Jonathan Perfetto is a person convicted of possessing child pornography who is on probation. He wants to go to church.
Seems like a good idea, a sign of repentance and amendment of life. Problem: Perfetto’s terms of probation prohibit him from having contact with children under the age of 16. Children go to church. Therefore, the state of New Hampshire has concluded that Perfetto can’t go to church, not even with a church elder as chaperone.
Isn’t there something in the Constitution about freedom of religion?
Here’s what the assistant county attorney in New Hampshire said: “The danger of the defendant conversing among a congregation filled with children is quite clear, and the defendant’s right to converse certainly does not outweigh the danger to these children.”
Huh? Converse? Perfetto wants to worship, not converse. Churches aren’t debate societies, nor gradaute seminars. Boy, secularism must be pretty advanced if county attorneys in New Hampshire think that people gather in buildings with steeples in order to “converse.”
OK, OK, maybe some people do go for the coffee hour fellowship afterwards, but the State of New Hampshire is not competent to determine who are “conversing” Christians, and who are the “worshipping” ones.
Good for the ACLU. The venerable defenders of civil liberties sometimes go off the rails, allowing themselves to be seduced by Leftist ideologies. But in this case they rightly see a core constitutional right being tossed aside.
June 22nd, 2010 | 12:58 pm
I agree the NH prosecutors seem clueless as to what church is about. I don’t know the circumstances of Mr. Perfetto’s conviction, but probation is usually an alternative to prison. While many prisons have worship services, prisoners can’t pick a church in prison the way law-abiding citizens freely do, as we freely decide where to live, work, and travel. What the prosecutors should have said was that if Mr. Perfetto wanted or needed to spend time where there are children, he shouldn’t have victimized children; the same thing they’d say if he wanted to live near an elementary school. That said, I’m unfamiliar with the constitutional implications of free exercise on probation.
June 22nd, 2010 | 1:25 pm
As usual there’s more to the story. Here’s his background.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/repeat-sex-offender-living-in-parking-garage
Generally, felons on probation waive Constitutional rights. If they don’t want to waive their Constituttional rights they can complete their prison sentence and there are Church services in prison, so he’s not beign deprived of his religious freedom any more than he could be.
After reading the back story, the ACLU’s chaperone suggestion is, to put it mildly, an extremely reasonable restriction on his freedom. The danger is quite clear indeed. Sorry, I would not allow my children within 100 feet of this man.
June 22nd, 2010 | 1:45 pm
My goodness. The plural for church is “churches,” not “church’s.”
June 22nd, 2010 | 1:49 pm
Our church community (in NH, BTW) stresses that participation in the community is an important part of Christian growth. It is not any requirement, and we do have folks who come in for worship but are otherwise not involved.
I think you are right about the freedom of worship issue, but you are not only wrong, but sneering, to pretend that fellowship in the body of Christ is mere coffee hour chit-chat. Thanks a bunch.
June 22nd, 2010 | 2:11 pm
He can worship at home or at an adults-only service. The terms of his probation are clear. He should be sent back to prison if he comes in contact with children at all anywhere, even in church.
June 22nd, 2010 | 2:22 pm
Try an Episcopal Church. Very few, if any children.
June 22nd, 2010 | 2:36 pm
A chaperone is a reasonable idea. But it’s neither constitutionally nor morally required that places of worship be open to dangerous people. As the previous commenter mentioned, he still has options for fellowship with adults.
June 22nd, 2010 | 2:54 pm
Let him be presented before service to the congregation with an announcement as to the terms of his probation and the nature of his crime. After that he can worship freely. Any adult interested in the redemption of his soul can approach him. All parents and their children can stay as far away from him as possible.
June 22nd, 2010 | 2:57 pm
It turns out that people currently serving a sentence for possessing child pornography give up some rights, at least temporarily.
The legal decision at issue is weighted toward protecting the community, as it should be.
Three cheers for the quoted assistant county attorney in New Hampshire. Two thumbs down for R.R. Reno.
June 22nd, 2010 | 3:50 pm
If there is a congregation that knows the complete story and still wishes to welcome the individual with a few key stipulations, then I would leave it to the congregation. To be frank, I am not sure what I would do as a parish pastor in that situation. I think it would be a matter for the entire Body of Christ (congregation) to discuss and to decide.
June 22nd, 2010 | 5:54 pm
Going to church may, or MAY NOT, be a sign of repentance or amendment of life, for an individual convicted of posessing child pornography. It may also be a scam conceived by a man unable to control his appetite for young children, even if he is accompanied by a “chaperone.”
Anyway, according to The American Heritage dictionary of the American Language, 4th ed., 2000, “converse” is also defined as, “To be familiar; associate (Archaic), and “social interaction” (Obsolete).
So, you see, “conversing” means much, much more than just “talking.”
Hooray for the State of New Hampshire for protecting its children.
June 22nd, 2010 | 6:35 pm
Hooray for the State of New Hampshire for protecting its children.
How exactly is preventing him from attending services accompanied by an elder protecting children?
June 22nd, 2010 | 7:30 pm
“Our church community (in NH, BTW) stresses that participation in the community is an important part of Christian growth.”
That is so vague I’m not sure what you mean. Surely you don’t hold that church is a social club?
June 22nd, 2010 | 9:33 pm
“How exactly is preventing him from attending services accompanied by an elder protecting children?”
It’s a compromise between allowing him unfettered access to unsuspecting children on one hand and putting him in jail on the other.
If he approaches a child the chaperone can intervene promptly and potentially revoke his probation. Did you even read the link to his past?
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/repeat-sex-offender-living-in-parking-garage
Balancing the potential for recidivism with the potential for rehabilitation is dicey at best. Heads will roll if he harms again. He’s lucky the chaperone option is even a slight possibility.
June 23rd, 2010 | 3:47 pm
The fact that perp/creep is on probation means that his debt to society has not been fully paid and that restrictions on his freedom are entirely appropriate. Reno seems not to have considered that this creep may see a church as his only possible means of getting close to children. Mr. Creep may know that he can count on the likes of RR Reno, the ACLU and NAMBLA to come to his defense on church/ state grounds when the same people would laugh at him if he tried to get access to a school.
Note to RR Reno: When you find yourself on the same side of a church/state argument as the ACLU, re-assess. You may not be wrong but it is as good an indicator as any that you’ve lost your bearings.
June 24th, 2010 | 10:42 am
Come on Joe, why are you just commenting on my last sentence (June 22nd. 6:35pm)?
I propose that you are agreeing with my other statements regarding the definition of “converse,” and this individual’s possible ulterior motives.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech. This is all about causing trouble for trouble’s sake.
I am, however, not surprised that you take up this shibboleth of the left.
June 24th, 2010 | 10:56 am
William L. Harnist I propose that you are agreeing with my other statements regarding the definition of “converse,” and this individual’s possible ulterior motives.
Not at all. I think the trying to find an alternative denotation of “converse” misses the point. Also I don’t understand your thinking that the individual’s ulterior motive in attending church with a chaperone in order to . . . well, you really don’t say why.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech. This is all about causing trouble for trouble’s sake.
So a man wanting to attend church is causing trouble for trouble’s sake? Where in the Bible does it say that we are to turn people away from the church?
I am, however, not surprised that you take up this shibboleth of the left.
Now you’re just being silly. If you want to be taking seriously, you might want to stick with making serious arguments. These bizarre statements give the appearance that you are just a troll that is not worth engaging.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact