Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is Public Shaming by the Church Legal? TX Appeals Court Will Decide.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-28-06 07:11 PM
Original message
Is Public Shaming by the Church Legal? TX Appeals Court Will Decide.
Is Public Shaming by the Church Legal?
Texas Appeals Court Will Decide if Church Can Release Private Info
Can Church Shame Man Accused of Affair?

May 28, 2006 — A female member of the Watermark Community Church, a non-denominational evangelical church in Dallas, Texas, reached out to her pastor after her husband had an alleged affair with another woman.

But when the husband, identified only as "John Doe," failed to reconcile with his wife, he said the church's minister, Todd Wagner, shamed him from the pulpit.

And the minister didn't stop there. When the husband tried to resign from the church, Wagner allegedly threatened to mail a dozen letters — half to Watermark Community Church members and the other half to members of other churches who know and have worked with John Doe — detailing the alleged affair.

......................

John Doe does not feel the love. He is suing the church over the letters and said he is no longer a member. But the church says its covenants, which Doe signed, does not allow members to leave the fold.

more at:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2013910&page=1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-28-06 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Sounds like blackmail, to me. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-28-06 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. Freepers will be Freepers
and wingnuts will be wingnuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benburch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-28-06 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Sounds like the PERFECT church for some freepers I know.
In fact, they are probably reading this now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xeric Donating Member (586 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-28-06 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. next he'll be sleeping with the fishes
"But the church says its covenants, which Doe signed, does not allow members to leave the fold."
What is this, a Mafia Church?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-28-06 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. Well, I do know that in the early days of the Mormon church, there was
only ONE way to leave the church, and that was "six feet under". They had a sort of zero tolerance policy toward any dissent or dissatisfaction or changing of one's mind.

Maybe this church has decided that sort of thing is perfectly ok?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xeric Donating Member (586 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-28-06 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. No doubt there's a bible quote
that they can interpret that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-28-06 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
4. "John Doe does not feel the love."
:D

Sounds more like a cult than a church.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-28-06 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
5. so it's a cult.
I hope at least a few of the "members" (or should I say inmates?) of this church have enough sense to leave this place before it implodes. If my minister ever had the nerve to claim that no one is allowed to "leave the fold", my ass would be out the door so fast it'd create a sonic boom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pooja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-28-06 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
6. Disgrace the Church some more
If you embarass the church enough, they might just be willing to let you go. Otherwise, its time to get out of town.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverweb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-28-06 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
7. WTF?
"...the church says its covenants, which Doe signed, does not allow members to leave the fold."

Who in their right mind would ever sign such an agreement?

What kind of ligitimate organization would ever demand it?

:crazy:

The guy was nuts to have ever signed it in the first place, but I hope he wins his case and the court makes it clear that that agreement can't possibly be binding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-28-06 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
8. It's a Cult (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donkeykick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-28-06 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
9. Folks,
you can only appreciate this sort of thing; it most definitely brings the religious right down further and further. I love when I see this sort of stupidity in the news. If this doesn't wake up the public to their judging ways, I don't know what will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-28-06 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Thanks Donkeykick
Edited on Sun May-28-06 07:27 PM by kpete
Couldn't agree with you more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbieinok Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-28-06 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
12. if there really is separation of church and state, should this be in court
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-28-06 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. Separation of church and state doesn't mean that a church's ministers or
members can break the law or commit civil offenses. This looks like a case of defamation and extortion. As for the "covenant" he signed, think about this: What if I signed a covenant to be someone's slave--literally, as in someone else owning me? Am I bound by it? Would/should a court uphold it against me, and return me to slavery because I had agreed to it? The covenant he signed has no force. You cannot sign over your right to freedom of religion or association (except maybe when George Bush or a big corporation requires it...oh, my...I mean, except in the old republic...I mean, except when we had judges who believe in democracy and upholding the Constitution...). (Oh, my. Oh, my, my, my.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-28-06 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
13. once a nazi, always a nazi? what about freedom of religion? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meow2u3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-28-06 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Freedom of religion also means the right to change religions
Something this fundie cult doesn't seem to understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kevinbgoode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-28-06 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
14. Uh-uh. . .
"Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of the Liberty Legal Institute, a Texas organization that fights for religious liberties, said the church is behaving this way because it feels it must save the marriage."


The "marriage" is not licensed by the Church.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-28-06 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
16. deleted
Edited on Sun May-28-06 08:01 PM by Eric J in MN
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-28-06 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
20. "Liberty" Legal Institute
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:0l7WSWtCaGEJ:www.bibleinschools.net/pdf/libertylegal.pdf+%22Liberty+Legal+Institute%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3">Attorneys for National Council on Bible Curriculum Issue Challenge to Recent Attackers

Plano – Attorneys for the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools (NCBCPS) respond to Texas Freedom Network’s (TFN) attack on an elective Bible course offered in public high schools across the state.

“It is ironic that a group which claims to be against censorship is now attempting to become the biggest censor in the state of Texas ,” said Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for Liberty Legal Institute.

The recent report, The Bible and Public Schools, published by TFN and authored by Dr. Mark Chancey has sparked a national debate on the use of the Bible for academic study. “If TFN thinks they have a case, they should file it. Otherwise, they are just full of hot air,” Sasser said. The NCBCPS curriculum has been approved by 300 school districts in 37 states and endorsed by many of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars, public officials and law professors. In the case Abington v. Schempp, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities,”so long as it is “presented objectively as part of a secular program of education.”

...

The NCBCPS curriculum has been approved by 300 school districts in 37 states and endorsed by many of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars, public officials and law professors. In the case Abington v. Schempp, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities,”so long as it is “presented objectively as part of a secular program of education.”


Isn't great how they hijack "liberty"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-29-06 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Yeah, I love that.
Not to mention "freedom".

Who are we?

Liberty Legal Institute (LLI) is a 501(c) (3) organization that was founded in 1997. The Institute fights to protect religious freedoms and First Amendment rights for individuals, groups, and churches. LLI's assistance is provided free of charge to ensure all individuals and groups can thrive without the fear of governments restricting their freedoms.

Liberty Legal consists of a network of over 120 dedicated attorneys across the state of Texas successfully battling in the courts for religious freedoms, student’s rights, parental rights, the definition of family, and other freedoms.

The Institute offers its assistance pro bono. Attorneys across Texas donate their professional expertise and time to fight for these sacred freedoms.



I feel so much better knowing they're looking out for my freedom.

Overview

· The Institute has been involved in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court numerous times. In March of 2003, the Institute coordinated an amicus brief for the Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA) case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

· In 1999, the Houston Chronicle considered the Institute to be the Texas “conservative version to the ACLU”.

· The Institute has handled countless legal situations with a success rate of over 80 percent.

· In 2003, Institute attorneys served as national spokespersons for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as it became law in Texas, joined other groups in getting Women's Right to Know Act passed, and aided in a victorious battle to get Prenatal Protection Act passed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-29-06 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Thanks. That's what they sounded like n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 17th 2024, 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC