UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit!

[missourimary]

More difficult, but still not impossible, especially since intent was proven.

[geekette]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

If you click on the link DA gave in his last post, you will read that a conviction would have been more difficult if the plaintiff had been a current member of the church which the defendent pastored.

My point is that this was a civil lawsuit, not a criminal case. The "conviction" terminology is inaccurate. It really should be "found liable."

And, yes, if she had been a current member, her case would have been not merely difficult but probably impossible. Churches are generally permitted to discipline their members as they see fit. However, if Angela Driver was going to another church, then she wasn't a member and the pastor should have zipped his lip. But it looks like this guy was trying to justify why his daughter was having a relationship with Angela Driver's husband.

I'm pretty sure that pastors can talk about sin over the pulpit without mentioning names and getting themselves into legal trouble. I mean, isn't that what examples from the Bible are for?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by geekette

My point is that this was a civil lawsuit, not a criminal case. The "conviction" terminology is inaccurate. It really should be "found liable."

And, yes, if she had been a current member, her case would have been not merely difficult but probably impossible. Churches are generally permitted to discipline their members as they see fit. However, if Angela Driver was going to another church, then she wasn't a member and the pastor should have zipped his lip. But it looks like this guy was trying to justify why his daughter was having a relationship with Angela Driver's husband.

I'm pretty sure that pastors can talk about sin over the pulpit without mentioning names and getting themselves into legal trouble. I mean, isn't that what examples from the Bible are for?

We are aware that there was no conviction. This was pointed out many pages and posts earlier. Does there really need to be a name change though?

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by geekette

And, yes, if she had been a current member, her case would have been not merely difficult but probably impossible. Churches are generally permitted to discipline their members as they see fit.

Actually, even if she was a member, spreading lies from a pulpit would still not be considered protected by the first amendment if what was said could be proven false. In this case, she was accused by Fogarty of fornication. Her own ex-husband testified she had not fornicated. Because his statements were proven false and with intent to slander, he relinquished his First Amendment right. Slander can't be protected simply because it's spoken from a pulpit, any more than polygamy or child abuse would be protected by religion.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by geekette

My point is that this was a civil lawsuit, not a criminal case. The "conviction" terminology is inaccurate. It really should be "found liable."

And, yes, if she had been a current member, her case would have been not merely difficult but probably impossible. Churches are generally permitted to discipline their members as they see fit. However, if Angela Driver was going to another church, then she wasn't a member and the pastor should have zipped his lip. But it looks like this guy was trying to justify why his daughter was having a relationship with Angela Driver's husband.

I'm pretty sure that pastors can talk about sin over the pulpit without mentioning names and getting themselves into legal trouble. I mean, isn't that what examples from the Bible are for?

Whoa! Who's "geekette?" She comes stumbling in here brand new and is spouting off with the technical wisdom of a good thinker.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by jfrog

We are aware that there was no conviction. This was pointed out many pages and posts earlier. Does there really need to be a name change though?

Technically. But I think most people understand the difference between a criminal and a civil court proceeding.

Like "geekette" I sort of halted at the title of the thread but then I thought that I was probably just being too picky.

geekette's right, but the headline isn't "wrong"

[whoami]

Originally Posted by missourimary

Actually, even if she was a member, spreading lies from a pulpit would still not be considered protected by the first amendment if what was said could be proven false. In this case, she was accused by Fogarty of fornication. Her own ex-husband testified she had not fornicated. Because his statements were proven false and with intent to slander, he relinquished his First Amendment right. Slander can't be protected simply because it's spoken from a pulpit, any more than polygamy or child abuse would be protected by religion.

Right - and then there's also the fact that some of the things he accused her of (by listing them as possibilities) were against the law - crimes.

(Yes, I'm new here but have read all gazillion pages of this thread, plus the court docs, plus the articles.)

[Sam]

Originally Posted by OilCityCajun

...I find this comment especially difficult to take coming from one who supports, tacitly, if not actively, the RCC doctrine of trinity.

I support neither "the doctrine of trinity" nor "the doctrine of oneness".

There is no single "doctrine of trinity" nor is thee any single "doctrine of oneness." Instead there are folks who label themselves trinitarian or oneness arguing among themselves over terms like "essence" or "person" or "offices" or "manifestations" and those folks often wind up making fun of the beliefs of others, misrepresenting the beliefs of others, and smugly knocking down straw men all over the place.

"Trinity" and "oneness" are terms we've made up to try to categorize our puny attempts to understand and explain an infinite God in finite terms.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Sam

I support neither "the doctrine of trinity" nor "the doctrine of oneness".

There is no single "doctrine of trinity" nor is thee any single "doctrine of oneness." Instead there are folks who label themselves trinitarian or oneness arguing among themselves over terms like "essence" or "person" or "offices" or "manifestations" and those folks often wind up making fun of the beliefs of others, misrepresenting the beliefs of others, and smugly knocking down straw men all over the place.

"Trinity" and "oneness" are terms we've made up to try to categorize our puny attempts to understand and explain an infinite God in finite terms.

[geekette]

Originally Posted by Sam

I support neither "the doctrine of trinity" nor "the doctrine of oneness".

There is no single "doctrine of trinity" nor is thee any single "doctrine of oneness." Instead there are folks who label themselves trinitarian or oneness arguing among themselves over terms like "essence" or "person" or "offices" or "manifestations" and those folks often wind up making fun of the beliefs of others, misrepresenting the beliefs of others, and smugly knocking down straw men all over the place.

"Trinity" and "oneness" are terms we've made up to try to categorize our puny attempts to understand and explain an infinite God in finite terms.

I read theology for years (high, abstruse stuff, I can't believe I spent all that time on it!) and came to the conclusion that it wasn't getting me any nearer to God.