The post I wrote dealing with one of these elicited much interest and a high number of comments. This is largely due to their policy, by no means unique to them, of excluding those on sex offender registries.

Articles of other, similar situations have crossed my desk, and using the criteria of a Christian-based ministry and one that excludes those on the registry, these are the first four.

The Allied Churches Shelter in Burlington, North Carolina: “No matter what, sex offenders can’t be taken in because of children at the shelter.”

I placed a phone called and determined that North Carolina state law, though convoluted and confusing, forbids the presence of a registered sex offender in any place intended for the primary use of children even if children are not present and almost any public place at all if children are present. State law also makes it a crime for a minister (or anyone else) to knowingly allow a registrant to worship in the church if a child is on the premises. (See N.C.G.S. 14-208.18 and 14-208.11(A)a, respectively)

The House of Hope Shelter in Danville, Virginia: “Those who stay at House of Hope must not be registered sex offenders or wanted by law enforcement.”

I spoke with Steven Anderson, the director, who said that their shelter is next door to a school and state law forbids anyone on the registry from being there. He said there are women and children staying at the shelter, and it isn’t a good idea for them to be there. I tried to question him on this point and was told that it’s not going to change, no matter what.

Positive Avenues in Eau Claire, Wisconsin: “…registered sex offenders are not allowed at Positive Avenues because children often stay there.”

I left a telephone message and have not yet received a call-back.

The Ministry Center Warming Station in Conway, Arkansas:  “Peden [the center’s manager] emails the Conway Police Department to check for active warrants and to ensure none of the guests are registered sex offenders. ‘They haven’t had to come pick anybody up yet,’ Peden said.”

I also have not received a return call from my message left there.

I understand that in most if not all cases, the policies in place are officially the result of state laws governing those who are registered sex offenders. Nevertheless, I would pose these questions for those responsible for implementing the policies.

Where would you draw the line? What if the state said you cannot take anyone who has ever been convicted of any charge that resulted from the death of another person? Or anyone ever convicted of arson? Or of domestic violence? Or armed robbery? Or, since the presence of children seems to drive the policies, of child neglect?

How do you reconcile your acceptance of the current policy with the answer you give yourself if you ask what Christ would do? Did he minister to all except those who engaged in sexual sin? Did he accept the law of the state in all cases, or did he try to show the leaders of the day that people were more important than man-made laws and that “Love your neighbor” means everyone, especially those most shunned by society?

Does not this serious violation of the separation of church and state bother you? Does the state have the right to dictate how you practice your faith and serve your fellowman?

And finally, if there were no such state law, would you open your shelters to all the homeless and needy, including those on a sex offender registry? Would you at least accept them with the same criteria and the same guidelines for safety that you use for everyone else?

Or would you find another reason to exclude those who, in emergency situations, when life and death are often at stake, need your help more than any other?

Four months later, another natural disaster spells danger and death for the homeless, and once again those whose names appear on a sex offender registry face the same unfounded and myth-driven discrimination in seeking shelter.

It is winter. Our eastern and northern states, preparing for snow, ice, and plummeting temperatures, also prepare their ready-made speeches: “Sex offenders will not be allowed.”

Some show great duplicity in saying this. A Christian ministry in Alabama, not often a state that must prepare for sub-freezing weather, says that it “wants to make sure no one is without shelter Sunday” when the temperatures are expected to drop drastically. A spokesman said, ” ‘We’ll be removing the pews and stuff and bring in cots and just anybody that needs to come in for the cold weather will be able to.’ ”

The article stresses that “The ministry will be taking in anyone who wants to escape the cold,” and the spokesman continues, “ ‘People need the shelter. I don’t really know too many in this area to take in any and everybody that needs shelter,’ ”

It is not until the last paragraph that we are told, “…sex offenders will not be allowed to stay because of children,” and this is immediately followed with the statement that the ministry “wants people to know that anyone in need is always welcome.”

Well, no, not anyone. Not “sex offenders” – because of the children. What about “sex offenders” who have children? What about “sex offenders” who ARE children?

Once again, advocates who feel that one life has as much value as the next and that those whose past crimes include murder, violence, arson, and drugs may well be more of a risk to children than those whose past crimes were of a sexual nature are gearing up in protest. This is seen in Rhode Island, where discriminatory rules regarding registrants in shelters are being fought.

It will be seen more and more as temperatures drop and the homeless, of whom those on the registry are a disproportionate number due to residency restrictions — another discriminatory and useless practice — try to find shelter from ice and frigid temperatures.

And it will be seen here every time a shelter announces over and over that “anyone” is welcome and then turns their charity into a cruel lie by saying, “Well, no, we don’t mean you.”