McMinnville pastor accused in suit of Defamation

[n david]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Dunno you seemed a little upset.

No, not upset. I just don't believe, being a muslim, you have a role in this debate.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

I have spoken no lies against your ministers and their systematic cover ups of the spiritual abuse that they routinely dole out. There are many court cases, ruled on and in the record, on issues just like this one. This one is just added to the list.

Not talking about this. I'm talking about the lies against Stoneking and Wilson.

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

All victimizers have the same opinion that you have, the courts have no place interfering with their abuse. Which just puts you in a long, boring line. So give it up. When you break the law then you answer to it. Let the courts settle it and if this man is innocent then so be it.

There are laws which cover the sexual abuse you're talking about. I'm not against that. You're trying to change the issue.

No law was broken here, so your example doesn't apply. Nice try though.

There's a huge difference between a minister breaking the law and committing sexual abuse, and the courts taking the issue, and some angry, bitter ex parishioner suing the Pastor because he was excommunicated.

Unlike muslim sharia law, US law offers the First Amendment covering of freedom of religion and its free exercise.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by n david

No, not upset. I just don't believe, being a muslim, you have a role in this debate.


Not talking about this. I'm talking about the lies against Stoneking and Wilson.


There are laws which cover the sexual abuse you're talking about. I'm not against that. You're trying to change the issue.

No law was broken here, so your example doesn't apply. Nice try though.

There's a huge difference between a minister breaking the law and committing sexual abuse, and the courts taking the issue, and some angry, bitter ex parishioner suing the Pastor because he was excommunicated.

Unlike muslim sharia law, US law offers the First Amendment covering of freedom of religion and its free exercise.

Everything I said about those two snakes was dead bang accurate. Youre just mad because they got caught. Now I know why. Because you were taught to believe ministers are above the law and above reproach. Newsflash they are not.

A lesson that was unfortunately learned by one of your colleagues, named Mark Fogerty, is that US law actually does not protect you from slandering former or ex church members from a pulpit. This is, I believe, also one of the Ten Commandments. Oops I know right? Seems you cant accuse an innocent woman of fornication just because she divorced someone in your church and attended someone elses church. Even if you are a UPCI pastor.

This case appears to have been affirmed in the appeals court.

With that said wave your flag elsewhere and let the courts sort it out.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

Everything I said about those two snakes was dead bang accurate. Youre just mad because they got caught. Now I know why. Because you were taught to believe ministers are above the law and above reproach. Newsflash they are not.

Stop with the name-calling. They're not snakes. You just hate them because of the message they preach. They didn't lie. And you're wrong, yet again, about how I was taught. I was NEVER taught to believe ministers are "above the law" OR that they're "above reproach."

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

A lesson that was unfortunately learned by one of your colleagues, named Mark Fogerty, is that US law actually does not protect you from slandering former or ex church members from a pulpit. This is, I believe, also one of the Ten Commandments. Oops I know right? Seems you cant accuse an innocent woman of fornication just because she divorced someone in your church and attended someone elses church. Even if you are a UPCI pastor.

This case appears to have been affirmed in the appeals court.

With that said wave your flag elsewhere and let the courts sort it out.

I don't know the case you're referring to. From your post, it again appears you're talking about something different.

I've said, multiple times, one court refused to interfere with internal church discipline. What you're talking about above isn't about internal church discipline. You keep throwing these examples out which are apples and oranges in comparison to this issue.