Originally Posted by DAII (Post 938635)

Moreover, Fogarty’s issues with Angela Driver were that she was not submissive and she wore clothing that he believed was immodest, including skirts above the knee, Kennedy said

Read more: http://www.macon.com/2010/07/07/1187...#ixzz0tZcjfJZz


To many in this culture not submissive = being a fornicating Jezebel witch.

Originally Posted by DAII (Post 938758)

:thumbsup

Too ... She is not guilty of slander....

I did not even bring up the issues of potential flirting pre-divorce ... I can list them if you like ....

Originally Posted by DAII (Post 938808)

Here are some of the other issues had with Angela, Miss Bratt.

Originally Posted by pelathais (Post 938811)

Okay. The gentleman was considered "damaged goods" and could not get anyone to even give him the time of day. He was torn and confused about how he should continue in his walk with God and several thoughts about just "packing it all in" had crossed his mind.

He found that by trying to keep busy around the church his mind was eased and his spirit even began to feel a bit refreshed. Then, he happened to lock eyes with the preacher's daughter... and well, the resultant feelings were predictable.

BUT - there was this huge problem. Remarriage in that part of the country is frowned upon most severely by those who hold the reigns of religious power - both Pentecostal and otherwise. The old man had probably even made remarks in the past concerning this.

So, the young lady and her sisters set out to try and see just how "Daddy" really feels about this issue... and viola! "The fornication" clause of Matthew 5:32. None of them told "Daddy" what to say - they would never dare. But the general tone of the conversations may have been predictable - especially given the fact that the happiness of a young lady was at stake.

And so, with self righteousness and convinced of the invulnerability of the pulpit, the old man gets up there and says too much of one thing and something entirely wrong about another. The whole thing then blows up in his face.

Far better to have cultivated a church culture that supports and forgives than one that condemns and judges at every moment. When the money was finally on the line, no one knew what to do except to judge; and the jury has now spoken.

Originally Posted by BeenThinkin (Post 938810)

We need to get back to "more serious matters!" Whose legs are these? Are these the same legs? :toofunny :ursofunny

Just kidding Renda!!! Randy if they're both yours the second picture looks better! Don't you think? Could I hear an Amen?

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...2&d=1279039690

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...3&d=1279040694

BT

Originally Posted by RandyWayne (Post 938820)

I prefer this one:
http://s174.photobucket.com/albums/w...25Godzilla.jpg

(Which is when things got REALLY tense.)

Originally Posted by pelathais (Post 938799)

Unfortunately, these are the types of things that happen all the time. If the UPC would (finally!) embark on a program of training its ministers then we wouldn't see the leadership positions filled with a bunch of redneck yahoos running herd over THE LORD'S heritage.

Originally Posted by Mr. Steinway (Post 938631)

$500,000 Awarded in Slander Lawsuit

This quote from the article is interesting:



Are the days of pastors calling out individual members of the congregation for sin over? I hope so! It's one thing to preach against sin, but it's another when you name names and can possibly ruin the reputation of someone by your public gossip in front of peers.

Originally Posted by Barb (Post 938749)

What difference does it make which daughter it was?

Bro. Fogarty made a huge mistake, but was always known to be a good man...a close friend of my brother. I met him only once at the funeral of my nephew.

Let us pray for all involved...this is not a happy time for anyone.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 938633)

Slander aside: I don't think going swimming with someone else's husband is a good idea. :blink

My husband wouldn't appreciate it, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by DAII (Post 938638)

Kennedy said Angela Driver was accused in front of the congregation in effect of nine acts that ranged from bestiality to prostitution to child molestation because the pastor never named which one she actually was accused of doing.

The lows some religious folk will stoop to behind their bibles and ecclesiastical robes.

Read more: http://www.macon.com/2010/07/07/1187...#ixzz0tZdsr7tx

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 938812)

I read that, DA. However, it came across to me as his personal "issues" with her as a saint--not an exhaustive list of reasons for the divorce.

I would agree, generally speaking, that a lack of submission to authority and immodest clothing are problems for a Christian woman. Wouldn't you? I'm not supportive of men abusing that authority, and I'm not supportive of a husband forcing his wife to dress modestly. Those things should be independent choices.

From a woman's standpoint, though, if I'm trying to please God, I think that includes modesty in behavior & appearance, and submitting to my husband's authority in the home.

In that regard, as I said earlier, I'm not willing to give Ms. Driver a free pass simply because she won her court case.

Originally Posted by DAII (Post 938653)

Prance around at a pool with mutual friends (s) ... the nerve.

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 938842)

It says the husband of a mutual friend. It makes it seem as though the two were alone and the husband discovered it

Originally Posted by DAII (Post 938845)

Again ... unverifiable and conjecture.

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 938847)

Im just going by the grammar of the article

One of the reasons the pastor gave James Driver as grounds to biblically remarry was that James Driver once found his then-wife Angela Driver wearing a bikini at a swimming pool while with the husband of a mutual friend.

Originally Posted by DAII (Post 938848)

And again we don't know the setting ... who else was there ...

Or the motives SIL to perhaps even embellish or fabricate ...

All based on conjecture ...

What is verifiable is that audio tape while trying to throw the victim under the bus.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 938801)

I agree with pel--leave the rest of the family out of this. There is absolutely no reason to associate them with this thread or news report. And that includes the new Mrs.

I've seen quite a few relationships over the years dissolve, and in several cases one or both spouses remarried very quickly. In fact, I believe I read a statistic one time that stated men are more likely to remarry quickly after a divorce or becoming a widower.

The implication that the pastor's daughter and the husband had an inappropriate relationship prior to the divorce is completely uncalled for, IMO.

Bottom line: The wife acted inappropriately, IF she was at the pool in a bikini with a friend's husband, especially if the friend wasn't also present. Even if the friend was present, there could still be some valid points raised regarding her behavior. Obviously, that simple act doesn't constitute fornication or adultery. However, to be fair, the article stated it was "one of the reasons" the pastor gave. I would personally like to know the other reasons.

Also, the pastor is guilty, mostly, of being WAY too vague. He addressed the whole issue of fornication, and went into a large definition, linked it to adultery, and then failed to state *which* act AD was guilty of. That is seriously bad judgment on his part, and it's basically why she won the case. Since he didn't specify which act she was guilty of, he effectively accused her of all of them in the eyes of the court. I'm thinking that he felt he needed to, since it was his daughter that wanted to date the newly divorced husband. Interesting that he didn't make this slanderous statement until well after the divorce was final.

Although I don't think we should sue one another over issues like this, I think the lawsuit was justified. Hopefully he'll try to be more prudent the next time he encounters this sort of situation. If the woman was guilty of immodesty or bad judgment, that could be addressed. To turn it into full-fledged sexual immorality and deviance is beyond the pale. Even if it was suspected, without evidence, you simply can't pursue the matter.


By the way, it was 7 months from the date of the divorce to the date of the new marriage. 3 months after the divorce, the pastor made the statement that the wife had committed some type of fornication and then said that his daughter and the ex were going to be romantically involved.

"According to the lawsuit, Fogarty made a statement about Driver in front of the congregation during a Tuesday night service July 25, 2006, before announcing that his daughter, Carrie Fogarty, and Driver’s ex-husband, James Driver, “were going to be romantically involved.” Carrie Fogarty and James Driver later married in November 2006, the lawsuit stated. Angela and James Driver had divorced in April 2006."

Originally Posted by DAII (Post 938841)

Keeping in mind he may have been heavily influenced in his ear by those close to him, Brat.

It would seem that her non-attendance in church may have had something to do with her seeing things differently as to mode of dress ... etc ...

and not necessarily not being submissive ....

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 938761)

It didn't sound like *friends*--it said a friend's husband. That's inappropriate in my book. If the girlfriend had been present, it might not have been so bad. The most they could have complained about was the bikini.

Either way, I think the pastor was way out of line and the lawsuit was justified, as far as the accusations of adultery, prostitution, bestiality, etc. go.

I'm just not willing to give the woman a free pass simply because the pastor was a big meanie. :coffee2

Originally Posted by Cindy (Post 938852)

Had it not been his daughter that was involved with the ex, would he have done the same thing? That is the point to me.

Originally Posted by jfrog (Post 938856)

http://www.macon.com/2010/07/07/1187...#ixzz0tafmkD6r


The account never says whether they were alone at that swimming pool or that his wife was not present. I believe the omission on the pastors part of the word alone is most telling. If they had been alone or even without his wife present I would think the pastor would have mentioned this detail to help bolster his case.

Of course we can't know for sure, but that is where the evidence seems to be pointing to me.

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 938849)

I think you guys are misreading the article. These actions are not justified in anyway, but it seems clear from the grammar that

The attorney argued that by not naming the specific act of fornication it could be implied in anyone's mind any number of 9 different acts of fornication. Not that the pastor said "She committed bestiality"...the lawyer said he did NOT specify what it was

And second, it does not say they were all together with mutual friends but that he found her with the husband of a mutual friend

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 938859)

I think if it had been a different scenario, the report would have stated it. :coffee2

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 938858)

Cindy, he didn't make the public statement until 3 months after the divorce was final. The daughter and husband were married another 4 months after that.

I'm sure his daughter being interested in the ex had everything to do with him making a public statement. I can imagine my father feeling the need to do the same thing, although hopefully with a bit more wisdom in regard to the details. Actually, I can see my Dad fumbling it even worse. :blink

The implication here is that the marriage was conveniently helped to its dissolution so that the daughter and ex-husband could pursue their already formed romantic relationship. I don't feel that is a fair assessment.

Originally Posted by jfrog (Post 938867)

I don't. It sounds too much to me like it started out as one of those pentecostal only issues of "she wore a bikini while swimming with mixed company".

Originally Posted by DAII (Post 938865)

Let's stick to the facts and not interpretations of a news article ...

From the official court complaint where the pastor seemingly leaves the option to choose what type of fornication was committed to the congregants that Tuesday night (Source:http://www.13wmaz.com/news/PDF/driver_complaint.pdf) :

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_rjZMUSTyomU/TD...c/fogarty1.png

Originally Posted by jfrog (Post 938870)

I've read every post on this thread and no one implied that! Not even me and I made what were some of the boldest comments on that topic.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 938872)

That's possible. :) Since the article was written by a secular news agency, and seemed to be sympathetic toward the ex-wife, I would think they would include that vindicating bit of information if it actually existed.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified (Post 938858)

Cindy, he didn't make the public statement until 3 months after the divorce was final. The daughter and husband were married another 4 months after that.

I'm sure his daughter being interested in the ex had everything to do with him making a public statement. I can imagine my father feeling the need to do the same thing, although hopefully with a bit more wisdom in regard to the details. Actually, I can see my Dad fumbling it even worse. :blink

The implication here is that the marriage was conveniently helped to its dissolution so that the daughter and ex-husband could pursue their already formed romantic relationship. I don't feel that is a fair assessment.

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 938874)

Even that shows the Pastor did not say she committed them all. She committed one of them. That is my point, He did not say he committed all of them. That's now what the article said

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 938874)

Even that shows the Pastor did not say she committed them all. She committed one of them. That is my point, He did not say he committed all of them. That's now what the article said

Originally Posted by jfrog (Post 938876)

They probably didn't get any more in depth than what the pastor claimed. It was enough to make him look foolish to the rest of the world by saying he was calling wearing a bikini an act of fornication.