Hard to say. Ultimately I think it should be up to each church to decide for themselves what they want to do.

It seems inefficient for government to try to decide such things. I think laws in general can sometimes be very ’situation-blind’ when they have very specific rules applied to all manner of general situations. Perhaps this is one such situation. We should make much better use of ‘common law’ vs having volumes and volumes of obscure and specific technical rules. I think there is an example that a perfectly law abiding citizen violates at least 6 laws a day, unintentionally, b/c the laws are so complex and no one can ever know them all.

From a pure legal standpoint, I don’t think this guy has a case. There is nothing preventing him from going to a church w/ no daycare and practicing his religion so his rights to practice his religion are technically not impinged. Unless he has some very compelling case to make it seems clear cut to me.

Human beings must suffer consequences for a lift-time for certain trespasses and decisions that they made in life. Sexual assault of children is one of those things. It is not worth the risk to any child having them knowingly exposed to ones who have harmed children in such an evil way.

Child sexual abusers must worship God/Christ in settings where children are not present, maybe even in the church during an evening adult only service or some other day of the week where children are not allowed in the church or on the church grounds during these special service times. It is just a price one must suffer for some evils they are responsible for. Some payments and punishments last a lifetime upon this present earth even though God can forgive all our sins and trespasses. A parent would be negligent to risk exposing their child to anyone who has ever committed such an evil act against a child.

I agree with D Walker, this man has forfeited many of his rights by his conduct, as a victim of sexual abuse by a stranger my vote would be short rope and tall tree.

So I am clear, are you asking if the government, as the community, under the constitution has the power to restrict access to church private property?

If you are, yes it does under its committment to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Church properties must abide by all public life safety requirements.

There is no sanctuary in a church for a dangerous person who has the capacity and intent to harm. Sex offenders have proven, at this time, to be a high risk for recovery.

There are many opportunities for adult worship, if not, he may create one.

Everybody does deserve a chance and taking away religion (the first amendment by the way) is not only wrong, but it also shows that people judge too quickly. For some sex offenders that have committed crimes, they find themselves 10 or more years laters still paying for that crime. Had they murdered someone, they would still be allowed in church. Not to mention all the teenagers who are ending up on the registries for nothing more than teen consensual sex (with a couple years difference in age) or teens who are texting nude photos to one another or putting them on MySpace. Are these the people (the young people) that we dont want in our churches or around our children? The laws do not differentiate between true threats to society and teenagers who have made normal decisions in life - or the adults who have committed no crime but find themselves as sex offenders for urinating in public. Our laws must be amended so that only the TRUE threats to society and our children are recognized as “child molesters”
http://www.love-is-not-a-crime.com

“Human beings must suffer consequences for a lift-time for certain trespasses and decision that they made in life.”

Hmmmmmm, where did you find THIS rule? Certainly not in my bible. It’s certainly not decreed by my Lord and Savior.

Even if the church this man attends HAS a daycare center that it runs during the week, I’m sure it’s NOT open on Sunday. IF the “daycare” they are referring to is a “nursery”, which almost all churches have for parents to leave very small children in while they attend services, that is a very loosely applied definition of the term, “daycare”.

Jesus taught FORGIVENESS and LOVE. If you missed these two facts, you better buy a children’s version of the bible and try reading that one. His final words before ascending to the Father were, “love one another”. The way in which others will know you are my disciples is through your love for one another. I didn’t use quotation marks here because that isn’t verbatim, but the meaning is not lost. In case you’re not sure who a disciple is it is anyone who is a follower of and believer in Jesus Christ. We are ALL His disciples. We are failing miserably, on the whole, in that role, but that’s what we are.

D. Walker, you have no right to judge this man and harnass him with a lifetime of suffering because of a crime or crimes he committed in his past. If you are a christian, you KNOW better.

Churches are hospitals for sinners. Any man of God who turns ANYONE away from God’s house is going to have (as Ricky Ricardo used to say) “some splainin’ to do” I fear.

Another, you don’t know it but when you typed, “to be a high risk for recovery” you didn’t make a mistake there. It’s true. With support and a good therapy program, they can and do “recover”. If they didn’t have the capability of not re-offending, if they ALL re-offend as the media would have you believe, and with over 600,000 names listed on the sex offender registry, just WHY are we not littered with the bodies of sexually assaulted/murdered children? Seems to me that these people want to get on with their lives, and be productive citizens. WE are the problem, in my humble opinion.

Sex is not love.

This is a subject close to my heart, as someone I love is a registered sex offender. It’s a terrible thing to live with that label, but who we are before the law and who we are before God are two entirely different issues. Would Jesus have accepted sex offenders? Well, firstly, the attitude in the 1st century toward “indecent liberties with a teenage girl” was not the same as today. But set that aside, because again, how society views and deals with such things is a different question. Yes, Jesus would have accepted a sex offender. What God desires is a broken and contrite heart. There is no sin greater than the grace of God, as long as we’re willing to be broken before God and accept His grace. That doctrine - which I’ve heard all my life - has taken on more power as I’ve seen it worked out in the life of someone that society will, perhaps, always view with disdain and rejection. The church needs to find a way to balance what the law requires with it’s calling to be the visible presence of Christ in the world.

To D. walkers point, a chocie made is a choice for ever. This is responsibility.

It can not be undone. Its imapct is not only for a life time, but like ripples in a pond, will affect eternity.

This is not a threat or condemnation, only an acknowledgment of the power we all have in life.

It can not be reasoned away.

Forgiveness and love are not excuse from accountability. Rather they are a commitment to it free of judgement.

The young man may consider his commitment to a church as a safe place free of distraction.

With no regard for fault, he is now a distraction. If his faith is strong, he can manage this with those in a position to support him.

I see nothing to be gained for him by taking on this battle except righteousness.