Indiana registrants are free to attend Churches
One week after registrants in Indiana were victorious in a legal challenge to compelled sex offender treatment classes, they were handed another victory in being able to attend churches.
The Indiana Court of Appeals ordered a trial court to grant a permanent injunction barring the state from arresting sex offenders for attending churches that hold Sunday schools or offer child care.
The law considered Churches that hold Sunday school or offer child care to be “school property” and therefore off limits to registered sex offenders. The statute says “school property” is a federal, state or local or nonprofit program or service operated for children who are at least 3 years of age and not yet enrolled in kindergarten.
The appellate court, concluded that the churches were not “school property” because state statute does not say that churches or anything related to religious instruction is “school property.” “If our legislature intended for churches offering Sunday school or other religious instruction to children to qualify as ‘school property,’ thereby prohibiting serious sex offenders from entering that property, it could have clearly sought to do so,” wrote Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Margret Robb in Tuesday’s ruling.
As a side note, don’t be surprised if the Indiana Legislature seeks to pass new laws including churches, in which case; don’t be surprised to see this issue back in a courtroom.
In the mean time, sex offenders in Indiana are free to practice their religion by attending church services.
any shot of some of these judges with some common sense make it to Florida?
You would need a Constitutional Law change to prevent anyone from attending or practicing the Religion of their choice in America, regardless of any crime they have been convicted of. JEV
It was already against the law for the state to prevent a Registered Citizen from attending worship services wherever they want to practice their religion. So this action by the court was to be anticipated.
However, it’s the church that does not want us to attend. Not all churches want to exclude the ex felon from their midst, but many do and there in lies the problem.
It’s a hollow victory if the institution does not want you there. Like Packingham, we now have legal access to social sites, but Facebook does not want us on their site. This decision may let the Registered Citizen worship wherever they want, but …. will the church allow you into their building?
For those Churches that don’t want “certain people” with certain criminal histories I have a question for them-
Would Jesus approve of shunning-or picking and choosing attendees?
ALL should be welcome.
Let’s ask him:
“But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Matthew 9:13
Any “church” that won’t accept a sinner, is not a true church.
Who coined the phrase ‘registered citizen’ on this site? I’m just curious. I understand that people have been trained by the government-controlled school system to refer to themselves as a ‘citizen’ but a review of history will disclose that a citizen is someone who is a ‘subject; someone who is subject to a higher authority; one who owes allegience to government’. My rights comes from my Creator, not from men and their governments and pieces of paper called constitutions. Therefore, I owe allegience only to my Creator. The government did not create me and neither does it own me, as much as it tries and thinks otherwise.
See UNITED STATES v. SEEGER, (1965), No. 50, United States Supreme Court, also citing United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 86 (1944),
“…Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs..”
I don’t know the origin. It sounds more humane than registered sex offender.
I agree with the “more humane” scenario. Remember that many do not believe in a creator at all so where does that leave them? I feel that calling them registered citizens is a statement that we are not apart from the rest of USA citizens. Remember, even if your civil rights (voting etc) are taken away it does not change the fact that you are still a citizen. To me labeling people (any people) is an attempt to dehumanize them (a tactic that has been used many times in history to justify oppression) – by refusing to acknowledge the label you are also refusing to let them do that.
Isnt this a case of government domain trumping separation of church and state? When is it to the government who can or cannot attend religious services? How has that not been brought up? Government dictating access to religious practice as well as private property? Last i understood the constitution provided for equal protections no matter location or address.
This is a victory to be sure but remember – the Church in question can always refuse to let the RSO attend – many do just that. It is kind of like the Facebook scenario. In Florida those off paper are allowed to have a Facebook account but Facebook does not allow it if they find out
Denial of service isnt that discriminatory? Think about it a right to refuse service due to an external source eg prosecution. Is that really allowed? They did not do a risk assesment on the subscriber! Ruling returns the right itself how can they supercede