UPC Pastor Convicted of Slander in Pulpit! - Page 11

RandyWayne · #1 07-13-2010, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Sounds like some folks had some issues.It's one thing to preach agains't things the bible names as sin,but somethings would be better dealt with in private.

I would agree that bestiality and adultery and child molestation (and the other things she was accused of) are all sins.... But wearing swimwear or a skirt above the knees (for women) hardly falls into "splitting the gates of Hell wide open" territory.

RandyWayne · #2 07-13-2010, 10:55 AM

Oh yes and the fact that she didn't "SUBbbbb-mittt!" which is of course said with a bit of spit flying out of the mouth. Obviously she was married to a man who went to this church. Would she be there otherwise? We don't know but the ties were there at the time.

Scott Hutchinson · #3 07-13-2010, 11:02 AM

Sister Brattified I agree.

MissBrattified · #4 07-13-2010, 11:24 AM

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."

BeenThinkin · #5 07-13-2010, 11:34 AM

We need to get back to "more serious matters!" Whose legs are these? Are these the same legs?

Just kidding Renda!!! Randy if they're both yours the second picture looks better! Don't you think? Could I hear an Amen?

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...2&d=1279039690

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...3&d=1279040694

BT

RandyWayne · #6 07-13-2010, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeenThinkin

We need to get back to "more serious matters!" Whose legs are these? Are these the same legs?

Just kidding Renda!!! Randy if they're both yours the second picture looks better! Don't you think? Could I hear an Amen?

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...2&d=1279039690

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...3&d=1279040694

BT

I prefer this one:
http://s174.photobucket.com/albums/w...25Godzilla.jpg

(Which is when things got REALLY tense.)

DAII · #7 07-13-2010, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

I prefer this one:
http://s174.photobucket.com/albums/w...25Godzilla.jpg

(Which is when things got REALLY tense.)

Incoming PM Randy.

Cindy · #8 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 · #9 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.

jfrog · #10 07-13-2010, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

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.

I've read every post on this thread and no one implied that! Not even me and I made what were some of the boldest comments on that topic.