comes to insurance, the law, and RCs being turned away during the cold weather.

    As Fred said above, would they turn away males only or would they turn away a female RC with a child(ren) or a child RC with parents who need shelter?

  • #31099 Reply

    Saddles

    While this is a start of a brand NEW YEAR it seems those caught up in all this digital age sex offense or whatever the situation can be it seems a lot of people go to far. Even shelter is effecting them for man’s misconduct whether man made or induced by other means.. I sent an article to Brenda Jones a few years ago, one can find URL. in this comment that I hope everybody reads. Hopefully we can all get some idea of how we should all come together to understand more of this dilemma facing man. Even shelter is being affected by these ordeals in different ways.
    Sure we are all carnal by nature but here is this article I wrote. Ms. Jones has the URL I sent here a while back and I’m sure she can comment more on this also in due time. Here is comment and the URL article also that gives food for thought……The Real truth that all should know about these internet sting operations.
    For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Even though we are all sinners the Bible is full of a lot of truths Here’s another one that we should remember.
    Two men went up into the Temple to pray; One a Pharisee the other a publican. The Pharisee’s stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not like other men are extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as the publican. I fast, I give tithes of all that I posses. Are these sex internet stings the work of crafty hypocrites or hair-splitting legalists?
    The publican standing afar off, would not lift up his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast saying. God be merciful to me a sinner. Are these examples of what we should be or not be. Sure we are all sinners but we can all use these principals that Jesus is teaching us from the Sermon on the Mount. I think one of our leaders of today used this Sermon in a radical way.
    Now we are faced with the ordeal of the sex offender. Do you not know that they had sex offenders in the Biblical days’. Do we just devor one another or should we say Love thy neighbor as thyself. I have noticed in these internet sex sting operations that their are two forces at work
    One force is those that are using their dedication to God to force a type of submission to the other force that is wanting to weaken that force by any means they can. Police that dedicate there profession to God should never be using force in this internet sex encounter like these. If one calls down someone shouldn’t it be in public? For one, if they dedicate their profession to God that speaks volume. How many commandments have they broken in their pursuit?
    The other force in the matter is just going by what the first force tells them and playing along not knowing of the position of the first force. The main objective is to have some form of get to gather and by them wanting to ask for sex while one force may ask for nude pictures, condoms, and so forth.
    While all this may show the general public that those law enforcement people are protecting and serving someone, who are they really serving at the time of the encounter?
    First and foremost a minister is to do good and not evil. While we will all be judged and accountable for our actions, Woo to those that judge unjustly. Sure we are all weak but we can all learn lessons.
    As one said in his writings “(Are we all sex offenders) http://harvyoder.blogspot.com/2015/11/we-are-all-sex-offenders.html
    or are these registry’s a cheap form of grace.

  • #31102 Reply

    SW

    It seems that people can reconcile the injury and death of an SO due to weather extremes, but most cannot come up with a good reason for it. They conveniently don’t answer the questions. When taken to task most people cannot come up with a “good excuse” for the cruelty that they take part in, yet they feel self-righteous enough to act cruel.

    It may take the mass slaughter of SO’s due to being forced out in extreme weather before people may speak up. But even then, it makes me wonder if people will simply come up with excuses.

    They strip us of a voice (since most cannot vote), then of the ability to protect ourselves (not allowed to possess a firearm or bullet proof clothing), then restrict where we can find shelter. Even with 800,000 of us, we are largely left helpless. We have no teeth, no ability to make a stand.

    If not for a few brave souls acting on our behalf, we would be in a completely hopeless state.

  • #31123 Reply

    Sue Wearethepeople

    With all this cold weather this really concerned me. I wondered if there was a place for sex offenders to go to get out of the cold. With all the laws out there that make it hard for them, men ,women and children, to have shelter. I live in Pennsylvania and I hear that churches have opened there doors to the homeless. The only group of people who the door stay closed for in so many things are the SO. Not fair, so what can we do about it? Most of the people who are not affected by these’s law do not no that there are laws like this .I am telling people about the unfair laws. The laws that would make it hard for my grandson if I was not there for him. There was a new law passed in PA, called the libre’s law no dog is allowed to be outside for more then 30 minutes without food and shelter,when the temperature goes below 32 degrees. This law is now called Animal Cruelty with a fine, and a possible Felony. So what should we call this, this is why the SO laws are just so unjust! I will pray that someday people will see that we all are people first, and everyone can make mistakes. No one is perfect!

  • #31126 Reply

    aleta

    If you ask me the police officers that are sending obscene pictures and child porn to trap people are just as much sex offenders as are the people they are trying to trap. What makes them think that they are any better. If they are sending it then they are viewing it.

    • #31307 Reply

      Jerry

      Well said, Aleta!

      Most of the public does not know that police VOLUNTEER for these types of positions, they are NOT forced to do the kind of work that entraps (I don’t care what five conservative justices on the Supreme Court say … it IS ENTRAPMENT as per the four dissenters, who know how to read Constitutional Law from a legal aspect and not a liberal or conservative viewpoint) people. I find it appalling that when asked, they act self-righteous about why they do that kind of work.

      All the public has to do is look at the psychological prototype of the person who is typically drawn to police work. I’m NOT saying all police officers are Dirty Harry’s. Fortunately, many state and municipal governments have strengthened the requirements to weed out the ones who want to carry a gun and a badge and kick scum bag ass. Nonetheless, many slip through the cracks. What’s worse is that police promotions are earned by writing the most tickets and getting the most convictions no matter what tactics were used and regardless if justice was truly served. The same goes for district attorneys who use conviction records as a justification for higher office. The public and worse yet, the media never questions how the convictions were gained.

      Lastly, I’d like to connect a meter to the police officers who volunteer to look through child pornography to see what they really feel about it!

  • #31113 Reply

    Cary

    My church accepts sex offenders. Infact im a huge part in the church. I do pass the sacrament in church. I also testify and hold a responsiblities of church services and im well liked and im a convected sex offender and soon to be off the registery under the pre-sorna HB 1952 bill and or under Muniz deal in Pennsylvania. My church knows im a sex offender and my community knows too. Im not being harassed or being rejected. Im NOT a violent offender. But, my church is called LDS the Mormons. They do not have shelters that i am aware of. But, I do get help from the church when in need of.

  • #31115 Reply

    Saddles

    You know now that I ponder on my comment I have to say this. One cannot induce Justice with evil for justice can one? Now even the bible says do not repay evil for evil. So what covenant are we all under still? Sure we all make mistakes but when mistakes are induced one has to speak up about it. I’m sure this was one of the reason’s NARSOL came into being.

    Sure we can all read the bi-laws of NARSOL that use to be called NARMS and we can also strive for understanding but in reality we are human. Now NARSOL and its sister teams that fight for those on the registry I have to give thanks that there are some that stand up for this in the Christian way for mankind. That is what you call helping others in a lot of this confusion. I am not saying band the sword of justice but at times it goes a bit too far.
    And I might say a man’s greed can go a bit too far also and I believe its been that way for quite a while. What do you all say.

  • #31116 Reply

    Walter Mitty

    Sandy, your article was a pleasure to read. It provokes thought, encourages introspection in those who are addressed by it, is imbued with sound reason, and you managed to deliver it without rancor. I wish I could write that way. It is the manner of writing that stands the best chance of garnering positive results for registrants like me.

    Whenever I attempt such myself, my emotions (chiripiorca) or my flights of fancy get the better of me and I end up either whining and crying or flinging counterproductive vitriol. Or more often, I become aggressive to the point of distracting from my goal. (I wasn’t always so damaged. I hope some day I can heal.)

    The picture of the man walking down a tree-bordered lane in the bitter cold of swirling snow reminds me of the Robert Frost poem, Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening. I often feel like that myself.

  • #31120 Reply

    Derek Logue of OnceFallen.com

    I’d like to add to this story. I had contacted Christ N Us ministries in Mobile, AL and they were extremely defensive and argumentative and tried to turn the argument back on me, asking what I’m doing to help homeless registrants. They then deleted a number of FB posts. NOW, their FB page states the shelter was shut down by the city and are seeking alternatives. Sounds like “The Lord provided them with a way out” from their temptation to tell us the truth about their lack of desire to help homeless registrants.

    I also contacted the MATS program in TN to ask them this–

    If you do not offer shelter to homeless registrants (who you call “sex offenders”), then where can they get help? Do you folks offer them anything at all?

    Their response:

    Sorry for my delay in getting back with you. I have been out of town for a few days.
    We do offer shelter to homeless registrants if you mean those that sign up for our free self-sufficiency program or those who sign in to our warming station. I need clarity on what you mean by “homeless registrants?”

    It is nice to know the response shows the didn’t pay enough attention, so my response was registrant = someone forced to register as a “sex offender.” That was Jan. 3rd. Still awaiting a response.

  • #31110 Reply

    Maestro

    I’m going to say something that many people would *try* to find offensive (because that’s what people seem to live for these days – finding offense in everything), while some people who think more realistically will agree with. Keep in mind (those of you who have read my comments on here over the years) that I was also homeless thanks to the wonderful Probation Dept that we NEED so badly in order to help us reintegrate back into society. Making a person homeless somehow helps this cause.
    Luckily, I have immediate relatives that let me stay at their place during the day hours when the shelters KICK YOU OUT from 7am to 5pm when they start letting everyone back in again. So, I’m gonna say something here that should probably be said to the heads of these shelters….Here goes:

    Has anyone every truly seen homeless people? I’ve lived in 2 inner cities in CT, one of which is home to a very popular college – Yale University. And all over the city, even roaming near the college campus are homeless people. Many of whom are male (very few females but yes, there are some).
    Take a walk anywhere near Yale University and you’ll have homeless men wondering around, acting a fool, stepping up to you asking for change and cigarettes (even if you do not appear to be smoking) and the ever so popular “Excuse me, sir, my car broke down and I’m trying to get back home. Could you spare a few dollars to help me out?”
    One guy used this as his scheme to get money. But he’d forget who he approached and ended up approaching me twice in one week with the same story. These are some really HONEST and TRUSTWORTHY people right? No need to lock up your businesses when you close at night with these honest folks around, eh?

    These MEN are HOMELESS. Probably haven’t had a romantic involvement in YEARS! Many are (sorry to say) very raggedy, dirty, just looking a hot mess. With that being said, who is to say that one of these homeless men who truly have NO ONE and NOTHING won’t be tempted to sexually assault someone? Do these “Christian” shelters and churches THINK that people are born with their criminal record? There is a FIRST for EVERYTHING. And someone who is homeless and allowed to stay at a shelter that’s near a school or one that also houses families, only needs the RIGHT MOMENT to make his move.

    This is why I am sickened by the idea that we like to only judge people who HAVE a sexual criminal record. Yet, we also hear it all the time: “Trust no one”.
    During my 3 months in a homeless shelter, I observed how the other men around me acted and spoke among each other. There were shelter workers who were female (just like female C.O.’s in a jail/prison) and these men (much like the same men in prison who hate sex offenders) would talk to each other about how many ways to Saturday they’d like to “do” her.
    And I thought to myself : “All they would need is the opportunity.”
    And I’m sure it’s happened in the history of homelessness. But, so long as they DON’T currently have a sexual offense record, they are welcomed in. What happened to the old way of thinking when we’d say “If you can do ____ then who’s to say you won’t ALSO do _____?”
    But I guess a drug addict or alcoholic, while under the influence, would NEVER commit a sexual offense, right?
    Anyone who commits a sexual offense must surely have been born with some deficiency. Kinda like how most religious people say that gay or trans people are “messed up” in the head. I guess we’re all messed up in the head, too, because this thing called “temptation” (and I do not say that in a religious way) surely would never get the best of someone when they KNOW they shouldn’t be with that underage girl even though she LOOKS older and mature.
    That same temptation that we know exists and therefore would make us move our wallets and purses to a more secure part of the house even though we invited people over that we otherwise trust.

    So anyway, there’s something for these Christian shelters AND the state legislators to think about: A bunch of homeless men who have been without intimacy for years and years….. would they do the unthinkable? Nah. If they were to do that, it would have to have started a long time ago. That’s the way of thinking of law makers and law enforcement. Their minds are programmed to believe that there would be a ‘trail’ of such behavior. They don’t believe in the idea of ‘a first for everything’. I guess that means we all came out of our mother’s wombs with a steering wheel. We didn’t have a ‘first time’ driving a car.

    Ok, well, that was my 2 cents on the matter. Because I prefer to think realistically. And realistically, no matter how “holy rolling” someone claims to be, there’s ALWAYS that NATURAL human fear and judgement of others, with OR without a belief in “god”. I always hear people asking “How can you have morals if you’re an atheist”, well, I have an answer: I’m more moral than these Christian shelters that would rather let someone freeze to death.

  • #31124 Reply

    D

    “Shelter discrimination blurs separation of church, state”, “Sex offender check-ups blur 4th amendment”, “Lie detector tests for sex offenders blur 1st and fifth amendments”, “Sex offender program blurs the line between double jeopardy act”, “Sex offender program set new standard for cruel and unusual punishments”, “Sex offender laws continually challenge the ex post facto laws”, Do you think this is not the plan? Do you think the government will not use sex offenders to re-write the constitution if they can? Who still believes the government is your friend? This is all apart of the plan.

  • #31148 Reply

    T

    These reasons that these churches and shelters give about not allowing registered citizens shelter for the winter because they are on the sex offender registry and because of presence of children are just crap of excuses. These hypocrites need to be reminded and held accountable for the things they’ve done.

  • #31159 Reply

    Saddles

    One person said on here Sandy brought up a good article and I have to agree. While a lot of things are getting colder shelter is a basic need. I wonder if one would get kicked out of jail if they had no where to get out of the cold after already given there probation of paroled? Remember the police are suppose to protect and serve. Well one can dwell a bit to much on the negative side of things. Truth and justice should prevale in any situation.
    One side can fight for justice and the other side can fight for truth but in the end of this sex offender plight who win’s. Should we all be playing battle of the sexes as they did in the mid 70’s into the 80’s. Now there is nothing wrong with voicing one’s opinion on topics but cold wheather effects everybody. Some want to toss the bible away as it means nothing in a court of law. Actually its all about the heart and one’s self. A lot of this sex offender stuff is someone getting over on another by inducing a sex inticement or it can go to extremes such as blackmail or spousal abuse. even harder core cases if that’s the case. Should a sex offender be any different from any other or is that article i submitted to Brenda Jones of no value. Actually all this cold weather issue can get one down, but for any church or mission to refuse someone is a bit much.

  • #31163 Reply

    B. Webb

    For the churches who do not open their doors to sex offenders, while I understand the desire to keep persons safe, I ask a couple of questions.
    1) Could you not open a specified section of the church for ex-offenders to be housed?
    2) What would Jesus do?

  • #31169 Reply

    Saddles

    After re-reading a lot of these comments I sort of focused on Sue’s comment, yes maestro has his point as we all do also. We can all discriminate in a lot of ways. Is’t setting one up a type of discrimination or a type of pressure harrassment. Sure we can come up with one’s own thoughts but I still go by the word “if a man thinkest”. Sure one can either be a defender or an offender.
    I took a plea deal in my ordeal as I was perpreparing to understand this sex offender ordeal more clearly. Why do you think I ask for one condition, no sex. Before one gets involved in anything one has to understand it more clearly to help others. I’m wallking right thu this cold ordeal just like everybody else, the circumstances may be different but still abusei in a manulipative way. While some can be homeless at times and need places to go for shelter one also has to understand about this type of ordeal. Seems now people are bringing harrassment to anyone that looks at a person in the wrong way. Today they want to steriotype it as abusive or sexual but common logic will be understanding. If you search you will find the law is not on your side but the truth is.

  • #31178 Reply

    Derek Logue of OnceFallen.com

    Here’s the long awaited reply from the MATS program:

    We have two other shelters they can go to that are merely blocks away. One for males and one for females. Also, we have a shelter down the road that we can drive them to. In addition to this information, we only had one person who fits your description who did not want to go to any of the shelters in the area and we were able to find a home for him.

    Thank you for your compassion and hard work for your fellow man. Please discontinue correspondence with MATS. We will continue to be diligent and faithful to do our job here and I’m sure you will do yours there. But I see no reason for further correspondence.

    Dr. B
    MATS
    directorofmats@gmail.com

    He didn’t want to share this info and now he wishes I “stop correspondence” with him, which you all should know doesn’t discourage me at all from replying. Maybe someone else can get better info from this person if we turn up the heat a little bit.

  • #31192 Reply

    Henry

    I know at one point in time, maybe 2017, 2018 or 2019, a case will make it to SCOTUS and will be granted cert. This is a good point for an amicus brief which I am sure NARSOL will be glad to make.

    There is SO MUCH evidence that points to constitutional violations, a case will be sure to make it to the Supreme Court soon.

    The states (with it’s citizens approval) have made laws and the lawmakers are actually calling it “punishment”. Expost Facto violation????? Now the citizens have power of execution by hypothermia?? Where was that exactly stated in the U.S. Constitution!

  • #31198 Reply

    Susan Walker

    1-8-18

    It took almost a year for a Catholic man that I am supporting, and who is on the registry in Colorado, to find a Catholic Church that would accept him. In order to try to find a church, he had to work with a woman in Denver who was part of the Archdiocese and worked particularly with abuse issues in the church. A church that would accept him finally did open its doors and he was extremely pleased, although the wait was long.
    My church does accept those with a sexual offense. Any restrictions on them come from their sexual offense treatment programs in terms of when they can arrive and where they can sit. The only place they are not allowed to go is the lower level of the church where the childrens’ classes are held. If a registrant needs to take his or her child to a class downstairs, they are quietly accompanied by a member of the church safety committee.
    After doing a six week class on sexual offenses and related issues at my church which was attended only those on the registry and a couple of their family members, it became apparent to me that just like the public in general, church attenders/members are usually not informed regarding the truths about sexual recidivism (or the lack thereof). I decided that it would take a series of classes over months and perhaps years to really educate people to the realities of the registry and sexual offending behavior. This church does have a ministry to those affected by human trafficking.
    The Denver Rescue Mission does welcome registrants on both probation and parole, as does the CrossRoads Salvation Army Shelter.

  • #31219 Reply

    Alan R Hyde

    well for the past 22 years I have been faced with this. DAY I am not … I a non attorney got myself OFF the dam list.

    I also had charges of none registrations in a different State, they are DROPPED. I am working to collect $550,000.00 From Washington State because of this FRAUD they have Done….

  • #31349 Reply

    Saddles

    We could all scream about discrimination but courts see all this in a different light. How can one defend justice and uphold justice, what if we were all sex offenders. Would that hold a candle to anything or would we be living under a bridge still.

Reply To: Shelter discrimination blurs separation of church, state
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Do not promote your business, your blog, your website, or any other business, blog, or website.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.
Your information:





<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre> <em> <strong> <del datetime=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">