posted
I wonder what will happen if God decides to hold past sins against those that are hollering about the ex felons being able to work. IIRC, God says your sins are forgiven AND forgotten. As far as the east is from the west? But, whgat would happen if, on Judgement Day, God is sitting there and says "Oops! You have sinned by speeding (breaking one of Man's Laws) on June 24th, 2004 (by your reckoning of Time) so off you go to the Lake of Fire...." Unless we've gone into the Minority Report mode, we can't hold what 'they MIGHT do' against them.
The article is VERY misleading in that in the opening statement it ties Kerry to ACT and the hiring of felons. Yet, in the SAME article, which if you'll notice has Republicans decrying this action, has a quote from Dubbya praising the work of
quote: government, religious and community-based programs that give a helping hand to felons after they are released from prison.
. So, what is it? Because someone is hiring felons outside the Bush admin hired felons to work? Would you ba as up in arms if it was the Bush Admin doing this? I highly doubt it.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I can tell, no one is hollering about ex-felons being able to work.
I'll ask again: Should convicted child molestors be allowed to work at day care centers.
If you say no, then you agree that past criminal convictions should be one criteria in evaluating a person's suitability for employment. You might disagree on where the line should be drawn in any given case, but please don't pretend anyone is suggesting someone with a speeding ticket should be banned from Heaven. And also don't pretend that taking someone's past into account in evaluating their future actions is automatically un-Christian.
If you say yes, then I think you are a dangerous person to ever be involved in the hiring process of anyone.
posted
Why is everyone latching onto Sex Crimes and instantly catagorizing it as pedophilia? There are a lot more levels to that than JUST someone going after kids. What about that kid in Georgia that had a stiff sentence slapped against him (a high school jock IIRC) and was going to have to register as an offender? Or, what about that (I THINK it was a 5 year old? I could be mistaken) that was arrested for molestation for kissing a girl? I think that happened in Florida. That kid is now registered as a sex offender. For the rest of his life!
EDIT: Too damn early in the AM to be spelling correctly....
Also, there is no way from the article to know just how LONG ago these people served their time. If it is 20 years in their past and they have been great citizens, I have nothing against it. If they just got out last week and haven't yet proved they won't repeat, then it makes me nervous.
I'm not against convicted felons working. I'm just a bit squeamish about them knowing my own personal information -- through whatever means. At least, especially in giving it to them without knowing they had been felons.
Like I said, this isn't an easy open-and-shut issue -- there are so many factors to consider.
posted
God doesn't differentiate one sin from another Dag. Sin is SIN in His eyes. Regardless of whether you break one of His Laws or one of Mans Laws. Or are you advocating throwing people in jail for the rest of their lives for crimes they commit, no matter how serious or petty?
Another addon to my previous post. Should Lawrence be in jail for the rest of his life? I think he was charged with a sex crime... I speaking of the Lawrence vs Texas case. You know, the one where they guy was arrested for having sex with another male? Should he have been imprisoned forever?
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not a question only of forgiveness, it's a question of safety. Willingly endangering others is sinful, even if you're only doing so by presenting a predator with the opportunity for victims.
I'va already stated, as has almost everyone on this thread, that I'm torn on this, mainly because I don't know the specifics.
All I've responded to is the assertion that saying, person X did Y. Taking Y into account in ANY future hiring decisions is un-Christian.
It's not. It's common sense. If a trucking company hired a truck driver who had run down a Mini Cooper in a fit of road rage, I'd have a serious problem with that, and I think the hiring manager would be committing a sinful action in doing so.
We've seen the scandal in the Catholic Church because someone mistook the fact that a pedophile was forgiven for the fact that the pedophile wasn't likely to do it again. Priests that have committed one act of pedophilia should never be alone with children again. This doesn't mean they can't work or even can't be priests. It means that can't be trusted around children. The same principle applies here.
And the reason we're talking about child molestors (I've never generalized it to all sex crimes) is that they should be easy cases to decide. That you don't find them so is disturbing.
posted
Bookwyrm, so you think ACT is in the wrong then? From what fil posted, they don't hire anyone who has a history of violent crimes. According to you that shouldn't matter.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You think you get to pick and choose which teachings to follow?
Kayla,
Does this apply to Catholics and abortion / birth control, for instance? I ask because that's the only other place, lately, I've heard this kind of thing (Catholic politicians voting on abortion, etc.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's amusing that so many people on this thread don't realize that criminals can ALREADY easily go door-to-door and collect information about them. Or, for that matter, apparently go to great lengths to ensure that their gardening, home repair, and contracting services do not hire anyone with a rap sheet. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. That's the secret to success, you know: I drive. It gives me the edge I need to be snarky before anyone else.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have kids. When I do, I may change my stance.
But I can't act today as if I do; that would be patronizing to those who do have children. Similarly, I think bringing this up is patronizing to me. Just because your fear is greater (due to dependents) doesn't mean it's MORE justified.
I understand the visceral feeling when one hears this story. I would feel defensive and nervous if I was contacted by a group by this.
I think the difference, which no one has really acknowledged, is that this emotional state is OUR problem, not the person going up to your door. How we choose to deal with that colors our opinions on this matter.
Dagonee: I think one's record can be used as a criterion, and the weight of that criterion can vary. That's the employer's responsibility, I don't see the point in having the citizenry make this particular criterion of primary importance by fiat.
posted
i'll preface all this by saying that i am not religious.
that said, this thread clearly shows one the single most disturbing aspect of christianity (as well as other religions for that matter) to me: the ease with which a religion can shift from promoting love, understanding, and forgiveness to paranoid holier-than-thou condemnation with the absoulte assurance that "God is on my side".
maybe christianity teaches somewhere that if someone *might* be a thread to one's safety or that of one's family, it is justified to condemn, judge, and ostracize that person, i really don't know. i always hear about turning the other cheek, loving one's enemy, helping the less fortunate or those that have made mistakes.
is this the NIMBY approach to rehabilitation? it's fine if convicts get jobs, so long as they're far far away from me? in other words, push them as far away from the influential members of society so they're relegated to the worst possible jobs in the poorest sections of society? if this is what we're going to do to people who've been in jail what's the point of putting them in jail really, they're going to be paying for their crimes for the rest of their lives anyway.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, unsolicited contact of any kind. Call me Mr. Curmudgeon.
The principle is the same - this organization is sending people out to neighborhoods uninvited to knock on doors. The people it chooses to send is at least the business of the people in those neighborhoods to comment on.
quote:it's fine if convicts get jobs, so long as they're far far away from me?
No one who's still actively involved in the discussion has said this. They've said that the crimes people committed in the past are legitimate criteria to be used when deciding to hire them.
I've given an example no has disagreed with yet; which suggests to me that no one is disagreeing with that general prinicple.
As a follow-up, no one still active in the discussion has said these convicts shouldn't be doing this job. I've said concern is natural, and the discussion is not only OK to have, but should be taken seriously as part of our overall duty to protect.
posted
"would someone who's jumping all over people worried about their families' safety please answer my child-care question?"
I think your question, Dag, goes to the heart of whether people believe a sex offender can ever truly be "rehabilitated," or if somehow the temptation will always be there. Is it an addiction sort of thing, where avoiding contact with the temptation is the only possible solution to avoid falling back into your evil ways, or is it a crime of opportunity?
I think you'd find that more people would say that a former bank robber could work as a cashier at a supermarket than would say that a sex offender should work at a day care, simply because the first sort of crime is not considered one of inherent moral failure and/or addiction.
In general, it's for this reason that daycares do NOT hire rehabilitated child molesters. But if we believe that these people are so dangerous and rehabilitation so ineffective that any job which puts them in potential contact with a public that includes children -- as in this case -- is a danger, we should move immediately to a lifetime sentence situation; clearly, rehabilitation and/or fear of punishment are not deterrents if we can reach that conclusion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, it's not any job that puts them in contact with children. In places where they can be watched constantly (which isn't that hard nowadays), and children happen to go there, the danger is not nearly as great. A molester sees a child he wants in public, but is stuck working, he can't go after that child and doesn't know where they live. A molester going door-to-door can use his work time to scope potential victims.
I do think rehabilitation is pretty much bogus with most rapists, and think sentences should be longer and paroles more supervised.
posted
Farmgirl, I highly doubt that you'd have a sex offender coming to your door to try to get you to sign up (since the company does background checks on the people that they hire.
quote: This organization is currently conducting background checks on all of its employees, and will conduct such checks in the future on all potential employees. It is our policy not to employ individuals with records of certain serious criminal offenses, including all violent crimes.
You're probably more likely to run into a convicted felon (or possibly sex offender) working in a fast food store or the grocery store than ACT (at least it seems to me to be that way).
My guess is the only way to keep them out of your neighborhood would be to have high percentages of registered voters (and leave armed guards at every street corner ). They'll probably canvas entire neighborhoods much like how people do when they sell magazine subscriptions or leave little hanging door ads on your doorknob.
Personally, I might be a bit uncomfortable having the person in my house with just one of us here, but if that's the case, I'll just go outside to talk to them and all that fun stuff. Then again, I've been around the less-than-perfect people all my life, so I guess I'm used to it.
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: my statements about christians were directed at michael, and as a general observation of how people in general sometimes act.
i agree with you about the child care issue, obviously, what really bothered me was the assumption that the concept of having ex-cons go door to door was inherently evil because convicts are bad people, regardless of their crime. this claim was not made explicitly, but it was implied. As for this specific instance, i don't think i'd really be all that concerned if a child molester knocked on my door and asked me some questions. in many places child molesters have to do this when they move into a neighborhood anyway. maybe it's because i don't have kids, and i'm prone to be careless about that sort or thing anyway (i never lock my door).
i'm also with you regarding unsolicited disturbances: i think they should all be illegal Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
yes, as I said in one of my previous posts (which Tom and others must have ignored) I realized that even though reading the link the original post made me feel uneasy, I said we could be exposing the kids to harmful people every day -- our plumbers, or electricians or mailman -- could be criminals -- we don't know.
It is just one of those things you have to pray that God will protect you from those who might harm you and/or your family.
I will say in my OWN past -- years ago -- I did some things that would be considered illegal (not violent or sexual crimes, but criminal nonetheless) but never got caught. However, if I HAD been caught during my wild years and locked up, would I want you to hold against me now the kind of person I was then? Certainly not.
That is why I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt around ME. But I am probably overly cautious/protective when it comes to people my kids are around.
posted
Good points, Farmgirl... And I agree with you Dagonee that sex offenders should have harsher punishments. I also think that they cannot be rehabilitated and should have longer jail sentences. Maybe even be sentenced for the rest of their lives. Child molesters are more harmful than murderers or drug offenders.
I am reminded of a show I saw on PBS the other day involving Mexican illegal immigrants and how the town was in an uproar over them assuming that they would rape their daughters and rob them. This I thought was ridiculous considering how many crimes are committed by people the victim actually knows. People are more likely to be raped by close neighbours and even friends than strangers. Therefore, people should not assume that because these are former convicts that they will commit crime again.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I'm a bit tired so I missed your post when I was writing mine. I'm glad that you would want to know more about the person before passing judgement.
When I worry about my info, I worry more about companies selling or giving away my info (airlines, banks, phone companies, etc) to third parties, but that's mainly cause there's even less stopping them from abusing my info than a random person (at least in my eyes).
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a lot of us concerned about this aren't trying to pass judgement so much as our wariness is aroused. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think a lot of us concerned about this aren't trying to pass judgement so much as our wariness is aroused. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
Maybe it is the blood pathogen sort of argument. When learning "Universal Precautions" for how to handle blood or other bodily fluids in an accident or other situation we are taught to treat everyone's blood as if it contained the HIV virus. So you handle every situation as if infection was possible and you will be safer than when you make assumptions for some and not others.
I think having good precautions when you answer the door is good, regardless if the person is 6'5" with tattoos and a "vote democrat" badge or if they are in a nice suit with a copy of the Bible (and the Watchtower!) underneath their arms.
I have a daughter as others on here have and I am freaked out as anyone else is when I consider what and who is out there. But then, I also reassure myself that I should focus more on good driving habits and quality education and a good diet in the home...those are more likely to be areas of concern in my daughter's life than some random sex offender.
posted
I didn't really read a lot of the posts, because there are a lot more posters here than I'm used to, and I don't feel like reading everything. But I think I can state my points without reading it all. Let me know if I'm wrong (just try to be brief about it, or I might skip over it ).
I'm guessing by the first few responses, you guys are saying:
Don't say wether someone is a Christian
and
Forgiveness is different from trust
To the first one: I'm not saying any one individual is not a Christian. I'm saying people who don't try to follow the teachings of Christ aren't Christians.
To the second one: No they're not. You can't forgive someone without trusting them. I'm pretty sure Jesus said something about this, but I can't think of where to look to give you chapter and verse.
Instead, I'll say it like I think Jesus might have said it:
How can you forgive a man, and yet refuse to trust in him? Do you give a shepheard a flock, and deny him pasture?
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you don't actually deserve the courtesy of a response, since you couldn't be bothered to read anyone else's, but I'll bite.
Do you think that a convicted child molester who has served his time should be allowed to teach at a daycare center?
If not, how do you reconcile that decision with your previous post?
If so, and he molested one of the children entrusted to his care, do you think the person who hired him has any moral (not legal) culpability for the molestation?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a convicted child molester is truly repentant he wouldn't seek a job at a daycare center.
And since when does sex crime always translate to child molester? You're reading the story wrong, because it was a conservative writing it. These campaigners aren't going out and finding ex-cons to go door to door. Ex-cons are volunteering because they aren't allowed to support Kerry with their own vote.
Haven't they paid their debt to society? Don't you find it appauling that the only things ex-cons get little of are things they need to turn their lives around? If they want to be criminals again, they'll be criminals, and yet when they try to get real jobs, they're often times tunred down because they're ex-cons.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if the child molester just really really loves being around children and believes they can withstand the tempation? Are they not truly repentant then?
Edit: This isn't about child molesters being hired by ACT. This is about trust and forgiveness. I hear the sounds of hedging the issue....
posted
Well then, I think, that it's then both the employer's fault (if the molestor is hired, then molests) for not helping the molester stay away from temptation, and the molestor's for not staying away from temptation.
But you wanna know what true repentance is? Look for the child molestors who take castrating medication, and or actually get castrated. Both proven methods...
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Most rapists of young girls are people well-known to them. Most perpetuators of abuse are well-known to the abused.
Don't go looking for the boogeyman to ring your doorbell with a pamphlet. Seriously, he probably has a key.
quote:I didn't really read a lot of the posts, because there are a lot more posters here than I'm used to, and I don't feel like reading everything. But I think I can state my points without reading it all.
The problem with this approach, Archer, is that other people here aren't tuning in just to read what your points are. [not to pick on you, same for everybody here -- save for people like Chris Bridges, who are interesting and articulate enough to merit a column on their own] It is a discussion forum, which means people take turns talking and responding. If there is too much for you to read and respond to, you can pick a particular point or person to respond to, but the tactic of "here's what I think, regardless" will lead to most people just skipping over it when they see your name.
And then you'll feel rejected, and you'll start a thread about how nobody responds to your posts, and you'll set off another Grand Hatrack Introspection Time regarding How We Treat Newbies, and ...
just don't. Please. *grin You are worth more than that.
quote:And since when does sex crime always translate to child molester? You're reading the story wrong, because it was a conservative writing it. These campaigners aren't going out and finding ex-cons to go door to door. Ex-cons are volunteering because they aren't allowed to support Kerry with their own vote.
Look, everyone still posting about this coming down on the side of prudence has already said they either don't have a problem with this specific instance or that they don't know enough to form an opinion. Stop avoiding the issue: Is it OK to take someone's past actions into account when hiring them or not?
quote:Stop avoiding the issue: Is it OK to take someone's past actions into account when hiring them or not?
Who is avoiding? I think people agree that employers and and do (and are certain positions, it is required by law). I think the bigger point is what parts of a person's past will keep them from a job? Or when does the past get to stay in the past? We are using the extreme example, the convicted child molester getting a job at a daycare and that is just silly...they would have to a) lie and b) have a stupid provider who doesn't do the legally mandated fingerprint/background check required (at least in this state) to provide care to children. And this is just about any job involving giving care to people, children or not.
But where the law isn't specific, that is where the discussion is pointed. Should a person who robbed a liquor store at 19 still be paying for this at 29, even though they paid their dues to society? How about at 39? 49? I know I really don't want to be too accountable for stupid things I did at age 19.
posted
I had my first anecdotal information about some ACT workers. They did a sweep of the street where some friends live (not too far from where I live, so they may come here). Anyway, they were probably the more typical ACT workers...young, idealistic and concerned college students. Very nice, not pushy. Not like the Watchtower peddlers and Mormon Bible pushers that have gotten our house. Just kidding. The Mormon's were very nice and only vaguely pushy.
posted
To repeat what has already been said, there are about a million ways you can be listed as a 'sex offender'. 'Sex Offender' does not always equal 'child molestor'. For instance, from the original article:
quote: Among the ACT employees in Ohio was a woman convicted of gross sexual imposition. She completed her parole 12 years ago.
What exactly does that sentence mean? No one knows the specifics of her case. What are the details? Aren't they important before we make assumptions? How long a go were the other convictions? Isn't there a difference between last month and twelve years a go?
Tangentially, I think if a person doesn't commit a crime, regardless of what their crime was, for, say, ten years, I think their records should be sealed. It's ludicrous for people to have records tailing them for the rest of their lives once they've shown that they are capable of being law-abiding citizens.
Here is the response from ACT, in case you were wondering:
quote: We believe strongly that those few of our employees who have in the past run afoul of the law, those who have paid their debt to society, deserve every fair opportunity to rejoin mainstream America, to become productive members of their communities.
In fact, it seems clear that any individual who seeks work in a civically-oriented grassroots organization like America Coming Together is demonstrating his or her desire to make a positive contribution to society.
ACT, of course, has never knowingly employed any person whom we could possibly consider to be a threat to the community. Further, none of our canvassers has ever been accused of any untoward behavior in the course of his or her work. To the contrary, our employees have conducted themselves professionally and honorably and have altogether been a credit to this organization and the communities they serve.
This organization is currently conducting background checks on all of its employees, and will conduct such checks in the future on all potential employees. It is our policy not to employ individuals with records of certain serious criminal offenses, including all violent crimes.
We have every expectation, of course, that the Bush campaign and other Republicans will do their best to distort and play politics with this situation, to attempt to disrupt ACT and our grassroots activities. We at ACT, however, agree with these sentiments offered by President Bush just this past Monday:
““I know that many a good soul makes a mistake in their life and ends up in prison. And it seems to make sense to me to spend taxpayers’ money to help these prisoners realize a better tomorrow when they get out of prison, give them a second chance.
“You can go from prison to the White House, just so long as you have someone there to hold your hand and help you help you.”
Good for Mr. Bush and good for ACT for not bowing to what may very well be unfounded hysteria.
edit: I see fil already posted quoted response. Pardon.
edit some more: in fact, all my points are pretty much redundant. :/
Stop avoiding the issue: Is it OK to take someone's past actions into account when hiring them or not?
Yes, within reason. How apt are you at judging a person's threat? How well do you understand the circumstances around a person's incarceration? And how important are the consequences, if you should judge wrongly?
The only generalizations that I can make is that you are going to have people who think that all people are wicked and can't be trusted; people who think that God made mankind a certain way and there is very little on earth, and the changes are minor, we can do to change them(the good will always be good and the bad or incompetent will always be bad and incompetent.) I imagine that these people don't want an ex-con anywhere near anything they care about.
Then you have people who think that anyone with the right mix of guidance can transcend most criminal impulses; people who believe that only the Lord can judge damnation and we must be in the business of forgiveness if we are to live in Christ's example; and people who believe that it's inhumane to curtail someone's rights on the inkling that they may do something wrong, if anything, it creates more criminals. I imagine that the Priest in Les Miserables fits on this side. And to tell the truth, just about everyone who has made a positive impact in my life would be in the latter catagory, so you know where I stand.
______________________
I'd like to think that the nation would be a little more humble when coming to these decisions. Not only do we constantly imprison innocent people, but one of the most extensive investigative agencies in the world thought that Saddam Hussein had vast stockpiles and weapons of Mass Destruction. Now Colin Powell is more capable than I am, and if he can make a judgemental whoops this big, then it doesn't bode well for the rest of us.
posted
Irami, I don't think we disagree. It's clear you think that in some fashion, it's acceptable to take past convictions into account, as I think most reasonable people do. My main argument is with a certain poster who has basically said this is never OK.
For recovered drug addicts, I would probably not have a problem as long as they kept me posted on their recovery. Depending on the job, I might want occassional testing.
For former drug (street-level) dealers, petty thiefs, etc., basically the property crimes for people trying to support themselves, I might hire them as long as the job didn't give them the opportunity to steal. That means no unsupervised time, no access to cash or small valuables, and no access to the building alone, monitoring, etc. For former white collar criminals (fraud, embezzlement, etc.), I wouldn't hire them for any financial job at all. But if I could find another job for them I would.
There is a class of criminals best described as predators - multiple assaults, rapes, child molestations, even murders. I'd hesitate to hire them in any situation where they could endanger others. Which is a serious problem, I realize, but I've already seen too many examples people committing assaults while out on bail for rape to take a lot of risk on them. I don't know what the solution is.
posted
I avoided the issue? I believe there was an entire post about the issue, wasn't there? Since when is adressing a more broad issue with all the others avoiding the issue?
I'll summerize the major points made by my side of the argument:
The Bible pretty much says to not even consider the past if the person in question repents.
People who are released from prison have served their alloted sentance, and any persecution then on does nothing but push them back into their old lifstyle.
People trying to get jobs are the ones who are trying to change their life.
Certain crimes are the result of diseases that, although can only be treated and with that person's cooperation, musn't be held against the person, just taken into account (IE: Drug addiction, pedophilia, etc.).
Does anyone else think this thread title is funny?
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if you are honestly making a distinction between the two, fine. Lots do not, and drug testing is unnecessary to catch addicts. Someone unlucky enough to get caught with a joint or a pill is not necessarily an addict, even if they do choose treatment over jail time. I am sure I could get diagnosed as an addict if I needed to avoid the draft, but I manage to work a full time job just as well as anyone else.
The only time testing is justified is when it can catch someone who is currently impaired, rather than had fun on the weekend, or two weeks ago. None of the 5 most common drugs* tested for impair one after the recreational effects wear off as much as an alcohol hangover does. Are you suggesting testing for previous alcohol use, or is that one off the hook because it is too entrenched in the culture to make illegal? Furthermore, in most situations (probably (hopefully) not the jobs you were referring to, but most) testing is an immoral violation of privacy. If someone is doing a poor job, fire them for that.
Also, I know lots of drug dealers who would never steal from their company. Dealers who sell short bags rapidly lose their customer base, and most of them are as morally upstanding as anyone else. (Which says more about people in general than dealers, I admit.) Dealers do not steal to support their drug habits, they deal.
posted
Marijuana should be legalized, no? All outlawing it does is make it unregulatable, and gives power to criminals. People say marijuana is a gateway drug. Well isn't it a gateway drug because it's illegal? Aren't cigarettes gateways to marijuana?
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say caffeine, alcohol and nicotine are bigger gateway drugs than marijuana. Very few people start with marijuana. For me, it was caffeine -> alcohol -> hydrocodone -> DXM -> marijuana.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Bible pretty much says to not even consider the past if the person in question repents.
I think this is a matter of personal interpretation. I *personally* don't think the Bible says this anywhere. I stand by my belief that Christ has no problem with me forgiving and yet being cautious of future offenses. I don't think Christ expects us to be door-mats, though some have interpreted the "turn the other cheek" as meaning that. This is aside from the ACT issue.
And as you said about the hypothetical child-molester-wanting-to-work-in-day-care not being repentant, how can *I* know if someone has "truly repented" or not? Must I always assume they have?
Matt. 10: 16
16 ¶ Behold, I send you forth as sheep• in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise• as serpents, and harmless• as doves.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). They'll probably canvas entire neighborhoods much like how people do when they sell magazine subscriptions or leave little hanging door ads on your doorknob.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Just kidding. The Mormon's were very nice and only vaguely pushy. 
