Florida Woman Says Former Church Plans to Make Her Sins Public

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,469928,00.html

Rebecca Hancock told FOXNews.com that Grace Community Church, a non-denominational church in Jacksonville, Fla., was against her relationship with boyfriend Frank Young because the two were sexually active but not married.

When she wasn’t willing to obey the church's orders to leave him, she decided to leave the church instead, allowing her two children to remain active members.

Now, she says, church elders have given her the worst ultimatum yet: In a Dec. 8 letter, they told her she either has to meet with them and end her "immoral" relationship or she will face public humiliation.

“Bottom line, on January they 4th they are going to the church publicly with my sins, and my children will be sitting in church at the time,” Hancock told FOXNews.com.

Copy of the letter... http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Church_Extortion.pdf

Probably things said during confession.

At any rate, I've never heard of a non-denominational church having a confession ritual.

:rofl:

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

How is humiliating this woman going to help anyone? She should pull her children out of that church and find another place of worship. They seem to be more concerned with controlling her life more than anything.

Rightfully so, too.

It's a little late to worry about what will happen to her son and daughter, since the whole world now knows. :P

And there's that old wisdom of lying down with dogs.

I left because of it.

I attended Shoreline Community Church in Shoreline, WA, for almost fifteen years. SCC masqueraded as a "non-denominational church", but was really an Assembly of God congregation. I haven't been back since 1992, so I have no idea what they're doing now, and even less interest in finding out.

A young couple wanted to marry in the church. They had been living together prior to asking to be married within that church. They were compelled to get up on a Sunday morning in front of the 2500 person congregation and ask for "forgiveness". This was despite the fact that the vast majority of those who'd been there awhile knew of those in the church committing acts in their private lives that would shock just about anyone.

If Ms. Hancock continues to attend Grace Community Church, she's out of her mind. Leave. Leave NOW. Do not allow those who persecute anyone not living the acceptable "lifestyle" (while continuing their own immoral activities well away from the church -- and you KNOW it's happening,) to ruin her life and the lives of her children.

In the meantime, again, I fail to understand why anyone puts themselves through this stuff.

Julie

I know of the church but didn't know of the church.....why am I not surprised?

She's got both a civil case and a criminal case there. If the church goes through with this I hope they get prosecuted AND I hope she sues their asses off.

aka Publication of Private Information with Malicious Intent, but it may also be considered Harassment, or Coercion if one can show the church's likely loss of their financial support, and even Disorderly Conduct.

Give me a minute, I can probably come up with more.

Also, capitalizing a word doesn't make it either a crime or a civil cause of action.

Please cite the law which you think prohibits a church from publicly expelling a member who admits she is living with a man she is not married to, a man she admits she is sexually active with, against specific requirements of the church and its leadership.

I really want to read that statute or case, if one exists anywhere in American Jurisprudence.

I said that it's against the law to wage a campaign intended to harass people. And it what is considered harassment will depend, of course, on the circumstances and the public vs. private standing of the person making the claim. BUT, from the limited information presented, it would surely seem like grounds for harassment for a church to make it a point to publicly shame certain members and to advertise the fact that they intend to do so.

I'm not going to spend my time trying to educate you as to statutes and case law. I will, however, tell you that I have charged and successfully prosecuted plenty of harassment cases. Have you ever charged any? Or defended any? Exactly what are your credentials here?

You can't educate anyone on the law, because you don't know any law.

Please, let's hear about the harassment cases you've filed and successfully prosecuted. Have you prosecuted any churches for such? Surely you can at least cite the statute that defines the harassment cases you've filed. Have you filed them as a prosecutor, or merely as a complainant?

What are the element of harassment?

What are the elements of defamation?

And how are either factually and legally applicable in this circumstance?

Even if you're only a law student, you should be able to answer my questions.

Yes, I could regale you with the cases I have prosecuted, and I could research statutes and case law and throw cites at you all day long. Curiously, I have neither the time nor the interest in educating you and frankly it appears that doing so would be an exercise in futility.

>What are the element of harassment?

>What are the elements of defamation?

>And how are either factually and legally applicable in this circumstance?

What is this, a fucking law exam? Look, go back and discuss this issue with your Tort/Crim/Con law profs. Be sure to give them all of the facts though, and not just the ones that support your side.

And I don't care if you wouldn't charge a particular case, that doesn't mean the case has no merit and can't be charged and successfully prosecuted; it Is foolish to issue broad legal proclamations to that end. It might just mean that you have no experience in that area, and/or insufficient knowledge of state laws different from your own. As would appear to be the case.

A church is a private organization that has almost unfettered ability to do whatever it wishes regarding its membership, including publicly ostracizing and expelling a member who falls below their standards of conduct.

In this instance, her conduct of living with a man outside of marriage is unacceptable to this church, and they have communicated that to her. She has failed to follow the church's requirements, and they intend to publicly oust her from the church.

It's all legal, and there is no law, civil or criminal, against it.

It will depend, of course, on the fact pattern. The church can out them all it wants, but it doesn't get to harass them as an added bonus.

You do not know what constitutes Harassment. I can assure you that a church kicking out someone who will not follow their rules is NOT Harassment, and no prosecutor would ever file such a case.

If you can find your state's harassment laws, please provide them. They will not be applicable here. Expelling a member for misconduct is entirely within the province of the church, and following their rules which require public removal of disobedient members is certainly within their province.

Not every injury in life has a law that makes it civilly or criminally prohibited. Her only "injury" is denial of membership rights, and public expulsion for failing to follow clearly communicated rules.

If she brings her children, that's HER fault, not the church's fault. She wants to be a member, but she doesn't want to follow their rules. They're kicking her out of their club, as they are perfectly able to do.

Mitnaul v. Fairmount Presbyterian Church might be a somewhat relevant place to begin looking...



I imagine that for non-lawyers such as myself, it's as absurd to state with all absolutism that there are cases which prohibit i,t as would be for me to state there are no laws which prohibit it...

But that's just me-- I'm sure there are people who have actual knowledge.

Mitnaul v. Fairmount Presbyterian Church is a state case in Ohio, decided pursuant to Ohio state law. It is an appeal from a person who lost at the trial court on a summary judgment, in which the trial court found there was no issue of any material fact, and that under Ohio law the action of the church was proper in terminating the employment of the appellant.

It is not a case about membership. It is a case about employment. The aggrieved party was discharged from his job with the church. He asserted, among other things, that his discharge was in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

In its decision, the appeals court ruled that some of the trial's court rulings were valid, and some were not. The appeals court sent the case back down to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the causes of action on which the appellate court ruled the plaintiff had shown there were material fact issues regarding contractual issues.

I merely said it was a good place to start as there are some relevant similarities.


Maybe you have absolute knowledge of whether a law is or is not on either the state or the federal books and could cite the appropriate cases if any. As you appear to state with absolute certainty, I can assume you are well-versed in privacy laws, yes? Rather than simply stating that no such laws exist, I'm sure you could point us in the appropriate and relevant direction, yes?

As I said, I do not have absolute knowledge if those laws are on the books or not, so I make no claim to certainty and entertain both possibilities.... :shrug:

That's the real issue here.

Assuming that's what "left the church" means, than no, she's no longer subject to church discipline in any form, and can take them to court if they attempt it.

This site deals with people leaving the mormon church, but has a good overview of the case law wrt leaving churches and church discipline: http://www.mormonnomore.com/ click on "legal precedent" (it won't let me do a direct link to that information unfortunately)

:sarcasm:


I think going to the media was a great first step. The second step would be to pull her kids out of the church and take them somewhere else. Why put them through this?

..yank those kids out of that fundy hell hole and get on with your life. What business is it of the 'church' who you have sex with?

in that church.

What on earth could they be getting out of it, especially when church leadership has practically branded her with a scarlet letter?

Julie

WTF is her problem? Sending her kids to a church where she's not accepted is ridiculous!

I guess she can't really yank out her kids, as they're 18 and 20, but she should come clean with them about what the church is up to.

by taking him to court, filing a suit of public disclosure of private facts, which is ILLEGAL!

Detraction, defined as publicly disclosing private facts for no other reason than publicly humiliating another person.


Arrogance

I wonder if the pastor is having a secret affair himself? :shrug:

If they find it, she should post it on the internet.

Just desserts.

Seriously fuck those nosy assholes. Wonder how many affairs all the holier than thou types have had anyway? What a perversion of Jesus' message, just like every other fucking one of those cults.

"Everybody's got to have somebody to look down on"

I am not exactly sure what her point is, if her church is against sex before marriage and she disagrees with her church she should find a new one, it's not like there is a shortage of churches in Jacksonville.

in this thread that her kids are 18 and 20. Nothing she can do to force them to leave.

It's not like her kids are 8 or 10 and are going to be traumatized that their mom is having sex.

but now that her relationship is nation-wide public via Fox news, I don't know what they can do to "humiliate" her. Unless they know details like kinky sex and drugs, she should just tell them to take a hike.

... tend to drive the rest away? Who in their right mind would want to stay at such a church?

As well as their male counterparts.

So many so-called Christians fall into the worst kind of judgmentalism and completely sabotage any sort of high ground they could lay claim to.

And give sincere believers a huge black eye...

Clearly the hard to prove ingredient of malice is pretty obvious here.

There is no case for defamation unless the things they say about her are untrue. There's no suggestion of that. They're kicking her out for failing to follow the rules, and her refusal to follow them requires public airing of the church's findings and ruling.

Understand that a church is a legal entity with wide discretion regarding how it admits and expels members. She hasn't claimed that the church has lied about her. She has claimed that it will be embarrassing to her and her children. That may be true, but it doesn't make the church's actions defamation.

When they say something about her that isn't true, that they either know is untrue or could have known was untrue with any effort at all, that's grounds for a defamation case. Talking shit about someone is not defamation, unless it is untrue.

is deliberately humiliating a non-member, by name, publicly, and in front of her adult children. Not to mention attempting to blackmail her into submission by threatening this public humiliation unless she complies with the rules of a church that she is no longer even a member of.

If that's not harassment, I don't know what is.

Either now, or at the moment the wanker preacher starts this public process. And they should get everyone they consider a friend to do the same. And a few quotes like "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" are needed, to the congregation and to the media.

to have found fertile ground.

This practice is fairly common with fundie churches. They call it "disfellowshipping." It means they publicly pronounce that a member is no longer considered a member because they have violated the rules and after being asked to change, have refused.

Why do people want to attend churches that condemn them?

People almost always find a church that just coincidentally shares their personal biases. Ain't it great that everyone's God thinks exactly like they do?

Are these in the ballpark?

she would allow her children to attend that church?

of course there is potential for the church to react to any negative communications it might receive by taking it out on the woman they're harassing. But in general it would be helpful and educational for these vermin to receive some clear descriptions of themselves. After all, it would be "what's best for them".

Of course I would never do such a thing. Don't let yourself be backtraced with caller ID.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=55919

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=55926

These are the same people who voted for bush twice, they need to be diminished in our society or they will be back they are that zealous.

Donna and Ann are real heartless bitches.