Comments on: The Right to Worship Compromised

By: Joe Carter

Joe Carter — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:56:22 +0000

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.

By: William L. Harnist

William L. Harnist — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:42:30 +0000

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.

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 19:47:49 +0000

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.

By: Joe McFaul

Joe McFaul — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 01:33:33 +0000

“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.

By: Mary

Mary — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:30:48 +0000

“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?

By: Joe Carter

Joe Carter — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:35:04 +0000

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?

By: William L. Harnist

William L. Harnist — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:54:38 +0000

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.

By: Matt Hummel

Matt Hummel — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:50:04 +0000

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.

By: Ken Mulligan

Ken Mulligan — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:57:55 +0000

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.

By: Kafbst

Kafbst — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:54:24 +0000

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.