This will end well.....

Post Reply New Topic

I realize this, but I find it unfair that even after he has been punished society desires to continue punishing him for the rest of his life.

I'm not sure you and I disagree too much on this issue... ideally he could just be integrated back into society. In practice people will remain wary around him, even if he has been rehabilitated (neither you nor I know whether he has).


Agreed. It does seem unjust that people are so willing to make one person suffer so disproportionately, though.


They were being facetious, as AG later clarified. As for other posters in the thread, most have expressed a desire for the individual to be re-integrated into society with some reservations and caution to ensure he is not a threat to others.

I do agree with you that he should be allowed to move on with his life- and his being ordained in that church is a good example of how he's been able to do that.

But that is not in keeping with Christianity.

I agree that sex offenders tend to never reform, but to give a blanket prohibition and not evaluate things on a case by case basis doesn't work either.

The church knows of his past. They seem to feel he can be trusted. They certainly should employ safeguards...just in case. It's their call if they trust the guy.

In a similar experience, I was at church and there was a video playing in one of the rooms, I found it interesting so I walked in and sat down. I thought nothing of it. In a little while, the school administrator (church school) came in and asked me to leave because there were children present. I was offended and hurt because I felt there was an insinuation that I was a threat to the children. After all, why didn't the teacher just ask me to leave rather than get the principal? I rationally understood that they were worried about the potential risk factor, but didn't they know me well enough to not feel I was a threat? Did they secretly harbor an image of me that made me a danger to be around children?

I also stated my real opinion after that. This was just a joking comment after Orwell's comment, and I really expected this to be considered absurd, simply because few people actually agree with the notion that bad people are always bad people.

The good, the bad, and the worst! topic

If he reoffends, he is doomed. Is there still lynching down there in those Southern states?

It never ceases to amaze me how ironic "righteous" people are....

Not sure where I'm basing my "morals" or "common sense" but it would seem to me that if a punishment was the abuse of defenseless kids/people no matter what the crime, I'd at least think not to risk "my church" or "my people" by letting a guy have authority over them lest it happen again. Seems most religious communities ironically ordain those who "meet a certain criteria" no matter what the affiliation. Hell there are still a good amount of churches that don't ordain women as ministers for the only fact that they are women.

I could see the Catholic stance in keeping info undisclosed since they don't want people to find out that priests aren't as holier than the public thought hence the risk of losing their jobs. But you would think in a so-called liberal church, it would a different scenario. But not really since it's the same kind of peking order in a different suit.

One thing I noticed while reading this article....which may not be indicative of anything, is that none of its church members as well as non-church members responded to the issue at stake except a pastor of course. Conspiracy theory....they're probably afraid they'll be chastised from their community if they express their views on the matter....*oh how ironic*. There have been a good amount of affiliations that have ostracized members for speaking "too openly" against its community and leaders. In some extreme instances.....people have even been killed for it.

Last edited by MissConstrue on 01 Oct 2009, 2:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

well, the issue as a Christian is, what is more important to the Christian, to protect their material interests, such as the issue with the law and avoiding such conflicts *just in case* or to promote love, faith, forgiveness to the repent according to Christ's teachings? I mean, usually the belief is that Jesus was criticized and punished and went along with what he teached kwnowing that, and he didn't seem to backed out on one single thing in order to protect his own ass for something that he knew will happen much less for something it might happen.

There is also the question of what Jesus would have done in a situation like this.

Continued not existing.

Maybe said something along the lines of "Whoever is without blame, let him cast the first stone" and then watched as people cleared out amid an awkward silence.

And then Mary chucks one and nails him right in the face. "YOU AIN'T TOUCHIN MY KIDS!!"

Well, AG was being facetious.

I think that this new minister could be and probably is a genuinely changed individual, but I believe somewhere in the Bible it says that the leaders of a church must have a good reputation in the community; and a child abuser, even a former one, certainly does not have that. I personally don't believe that this person should have a role in the church, other than to be just one of the regular members.