UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit! - Page 11

Praxeas · #**101** 07-13-2010, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAII

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.

Im just piointing out what the article says. Im not saying we know for a fact what happened. But the article does not say he was with her and they were with mutual friends at a pool party and she was sportin a bikini. It does not say he found her with mutual friends. It says he found her with the husband OF a mutual friend.

Cindy · #**102** 07-13-2010, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

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."

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.

MissBrattified · #**103** 07-13-2010, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAII

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 ....

Fair enough, but there are times when my husband and I don't agree on certain issues. I do my best to defer to his preferences. He rarely forces any issue so it's sort of a moot point, but it's happened a few times in nearly 16 years of marriage.

Also, those were the thoughts of the pastor. There aren't any quotes in the article from the ex-husband, and these statements were given after they were already divorced. I didn't read anything in the article that led me to believe that the pastor contributed to the divorce. The slanderous statement didn't have anything to do with it, as it happened post-divorce.

If this issue came up before my pastor, I'm quite certain that my pastor would ask me point-blank, "Why would you want to hang out with your friend's husband in a bikini?" And that would be a legitimate question.

There's more to this story than just a woman being slandered. And frankly, I don't consider this to be an example of spiritual abuse. If your cow poop radar isn't going off then you need to recharge the batteries. Again, the fact that the woman won the case because the pastor was too vague in his explanation does NOT mean that she was actually abused in any way, NOR does it mean she was the innocent victim in this divorce.

jfrog · #**104** 07-13-2010, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

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.

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

Quote:

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. The pastor felt that constituted exhibitionism and met the biblical definition of fornication, according to the defense summary.

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.

MissBrattified · #**105** 07-13-2010, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cindy

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.

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.

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.

MissBrattified · #**106** 07-13-2010, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

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.

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

Praxeas · #**107** 07-13-2010, 12:18 PM

I wonder, if the Pastor made these comments in private to a member who approached him in private with concerns and the pastor said the same thing to him, would that be actionable cause?

DAII · #**108** 07-13-2010, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

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) :

jfrog · #**109** 07-13-2010, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

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

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".

MissBrattified · #**110** 07-13-2010, 12:22 PM

Correct. He would have been better off to specify the *act* of exhibitionism, instead of being vague.

If the church teaches that remarriage isn't allowed except in the case of fornication, I can see why he would feel the need to make a public statement in regard to why the divorce occurred. Otherwise he couldn't give his daughter permission to marry a divorced man.

This was a darned-if-you-do-darned-if-you-don't situation from the pastor's perspective.