ArrantPariah
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 31, 2012
Posts: 4841
|
 Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 12:57 pm Post subject: Pastor sues former church member for $500K for bad review |
 |
|
http://bgbcsurvivors.blogspot.com/
http://www.katu.com/news/local/Beaveton-Grace-Bible-Church-lawsuit-charles-oneal-julie-anne-smith-151227055.html?tab=video&c=y
| Quote: |
BEAVERTON, Ore. - A church pastor is suing a mother and daughter for $500,000 because they gave the church bad reviews online.
The family being sued left the church a few years ago and Julie Anne Smith says she and her family were shunned and couldn't understand why. So she went online and wrote Google and DEX reviews of the church and then started a blog.
"I thought, I'm just going to post a review," Smith said. "We do it with restaurants and hotels and whatnot, and I thought, why not do it with this church?"
Never did she think Beaverton Grace Bible Church and Pastor Charles O'Neal would slap her with the lawsuit.
"I'm a stay-at-home mom. I teach my kids at home, and this is just not the amount of money that normal moms have."
When the family left the church, Smith says friends were told to end all contact with her.
"If I went to Costco or any place in town, if I ran into somebody, they would turn their heads and walk the other way," she said. "All we did was asked questions. We just raised concerns. There's no sin in that."
Dissatisfied, she went online to write reviews. Other church members counteracted them with church praise. So Smith started a blog called "Beaverton Grace Bible Church Survivors."
But the pastor claims in the lawsuit he filed that her words, "creepy," "cult," "control tactics," and "spiritual abuse," are defamation.
"What somebody does in the church is one thing, but when you get out into society we have the right to free speech, and it may not be what people want to hear, but we absolutely have that right," Smith said.
The lawsuit didn’t just target Smith. Her daughter and three other commenters are also being sued.
"He can say what he wants in the church and say, don't talk about this or don't talk about that, or don't talk to this person, but when you're out in the civil world, you don't do that anymore," Smith said. "And he's not my pastor anymore. He does not have that right to keep people from talking."
The Smiths filed a special free speech motion to dismiss the lawsuit. It goes before a judge later this month.
KATU News called the church, went there, went to the pastor's home and spoke to his wife. KATU News also called the pastor's attorney. All of them declined to give their side of the story.
|
From what I've observed of so-called "Bible Churches", they are indeed creepy, abusive cults. Pastor O'Neil proves it, once and for all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ArrantPariah
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 31, 2012
Posts: 4841
|
| Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is the cult's side of the story
http://www.beavertongracebible.org/
| Quote: |
A Personal note from Pastor Chuck: It has been my privilege to pastor Beaverton Grace Bible Church for over twelve years. As an American patriot and a Christian pastor I staunchly support our First Amendment rights. As a husband, a father, and a pastor I stand by my right and the right of every American citizen to defend themselves, their families, their churches, their secular organizations, and their businesses from World Wide Web Internet assaults consisting of false criminal accusations and character assassination of the worst kind.
|
His stance is not only unChristian, but absolutely looney.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
ArrantPariah
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 31, 2012
Posts: 4841
|
| Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Our First Amendment, which the pathetic loon staunchly supports, reads
| Quote: |
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29309
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ArrantPariah wrote: | Our First Amendment, which the pathetic loon staunchly supports, reads
| Quote: |
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
|
That is a limitation on government. It is not a restriction on private individuals or firms or other organizations.
Party A can sue party B for libel or slander at any time. There is no guarantee that the suit will be successful and counter-suits are possible.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
ArrantPariah
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 31, 2012
Posts: 4841
|
| Posted: Sun May 20, 2012 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, but suing someone is quite unChristian. An honest-to-goodness Christian would never sue anyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29309
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ArrantPariah wrote: | | Yes, but suing someone is quite unChristian. An honest-to-goodness Christian would never sue anyone. |
How did you come to that conclusion. If a party has been wrong by negligent behavior why shouldn't he try to recover damages. If a party has his reputation damaged by libel or slander why shouldn't he attempt to get restitution. One can forgive the wrong doer and still attempt to collect compensatory damages.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
ArrantPariah
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 31, 2012
Posts: 4841
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | ArrantPariah wrote: | | Yes, but suing someone is quite unChristian. An honest-to-goodness Christian would never sue anyone. |
How did you come to that conclusion. If a party has been wrong by negligent behavior why shouldn't he try to recover damages. If a party has his reputation damaged by libel or slander why shouldn't he attempt to get restitution. One can forgive the wrong doer and still attempt to collect compensatory damages.
ruveyn |
If the offended party is Christian, then the offended party is enjoined by its religion from seeking restitution. If the offended party is non-Christian, then the offended party may have at it.
I am speaking of authentic Christians--not fake Christians who set up churches to grub for money. Such fake Christians are parasites on the planet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29309
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ArrantPariah wrote: |
If the offended party is Christian, then the offended party is enjoined by its religion from seeking restitution. If the offended party is non-Christian, then the offended party may have at it.
. |
give the verse or verses please.
and beware "The No True Scotsman" fallacy.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
NeantHumain
Phoenix
![]()
Joined: Jun 25, 2004
Posts: 5119
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If the pastor is accusing the defendant of defamation because she is claiming the church he runs is a cult that encourages "'control tactics'" and "'spiritual abuse,'" isn't the lawsuit itself proof? In other words, it's a self-abnegating suit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ArrantPariah
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 31, 2012
Posts: 4841
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew 5 wrote: |
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." But now I tell you: do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too. And if someone takes you to court to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat as well. And if one of the occupation troops forces you to carry his pack one mile, carry it two miles. When someone asks you for something, give it to him; when someone wants to borrow something, lend it to him.
You have heard that it was said, "Love your friends, hate your enemies." But now I tell you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may become the children of your Father in heaven. For he makes his sun to shine on bad and good people alike, and gives rain to those who do good and to those who do evil. Why should God reward you if you love only the people who love you? Even the tax collectors do that! And if you speak only to your friends, have you done anything out of the ordinary? Even the pagans do that! You must be perfect—just as your Father in heaven is perfect. |
Check, and mate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29309
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ArrantPariah wrote: | | Matthew 5 wrote: |
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." But now I tell you: do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too. And if someone takes you to court to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat as well. And if one of the occupation troops forces you to carry his pack one mile, carry it two miles. When someone asks you for something, give it to him; when someone wants to borrow something, lend it to him.
You have heard that it was said, "Love your friends, hate your enemies." But now I tell you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may become the children of your Father in heaven. For he makes his sun to shine on bad and good people alike, and gives rain to those who do good and to those who do evil. Why should God reward you if you love only the people who love you? Even the tax collectors do that! And if you speak only to your friends, have you done anything out of the ordinary? Even the pagans do that! You must be perfect—just as your Father in heaven is perfect. |
Check, and mate. |
Monetary compensation for damages is not an instance of an eye for an eye. It is an instance of $$$ for an eye.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
ArrantPariah
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 31, 2012
Posts: 4841
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I actually know a Jehovah's Witness who suffered tremendously from a botched medical operation. She is now incontinent. But, she won't sue the doctor, even though doctors carry malpractice insurance for just such catastrophes. Her religion forbids it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 12755
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm afraid I can't provide book and verse, but I do recall that Paul had advised fellow Christians not to take legal action against one another, but to work problems out between themselves. He suggested the aggrieved party to approach the other party with a couple other Christian brothers to discuss matters in such a case.
I've got to think, this pastor is a loony fundie type, no different from Oral Roberts who had sued a tire salesman for claiming God would kill him if people didn't buy tires from him, in a TV commercial.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
AngelRho
Synclavier owner/operator
Joined: Jan 05, 2008
Posts: 3726
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kraichgauer wrote: | I'm afraid I can't provide book and verse, but I do recall that Paul had advised fellow Christians not to take legal action against one another, but to work problems out between themselves. He suggested the aggrieved party to approach the other party with a couple other Christian brothers to discuss matters in such a case.
I've got to think, this pastor is a loony fundie type, no different from Oral Roberts who had sued a tire salesman for claiming God would kill him if people didn't buy tires from him, in a TV commercial.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
Paul's idea was that within a litigious society Christians, who ought to live lives unified in purpose and above conflict with each other, should get fellow Christians to intervene to resolve disputes. Christians should govern themselves in that regard, whereas going to a secular body to press charges would threaten to disrupt any sense of unity they might have.
This does not mean, however, that a Christian could bring public charges against a non-believer, though. Nowhere is it ever said that Christians are not allowed at all to ask for justice, not even in Matthew 5. What Matthew 5 refers to is Hebrew law. A strict interpretation of Hebrew law might imply that someone OUGHT to seek justice when they are wronged. But I think Jesus was just trying to put it back into proper perspective for the Jewish audience--you don't HAVE to sue someone who wrongs you, and you might do better to try to work things out WITHOUT taking it to court. "Love your enemies" was clearly designed to have an impact on the Roman occupiers. It also is a reminder of various instances in the OT when the Israelites "loved their enemies" and were blessed for it--for example, Joseph having been sold into slavery by his brothers and later imprisoned on false testimony. Joseph didn't hate Pharaoh's cup-bearer for forgetting about him but instead chose to help Pharaoh. Esther offered no words of condemnation to the king after he signed a death order against her people but rather "loved her enemies." Boaz did not despise Ruth despite her heritage as an enemy of Israel, but chose to love her. Ezra and Nehemiah did not despise their foreign Persian rulers but worked WITH them to help bring a remnant of Jews back to Jerusalem. By seeking to work peacefully with those they may not necessarily have been in agreement with they showed themselves to possess a high level of ethical character and strength. And someone seeking the source of that strength should be pointed to God by the behavior of the believer. I think that's what Jesus was getting at in Matthew 5, not an all-out prohibition on seeking justice.
Back to the point...I wouldn't say that the preacher is necessarily prohibited from Christian teaching on legal action to sue the lady. But I would say that the way he's going about it is terribly mean-spirited. I disagree on the grounds on which you're calling it unChristian behavior, but I would definitely say that it is an unChristian thing to do. Sure, the pastor has a duty to protect his church. But the plain fact is that there will always be people attacking every single church congregation out there, whether it's legit or because someone didn't like that their favorite granddaughter or niece didn't get picked to sing a solo on one particular Sunday, or maybe the church congregation split because nobody would eat Gramma's blackberry cobbler at the pot-luck. I mean, the congregation shunned the lady. What real good do they think suing her is going to do?
I will say this, though, and you know my history in the church fairly well by this point, so I won't bother repeating it. It is extremely difficult to pursue justice inside a church. When my family was going through all that trouble, we were fortunate enough to get the attention of an influential deacon who was genuinely concerned and appalled that things like what we described were going on in the church, especially involving us. He brought it to the pastor's attention, and it wasn't 3 days before the pastor starting INSISTING that we come by the church for a visit. We felt like the matter was merely swept under the rug, but at the same time certain people started behaving radically different towards us. Purely coincidence, of course, but those people were gone shortly after that happened. "Coincidence," I say, because no single human being had anything to do with it, but I'm convinced there had to have been a divine hand in it. The tendency within churches is usually to blame the victim when things like that happen. They will run off entire families and sometimes even half a congregation over lesser matters than what happened to us before they admit to any wrongdoing and apologize for it.
What ultimately happens is that the local church, which SHOULD be in the business of providing justice and peace among its congregants, fails at doing its job and squabbling members are forced to take the matter to the courts. The church should be better prepared in handling disputes than it normally is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 12755
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AngelRho wrote: | | Kraichgauer wrote: | I'm afraid I can't provide book and verse, but I do recall that Paul had advised fellow Christians not to take legal action against one another, but to work problems out between themselves. He suggested the aggrieved party to approach the other party with a couple other Christian brothers to discuss matters in such a case.
I've got to think, this pastor is a loony fundie type, no different from Oral Roberts who had sued a tire salesman for claiming God would kill him if people didn't buy tires from him, in a TV commercial.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
Paul's idea was that within a litigious society Christians, who ought to live lives unified in purpose and above conflict with each other, should get fellow Christians to intervene to resolve disputes. Christians should govern themselves in that regard, whereas going to a secular body to press charges would threaten to disrupt any sense of unity they might have.
This does not mean, however, that a Christian could bring public charges against a non-believer, though. Nowhere is it ever said that Christians are not allowed at all to ask for justice, not even in Matthew 5. What Matthew 5 refers to is Hebrew law. A strict interpretation of Hebrew law might imply that someone OUGHT to seek justice when they are wronged. But I think Jesus was just trying to put it back into proper perspective for the Jewish audience--you don't HAVE to sue someone who wrongs you, and you might do better to try to work things out WITHOUT taking it to court. "Love your enemies" was clearly designed to have an impact on the Roman occupiers. It also is a reminder of various instances in the OT when the Israelites "loved their enemies" and were blessed for it--for example, Joseph having been sold into slavery by his brothers and later imprisoned on false testimony. Joseph didn't hate Pharaoh's cup-bearer for forgetting about him but instead chose to help Pharaoh. Esther offered no words of condemnation to the king after he signed a death order against her people but rather "loved her enemies." Boaz did not despise Ruth despite her heritage as an enemy of Israel, but chose to love her. Ezra and Nehemiah did not despise their foreign Persian rulers but worked WITH them to help bring a remnant of Jews back to Jerusalem. By seeking to work peacefully with those they may not necessarily have been in agreement with they showed themselves to possess a high level of ethical character and strength. And someone seeking the source of that strength should be pointed to God by the behavior of the believer. I think that's what Jesus was getting at in Matthew 5, not an all-out prohibition on seeking justice.
Back to the point...I wouldn't say that the preacher is necessarily prohibited from Christian teaching on legal action to sue the lady. But I would say that the way he's going about it is terribly mean-spirited. I disagree on the grounds on which you're calling it unChristian behavior, but I would definitely say that it is an unChristian thing to do. Sure, the pastor has a duty to protect his church. But the plain fact is that there will always be people attacking every single church congregation out there, whether it's legit or because someone didn't like that their favorite granddaughter or niece didn't get picked to sing a solo on one particular Sunday, or maybe the church congregation split because nobody would eat Gramma's blackberry cobbler at the pot-luck. I mean, the congregation shunned the lady. What real good do they think suing her is going to do? |
That version of Christianity is more often than not just mean spirited.
But on the bright side, if the pastor hadn't have raised a big stink about the lady's review, no one probably would have ever heard of the whole incident. Now, everyone will know she was right.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
