Letters to the Editor
AKA Smith
Published Letters: 3787 Editor's Choice: 79
-
Nowhere Near Me
[Read the article: Churches slam doors on sex offenders]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While it is true that there are likely to be sex offenders in church that I do not know about and that these unidentified perpetrators may be more dangerous to congregants and their children, at least they won't make me spend every worship service feeling nauseated and angry.
No less than six female members of my family have been victims of sexual abusers who never spent one day in jail. It is not up to me to forgive the people who so devastated these women's lives. It is up to victims to do so, and then only if they feel they want to or need to in order help their own healing.
However, if readers think these predators only destroy the lives of their victims, they are kidding themselves. Sexual abusers affect everyone who has to deal with the aftermaths of their crimes. In my family, this has affected three generations. The result has been post traumatic stress disorder in two victims, complete memory impairment of the event in two others (but with symptoms that remain), and a life-long bitterness among most of them. One of the victims even had flashbacks to a rape from her teen years when she was in her nineties. These crimes have estranged family members from one another and led to endless recriminations. It even led to my aunt's refusal to attend her mother's funeral when her mother was laid to rest next to my aunt's abuser.
Why should the innocent be retraumatized so that the offenders can pretend that they have gained acceptance? Let the offenders watch worship services on television.
Please understand that sexual offenders -- especially pedophiles -- have launched a campaign of sorts to have their behavior accepted as just another sexual orientation. Religious and social acceptance is only a first step. Don't let them win!
-
Lumping all churches together?
[Read the article: Churches slam doors on sex offenders]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Having read all the letters thus far, I am a bit puzzled that so many of them deal with Christianity exclusively when it comes to ideal of forgiveness.
First of all, not all churches are Christian. In fact, not all churches are prescriptively theistic. There seems to be a subtext to many comments that congregations should follow the Christian Biblical edict to forgive repeatedly all "sins" -- seven times seven, or whatever. Even within fairly homogenous groups, some freedom is allowed for decisions negotiated between one's conscience and one's God, or whatever one calls the so-called higher power.
Second, isn't it more important for the person who has been transgressed against to decide if he/she feels forgiving? Otherwise, isn't such forgiveness more rote than real?
I would not presume to forgive on behalf of a sexual offender's victim(s) the sexual offender's predation.
I see the issue as more practical. Would I want to rub shoulders with someone who may be diabolically clever enough to circumvent a church's (synagogue's, mosque's, coven's) honor system rules and figure out how to molest one of the church's children anyway? I keep hearing that these offenders are manipulative. Do others think they might be manipulative enough to get away with it again and are they willing to let their own children take the risk?
And what about those churches that get all huggy? Would I be consider insufficiently forgiving if I didn't want to touch the sexual offenders? Could people forgive me for being so unforgiving?
Of course, one should not assume all sexual offenders are alike, but why should one assume all religious/spiritual beliefs require forgiveness in the same prescriptive way?
-
To EnoMary
[Read the article: Churches slam doors on sex offenders]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am terribly sorry to read about the events in your life with which you have struggled .
I will endeavor to relay your sentiments about "getting over it" to those members of my family who have suffered sexual abuse. I don't know, however, if they will be able to "get over it" on someone else's timetable.
I am glad, in any case, that you now feel "over it." It is good that you now feel so completely safe.
-
Hello d. sugarman
[Read the article: Churches slam doors on sex offenders]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Was I being Snarky?
That was not really my intent. Instead, I was saying exactly what I was taught to say to victims of crime many years ago when I held a volunteer job:
1. I am so sorry this happened to you.
2. It's not your fault.
3. I am glad you are safe now.
I left out that middle one, because it always did sound a bit strange to me. I always wondered why victims would think it was their fault in the first place, but amazingly they often did. I think that says something about the power abusers hold to make victims of crime and our very culture believe that if only the victim hadn't been there after dark, worn those clothes, married that man, had that drink, been born into that family, gone to that church, then those dreadful things wouldn't have happened.
If you add to all of that a weary or hostile judgment of the victim's legitimate feelings, it plays into the hands of those who would minimize the crime.
Also, it is tough having to be tough all the time. (I believe that issue was tangentilly touched upon in the recent debate over insults and threats to women on the web.) To me, it if it is not okay to say "Ouch," then nobody ever has to say they're sorry. Getting a pass on that doesn't improve anyone's manners or morals.
I recognize people who have been victimized deal with their feelings in different ways. I respect everyone's right to seek a uniquely individual path toward healing. I expect to be treated to the same respect. When I said to EnoMary that I was sorry about what happened to her, I really meant it.