Letters to the Editor

• D. sugarman, I did understand your post . . .

  [Read the article: Churches slam doors on sex offenders]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  all except the Snarky. I have no idea what it means either. Maybe someone cooler than both of us will enlighten us.

  I know you were afraid it might get ugly between EnoMary and me and wanted not to see that happen. I appreciate your intentions. I don't think it will happen. Do you know why?

  Because I have read her other letters and I don't think she is going to end up as a little puddle on the floor anymore than I will. I think she is tough and I have some sense of where she may have gotten that toughness. Not first hand, as you might assume, but rather as the saddest sort of bystander to others' pain. So when I say that, I am only guessing; not assuming.

  Here is what I have read about sexual offenders and their prior sexual abuse. Roughly thirty percent of men who sexually abuse have been victims. Roughly one in five of the general male population have been sexual abuse victims. (I am excluding women here because I do not have those stats, and I could site my sources, but I don't know what protocol here on that is.) Therefore, as you can see, not all or even most sexual offenders are previously victims.

  Of course we should try to understand the causation, and of course we should try to find solutions. I am the first to admit that people who are trying to recover from any problem do it more easily with social support. However, when that social support exposes more children (or men or women) to sexual assault is it worth it? Even assuming being sexually abused causes a some people to become sexual abusers themselves, wouldn't we then only be adding to the existing problem?

  I live in Texas, where very recently the laws have been changed to permit the death penalty for offenders. I oppose the death penalty. We need workable laws and and practical solutions. We cannot expect people to overcome their natural aversion to the offenders. Whatever churches decide to do, it must be quite public. If parents take their children to a church, they have a right to know the church's policies. If they choose to vote with their feet, this is only what protective parents appropriately do.

  I have worked in a church as a religious education director. Protecting children is always a difficulty and always will be. Putting the welcome mat out for offenders will create potentially many, many problems. For instance, ministers who know that there is a sexual offender among their members who may become active would be potentially exposing their church to the same problems the Catholic Church now faces.

  Since the subject here is specifically how churches (temples, synagogues, etc.)deal with sexual offenders, then it only makes sense to deal with the most likely outcomes: Lawsuits against religious bodies if they knowingly protect such knowledge and children are abused, or the likely mass exodus of conscientious parents. Since we really don't know yet even how sexual predators (the harder cases) can be medically treated, how on earth are we to expect them to miraculously healed?

  Permalink Thursday, April 26, 2007 07:15 PM