Church Law Issues

In North Carolina, a convicted sex offender has filed suit to challenge a state law the bars him from being in the proximity of children. He filed the suit after he was arrested for attending church where there were children.

Many states have no exceptions in their ban against convicted child molesters  being around children, and includes being in a church with children. The lawsuit , A North Carolina man, James Nichols,  is challenging a state law aimed at keeping people like him away from children. The case pits the right to worship against laws that restrict where convicted sex offenders can go.

Nichols, a 31 year old man who had been convicted  of taking indecent liberties with a teenage girl, and  again in 2003 for attempted second-degree rape, wondered why he was being “treated this way after trying to better myself?”  He said: “The law gives you no room to better yourself.”

There are 36 states that establish special zones where convicted sex offenders cannot live or visit. Many of those have no exemptions for church visits. And that will be the essential thrust of Nichols’ lawsuit.

It is a quandary for churches and society. Clearly, the question must be raised: “Isn’t it better that an offender be given help in society by a church, since the aim and goal of the church would be to make this person a good and godly influence in society?”  Critics would point out that society, including those children in the churches, can’t afford to take the chance, given the propensity of sex offenders to repeat their crime. Then too, there is a constitutional dimension to the issue, to wit, the freedom to worship at a church of his choice.  Of course, that freedom may have some restrictions imposed by the church itself. Indeed, some churches, as a matter of policy, do not permit the regular attendance of a child molester, where the church has a ministry with children. The issue then, is does the state have a right to regulate, to the point of barring an individual from church, someone who has been convicted of a sex crime?

The lawyer in me says the state doesn’t have that right. It runs up against the First Amendment which says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The states  cannot abrogate what Congress cannot violate. The phrase “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is pretty key to the case.

One might argue the state can and does regulate and restrict many things that have constitutional protections, such as the gun control issue, District of Columbia Et al. v. Heller, and an apparent amplification or clarification of the issue which will be made in McDonald v. Chicago, which case is  now before the Court. How far the states can go in regulating a constitutional right will be addressed in this case. It should shed some light on the Nichols’ case.

Frankly, given much of the language of the Court in the past, I don’t see the state laws barring church attendance passing constitutional muster. Somehow, the thought of a state being able to kick someone out of church, or bar them from attendance, does not sit well with me, legally, or morally. The church is in the absolute best position to restore such men to some semblance of usefulness in society. I think it would be a crime to bar them from being able to obtain that restoration. The churches can and should police themselves in this matter. If a man is let into a church and he has a past conviction for a sex crime, the church has an absolute right and the authority to restrict his movements and activities within the church. Such things are being done in hundreds, if not thousands, of churches who have members with a criminal past.

In South Dakota, Judge Karen Schreier upheld the South Dakota law that requires women wanting an abortion be told that abortion will end a human life.  Planned Parenthood had filed the lawsuit seeking to have the law declared unlawful.

The ruling has some important implications, not the least of which is this: If abortion kills a human life, at what point does it become murder?  (For an interesting perspective on that issue, see this piece.)

The judge took the position of the state, ruling that doctors must make the disclosure “…that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.” Judge Schreier added that doctors can provide more information than the language in the statute.

She did strike one portion of the statute by ruling  that pregnant women do not need to be told abortion increases the likelihood of suicide,  or that they have an existing relationship with the fetus.

Planned Parenthood runs  South Dakota’s only abortion clinic, which is in Sioux Falls.

It remains to be seen whether either side will appeal.

It is interesting that the law can conclude that an abortion will clearly end the life of a viable human, but Planned Parenthood is willing to argue for death of human life at the will and whim of a would-be mother, with complete disregard for the fact that a life will definitely be ended.

Surely, if someone came in and ripped out the germinated seeds planted in the garden or farm of a Planned Parenthood leader, in the subsequent lawsuit, they’d sue for loss of the crop they would have gotten. Wouldn’t they?

(Opps…I forgot. Their reasoning is different than normal humans. They would probably stick with their position, to wit, it isn’t really a plant. After all, a germinated seed is just that, nothing more. After all, those seeds  hadn’t really popped through the earth yet.)

In the New York Eastern District Federal Court,  a complaint (lawsuit) was filed by a nurse at The Mount Sinai Hospital. In her complaint, Mrs. DeCarlo alleges, in part, the following (taken from the actual complaint):

“1. This action seeks injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of CATHERINA
LORENA CENZON-DECARLO (herein “MRS. DECARLO”), a nurse who in May 2009 was
forced by Defendant THE MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL (“Mount Sinai”), to assist in the abortion
of a 22-week-old preborn child despite her longstanding religious objection to participating in
lethal abortions. Mount Sinai blatantly violated federal law by threatening Mrs. DeCarlo’s job
and nursing license unless she would assist in the late-term abortion. Then when Mrs. DeCarlo
tried to use appropriate channels to seek to have her rights of conscience respected, Mount Sinai
condoned the compulsion it had exerted against Mrs. DeCarlo in May, declared that she could
again be subject to such a mandate at Mount Sinai’s arbitrary discretion, and even resorted to
retaliation and brash bullying tactics to get Mrs. DeCarlo to abandon her rights.

2. Mrs. DeCarlo asks the Court to order Mount Sinai to refrain from mandating
employees to assist in abortion over their conscientious objection. Pursuant to the Church
Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 300a7(c), which protects the right of conscience of pro-life health care
workers employed by recipients of federal Health and Human Services funding, Mrs. DeCarlo
also seeks an order requiring Mount Sinai to disgorge an appropriate portion of the millions of
dollars in federal funding it has received in the last several years, and ordering that the hospital
be disqualified from receiving additional funding unless and until it demonstrates compliance
with the Church Amendment.”

It should prove to be an interesting lawsuit. Here, a hospital has pretty much told a worker that she must violate her conscience by doing what, in her mind, amounts to murder. Incredible. Worse, somehow the mindset of much of the public has grown such that across our nation, thousands of bureaucrats running hospitals seem to believe that they can order an employee to do an abortion, in spite of their opposition to abortion.

Hopefully, she will prevail.

Our churches are under assault.

Every day, a new problem arises. Every day, the enemy seeks to hurt the churches. One of the greatest dangers today lies in the myriad of lawsuits that are arising from the criminal sexual assault against our children while they are in the care and custody of the church.

It has to stop. Churches have to make some changes in both attitude and policy. One of the most important things they can do is make an actual written policy that will protect them if ever a terrible event like that happens.

The likelihood of something happening is greater today than it has ever been. And, it only takes one time to destroy an otherwise healthy, thriving ministry.

This site is devoted to helping churches protect themselves from the legal assaults that are being waged upon them today.

Order the FREE booklet entitled 10 Pointers in Developing Your Church Protection Policy, written by an attorney, especially for aiding churches in protecting themselves.

It might help save your church.