Looks like we’ll be seeing a lot more YPW items coming out of Georgia…

The debate over restrictions on sex offenders has taken an interesting turn in Georgia. According to the Gainesville Times a federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction that overturns a law prohibiting registered sex offenders from volunteering in churches.

26 replies on “Coming Soon to “Youth Pastor Watch””

  2. Georgia. What more needs to be said? Unbelievably, Georgia is by no means the worst place in the South, and the Atlanta area can be downright cosmopolitan, but still.

  3. “After all,” said the judge, “underage children are delicious! It would be cruel and unusual to deprive someone access to this vast source of sexual fulfillment simply because they made the mistake of getting caught in the past.”

  4. If individual churches aren’t doing background checks (and a lot of them aren’t), they should be forced to, especially for volunteers working with children.

    Then again, I haven’t been able to convince my own church of the importance of doing that. The response tends to be, “But we know those people, and this is a church. What kind of message would we be sending if we implied we don’t trust our members?” I always respond, “What kind of message are we sending when we trust our kids to people without clearances?” Now that I’m on council, making that happen is my first priority.

    I know clearances and background checks aren’t the be all and end all. There are a lot of pedophiles out there who haven’t been caught yet, and yes, even in church communities. But they are an important and easy step to take.

  7. what about “sex offenders” who got caught urinating in public alleys, or were 19 and having sex with their 17 year old girlfriends?

    personally i’m okay with keeping anyone out of church but there might have been good reason to revisit this and possibly rewrite.

  8. @7 is spot on. They cast the net so wide that “registered sex offender” means about the same as “still breathing” these days.

  10. Before this discussion devolves into a whole bunch of bickering, I want to bring up the previous thread:

    http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

    In comment 52, COMTE did some research and, in my opinion, actually DID show a statistical likelihood that youth pastors are more likely than other walks of life to be involved in this sort of heinous crime.

    That said, I’m hoping this discussion can be taken a bit more seriously and not get bogged down by the yeah-but-Christians-suck mob.

    @4 I think you’ve really hit it on the head as to the direction things should go, if there is any chance of actually making these discussions MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

    As a personal aside, as one who has been arguing vehemently against these posts, let me add that I absolutely loathe blind hatred of anybody based on their religion.

    But I do now see good strong reasons for highlighting the youth pastor issue, and I would like to see the YPW posts pushing for regulations like discussed above.

  11. @6
    Are there no newspapers left in Atlanta?
    This links a Texas paper citing a small town Georgia paper.
    Nothing like 4th hand ‘news’.

  12. Step by step, slowly but surely the activist judges are subjugating the houses of worship into their biding.

    They won’t force churches into solemnizing sinful behavior! sure.

  14. @13 – I wouldn’t present the “research” in a court of law, as I recognize the informal nature of how the numbers were gathered (i.e. internet searches).

    That said, it was more than you or I have contributed to this topic and is worthy of consideration. It was also better than anything I’ve seen from Dan or the Slog on this topic.

    If you disagree with the methods or numbers used, I encourage you to conduct your own better research on this topic.

  18. Exactly how would this ruling “subjugate the houses of worship into their (judges) biding”? Most churches currently don’t do background checks, so this simply codifies something that’s already apparently common practice.

    Telling churches it’s okay to do what they’re already doing anyway isn’t “forcing” them in any way, shape, or form.

    But, as @4 points out, given the prevalence of child sexual abuse that goes on in churches across this country, background checks would seem like a reasonable, sensible precaution to ensure the trust of the members of a congregation willing to put their kids into the care of church staff.

    It’s not a silver bullet, granted, but it’s a far sight better than doing nothing at all, and pretending the problem doesn’t exist.

  19. I can’t think of a better place for sex offenders.
    In fact, let’s demand that churches take in sex offenders and feed and clothe them. After all, are not these “the least of us”?

  26. 17 is absolutely correct. That law is blatantly unconstitutional. However, 4 is also correct. The churches should take it on themselves to screen out pedophiles.

    If GA wants a law specifically keeping pedophiles away from youth groups, I am pretty sure they already have it. All they need is a law prohibiting them from working or volunteering with kids.

    This law is obviously absurd because it would keep sex offenders from being a deacon or lay reader or usher or so on. As others have pointed out, the threshold for being labeled a sex offender is not tremendously high these days. Even as far as pedophiles go, there is not a special danger to having them pass the collection plate.

Comments are closed.