Oregon mom sued by church over online criticism, calls lawsuit "spiritual abuse"

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Oregon mom sued by church over online criticism

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/16/11698334-oregon-mom-sued-by-church-over-online-criticism?lite



By Becky Bratu, msnbc.com

An Oregon mother of seven is being sued for defamation by her former church over critical comments she made online.

Julie Anne Smith, a stay-at-home mom who home-schools her children, said church members began shunning her and her family after they left Beaverton Grace Bible Church almost four years ago.

She took to the Web in October 2009 to air her concerns about the church's practices on Google reviews, but said her comments kept being pushed down by other church members' more recent reviews. So in February of this year, Smith launched a blog called Beaverton Grace Bible Church Survivors to counteract what she called the "cat and mouse game" on Google.

"My primary issue was to discuss spiritual abuse in the church,” Smith told msnbc.com. “In essence, the legal suit is (O'Neal's) attempt of continuing that spiritual abuse.”

[jberryhill]

1. Faith puts the "cult" in "culture"

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. If I recall correctly

the Catholic Church recently won a suit wherein a former teacher was fired. The Church won not on the grounds of the firing but the fact that it was a private institution exempted from civil law, the government not being allowed to tell religious institutions what is or is not proper within their walls -- not to be confused with exemption from criminal matters.

I sort of kind of agreed with that decision. I think private institutions that interest and support me should be free to set their own rules, i.e. if I want to start an exclusive feminist organization we should be allowed to exempt ourselves from gender-bias laws. Goose sauce works well for ganders too.

That being said I don't think the church in the OP has a legal leg to stand on. A church cannot claim freedom from government interference in one breath then beg for legal relief in the next. Either you're separate or you're not.

[jeff47]

3. Companies are private institutions

I think private institutions that interest and support me should be free to set their own rules, i.e. if I want to start an exclusive feminist organization we should be allowed to exempt ourselves from gender-bias laws.

Ok, and when my private institution decides to not hire any women, that's okey-dokey? All we did was set our own rules which forbid women from working here.

There's also the issue of fighting the evil of gender bias via committing your own evil gender bias is a tad insane.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. Churches are not companies and vice versa.

I understand and agree with your point as far as companies are concerned but religion is a special setaside in the Constitution. Matters of conscience are as personal as keeping the body unviolated.

"There's also the issue of fighting the evil of gender bias via committing your own evil gender bias is a tad insane."

I would disagree that insanity is the term for it. Some could fairly argue it was hypocritical but even that could be rebutted.

I've no doubt you think political freedom is a progressive trait. People should be free to vote for the candidates and issues they choose. When you go to vote this Novemeber you will vote for your prefered candidate and you want no one standing over your shoulder examining your vote and imposing undue regulations. Moreover, any candidate that does not affirm this belief of yours is likely to not only lose your vote but probably earn your dislike.

I'm not being too presumptive am I?

Yet, here we are, gathered at a site that not only seeks to draw exclusively Democrats and progressives but it openly states those who are not are not welcome and will be sent packing. Moreover, this website operates asa Limited Liability Corporation. It isn't even a church, it's a corporation. If political rights are sacrosanct than it might be argued DU is at worse violating anti-discrimination law (Yet, political affiliation is not a recognize protected class) or at best hypocritical.

But it isn't. DU is exercising its freedom of (dis)association, freedom of conscience and political freedoms. DU isn't harming freedom, it's exercising it.

[jeff47]

6. You are simultaneously arguing both sides of a position.

You start your post claiming companies shouldn't discriminate.

You end your post claiming a company should discriminate.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. No, I'm drawing a distinction between mere business and matters of conscience

DU may be a particular legal construct but that is simply to shield the admins from personal liability (a protection I think is reasonable). However, the discussions that occur here are matters of conscience that the government is obligated to protect, not regulate in the name of some potentially aggrieved party's demands for "fairness."

[mwooldri]

8. In the OP, the woman concerned had left that religious organization 4 years ago.

So now that organization is suing an ex-member .

She was exercising her first amendment rights to speak about what she believes is not going right at that particular religious organization.

So I agree with your opinion that the religious organization in question hasn't got a legal leg to stand on.

As for private organizations that have their own rules (e.g. gender bias, religious) they can be regarded as cliques and should be treated as such.

[ck4829]

9. This is a SLAPP and is certainly spiritual abuse to boot

[Viva_La_Revolution]

4. I expected a bunch of horrible comments after the article

but it seems over 80% are for the family, a pleasant surprise.
What a strong woman! I'm proud to be her neighbor