TN: Tennessee bill would allow sex offenders to attend churches under certain conditions

[komonews.com – 1/27/20]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WZTV) –Legislation proposed in the Tennessee General Assembly on Monday would allow sexual or violent sex offenders to attend church or another house of worship under certain circumstances.

HB 1922 was filed by Representative Patsy Hazlewood (R-Signal Mountain). Under the bill, the offender would be allowed to attend houses of worship for religious services or to receive educational or social support services.

Read the full article

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

24 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I am a bit confused here. Watching some youtube videos showed church leaders discussing how they must deal with registrants and not allow them to attend church services or having them escorted every step of the way while in the church. Their biggest concern is the insurance company and the fact that allowing a registrant to attend the church is a liability to the church.

So let me ask you – what church leader if that is who will have to allow the registrant to attend the church service will take on the personal liability of having a registrant in their church. Also I am sure that many of the followers in the church will not like the fact that a registrant is attending services.

This stinks all together in every aspect. I think the church should worry more about who may start shooting people in the church instead – which as happened already.

This is a bunch of bull – I am not a religious person but I am sure that there are others that find being in church very comforting. But how can you feel comforted if you have this feeling that everyone in the church is staring at you?

Interesting that they’ve created a situation which requires a bill and new law to permit what the constitution would seem to already permit – freedom of religion.

So much for separation of church and state. This Republican should know better than to regulate worship opportunity. Hypocrisy!

I do believe there will be more Baptist in Hell, than they realize.

Oh, how thoughtful, they are considering allowing us the freedom to practice religion. Perhaps they can consider legislation that would give God permission to forgive me of my derelictions.

Does anyone know if there has never been a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of laws that prohibit registered citizens from attending church? At the most basic and fundamental level that is a violation of their 1st amendment rights.

The trouble with America is that it takes “One nation under God” literally. Anything “UnGodly” must be dealt with or cast out in their narrow worldview.

You could not PAY me to attend church and be forced to sit on a pew with those hypocritical, two-faced Christians. I don’t need their approval, acceptance or validation. EVER.

Isn’t this “compelled speech”, making a registrant write a notice to the worship leader announcing that they are a registrant.? How about the wife/husband beaters. the thieves and murders, the adulterers. Shouldn’t they be required to give notice that they are attending the church?
This is just as bad as Halloween signs in the front yards in Georgia. That ended badly for the sheriff.

Does this actually require registrants to get permission to attend church services? Reading the law, it seems this amendment only applies to services held in places such as schools. This seems to give registered sex offenders a right to be in a school under those circumstances.

It’s still not good that this is necessary, but I don’t think this is as horrible as it seems from the headline. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

I wonder how/why this passes the separation-of-church-and-state thing. If a church excludes someone for whatever reason, that’s their right. But I don’t see how the government has any say in it. Since when can the state tell anyone what churches they may or may not go to?

First, the make you register? Put you online? Ban you from parks and beaches? Ban you from traveling? Prohibit you from living near schools? You must register if attending school? You can’t go onto a school campus unless given permission? Now, you can’t go to Church? What’s next! They keep adding more and more? Halloween? This is out of hand!

I’ll just share my story. One day this friend of mine invited me to join his christian church. He is a good friend who knows I am on the registry. If i agreed, I would have to require my presence known to the church elder. I would be banned from podium speaking, from being a usher, running the bookstore or teaching of any kind. Plus there is a good chance the whole congregation will find out about you eventually. Will I get up every Sunday morning for this? No thanks.

What happened to separation of church and state??