Iowa Court Revives Suit Over Satan Remark

I think you've hit the nail on the head pretty good.

All teaching in any church, traditional or "rock 'n' roll worship style, has to be solidly grounded in Scripture or else it's simply Religion Lite-- "Tastes Great, Less Grace...; All the Fellowship and None of the Truth...."

Question: If a church didn't file the papers to become tax exempt, could the courts then interefere in the church following scripture? The reason I asked is that I've listened on several occasions to ministers advancing exactly the logic you outlined of the encroachment of govt interference in following church doctrine. One remedy mentioned is to not be subject to classifying the church as a tax exempt organization. Is that the one to go?

If the church did not file for tax exemption, then it could engage in political activities, but tax exemption is irrelevant to the church's liability in tort under the common law. Hence, in answer to your question: no, having a non-tax exempt status would not protect the church from the encroachment of judicial decisions on the church's ability to practice biblical doctrine.

Count on this--it will not be long before the church will not be able to offer Christian couseling services for fear of liability in tort, and it won't be long after that when our preachers will be sued for teaching that engaging in homosexuality or adultery is the intentional infliction of emotional distress and therefore actionable under tort law.

In the lawsuit I just consulted on, the plaintiff recanted his original allegation immediately after making it and continued to recant for five years. Nevertheless, the church was held liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars because it followed the biblical doctrine that the plaintiff confess his lie before the congregation. Even after he won the judgment, the plaintiff continued to recant and even went so far as to go to the police and give them a taped statement that he had lied and his attorneys had forced him to make the original statement.

They did force him into a lie, but because of the attorney/client privilege, and because he had a guardian ad litem who stood to gain the funds from the lawsuit and therefore would not waive the privilege, there was no way to prove they were forcing him to lie. All that was needed in court was the original allegation and the experts testifying that subsequent recantations were proof that the original allegation was true (the voodoo science I spoke of before.)

But aside from that case, the important point is that when the boy recanted, the church followed biblical doctrine exactly and yet was held liable. In the past, the courts have be loathe to interfere in church affairs if traditional doctrine was followed. Now, the church is held to the same standard as any other corporation. Hence, a married couple seeking counseling from their pastor can sue the church for the break-up of their marriage if they can argue that the pastor was negligent in only counseling Christ to the couple, rather than also counseling the psychobabble that passes for psychology these days.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.