Church defamation

[yahalam2000]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? Idaho

The Mennonite church I just terminated my mebership in does not recognise the right to terminate membership. Their conference is 150 years old and they have done this from the beginning, ruling by planting fear into their people.

They have not expelled me as yet for fear of legal work occouring, but they are chomping at the bit to do so any way.

I have informed them that at the point I terminated my membership, I also terminated my consent to allow them to judge my character and the first amendment protections should not protect them from government intervention for defaming and otherwise harming me.

The church practices the avoidance, by seating the expelled at a seperate table at public functions, such as a wedding meals funeral meals and other pot luck type public settings. They also threaten their people with expulsion if they don't keep the avoidance. So since my religion, is ex mennonite I would be treated differently than the public at large and the members. So the treatment being discrimintion would be completely based on my religious afilliation and beleif. Now I haven't heared of a case that went for a discrimination decree, but if they tell me because I am an ex church member I have to take a certain seat, how would that be any different than saying you must sit over there because you are colored?

How good are the chances on getting an restraining order to stop them from insisting the members keep the avoidance on me, and what are the chances of a sucessful defamation-discrimination suit in the light of a solid, proveable termination of membership?

 

[cbg]

Churches and other religious bodies are given a wide latitude to practice their own beliefs, including practicing what would be considered religious discrimination were it done by anyone else.

The separation of church and state works both ways. Just as the church cannot force anyone who wants to, to worship their religion, the state cannot prevent a church from practicing their own beliefs. If this means requiring non-members or non-believers to sit at a separate table, they may do so.

That being the case, your chances of getting a restraining order that would force them to recognize you are nil. Likewise you would not succeed in a discrimination suit.

You do not have any of the elements of a defamation claim. That's completely a non-starter. Don't even bother going down that road.

 

[yahalam2000]

defamation, discrimination

Thank you,
One point you didn't get clear, is that they would allow non members and non believers to sit with them, but they will publicly humiliate anyone who joins, and then later leaves. Them they will seat at a separate table, even telling the wife if still a member to not eat with her husband.


I have found a few cases and this one though in Oklahoma seem to be applicable, Can you tell me where or how am I misreading it, for it seems quite applicable?


[DHWH1]Guinn v. The Church of Collingsville, 775 P.2d 766 (Okla. 1989), stands for two propositions: a church can discipline its members without fear of judicial intervention only while the person remains a member, and individuals may terminate their membership without regard to what the church's rules may provide.

Since Guinn, the courts have followed the Oklahoma Supreme Court and held that "a church can discipline individuals without fear of judicial intervention" only while "the complaining individual was a member at the time of the disciplinary action." Smith v. Calvary Christian Church, — N.W.2d — , 1998 WL 842259 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). As the Michigan Court of Appeals framed the rule: "Where the plaintiff is a member of the church at the time of the defendant church's alleged tortious activity . . . 'the church has authority to prescribe and follow disciplinary ordinances without fear of interference by the state.'" Smith, supra (quoting Guinn, 775 P.2d at 773–774; and citing Hadnot v. Shaw, 826 P.2d 978, 987–88 (Okla. 1992); see also Hester v. Barnett, 723 S.W.2d 544, 559-560 (Mo. 1987) (if plaintiffs were members of the church, "they presumptively consented to religiously motivated discipline practiced in good faith"). But this absolute privilege from judicial intervention applies only if the discipline "does not pose a substantial threat to public safety, peace or order." Guinn, 775 P.2d at 779.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Ask your quesiton here

http://www.wannatalk.com/