Perhaps I should get my head checked. I read an article in the Los Angeles Times yesterday and I found myself inclined to agree with it. This ought not happen, most of the time.
Now, perhaps it would be more correct to say that I read an article in the LA Times and agreed with the conclusions it reached, while many of the means it used to reach those conclusions I do not consider outstandingly persuasive. I mean, I will grant some of the observations hit at something like the truth. That I will say. For anyone who wants to read the article, it's here.
The question is about child molesters; should people be kept track of and chased out of their homes by angry neighbors with signs protesting their presence? I've seen reports on the KC news about this sort of thing happening there - it must happen fairly often, especially if it manages to happen here in CA where almost everyone is a crazy liberal nutjob.
Now, I have to admit that these people are sufferring the unavoidable consequences of their actions - society has been forced to distrust them, at least to some degree. Nevertheless, I can't help but think it's completely unjust to persecute someone for past sins when they've already made the necessary recompense to society as required by law. It keeps them from being able to live anywhere, keep a job . . . it just plain risks their capability to support themselves, ever again.
Moreover, it seems to me that it's an upfront violation of Christian charity to act this way. I simply don't see how anyone could justify this kind of behaviour if they accept Christian ethics.
What are your thougts about it, all you, uh, people who read this blog?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
There are some that say child molesters cannot be rehabilitated and the evidence does seem to bear this out. Then there is the issue of someone being wrongly accused, and in a hyper-litigating society, this happens more than imagined. It is a very big issue; probaby one that cannot be dealt with except with justice and mercy, on a case by case basis, and in a post-Christian society, this combination is hard to come by.
Ah, righteous anger - just judgment - certain knowledge of what is right, and what is WRONG.
Isn't that what Adam & Eve lusted over?
If a Christian is to see the Face of Christ is ALL the members of the Body of Christ, then no sin is too black to see Him.
Only the Just Judge has the vision to see a heart, and yet there are some sins the damage the Body of Christ so much that we want to exclude them from membership.
The desire to exclude is understandable, but the ACTION to exclude is not ours to make. Would I allow this man to be alone with my children?
NO. But not for the protection of the children, but for the protection of the man. REAL charity would be to have him visible in the community, to initiate friendship and aquaintance, for the more he knows you, and the more you know him, IF he and you are responsible members of the Body of Christ, the less he can hide from who he really is, and the less you can hide behind your prejudice.
I recall a story by Ghandi. There was a riot between hindus and muslims in India, and a distraught hindi came to Ghandi to confess killing an arab man's child. Ghandi told the man the only penance that would do would be to adopt an muslim orphan, and properly raise him in the muslim faith. It became a life-long effort of expending a sin with charity.
Perhaps that is the only kind of life a man who has been convicted of such a crime can expect.
Can he offer such a public "penence"? Can we accept one?
It is a challenging question....
Post a Comment