quote:The point is, I doubt a living person would have legal standing to stop a religion from "baptizing" them via proxy, especially if any publication of the event was clear that it was a proxy (so there's no libel issue).
The LDS Church entered into a contractual agreement to stop doing this to Holocaust victims. They are disregarding that contract. According to the articles, the contract is explicit in this, and that it has continued. Also according to the articles, the LDS Church has said that it refuses to remove the names of Holocaust victims, despite the ease of accessibility of the names of the victims on public record, and the supposed superiority of records kept by the LDS church (in every other case of membership and ancestry, the records are second to none). There is a clear case that the LDS Church has completely disregarded their agreement to cease infringing upon the Jews, and knowingly continues to do so.
The case is clear, it's just a clear civil suit, not a criminal one.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And what makes this a legal wronging is that the LDS Church already agreed by contract to stop doing this to Holocaust victims, yet it persists in doing so and has said they will do nothing to end the insult. This may mean nothing to you, but all this is doing is perpetrating the same sins which have been put upon the LDS church in the past.
Please try to get your facts right. The Church as an entity is not intentionally baptizing Holocaust victims. Individual members submit names to be baptized, and apparently, some are slipping through when they should be stopped. This means that the Church needs a better way of checking the names against the database of Holocaust victims.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And what makes this a legal wronging is that the LDS Church already agreed by contract to stop doing this to Holocaust victims, yet it persists in doing so and has said they will do nothing to end the insult. ... The case is clear, it's just a clear civil suit, not a criminal one.
Again, you're leaping to conclusions here. We don't know if there's a legally enforceable contract. We don't know if they are actually violating the contract. If this issue is litigated on contractual grounds, it will not be a clear-cut case by any means.
posted
"And it's ironic that you admit an ignorance of the importance of posthumous baptism to Mormons, but go on to say those Mormons don't actually care about the dead being baptized."
Because the one doesn't have anything to do with the other. Its important to THEM to baptize ME, for example? Well, the action being taken is being done to me. If I don't want it, and its important to me that they DON'T and still DO it, then they are acting in exactly the way I said...self centered, and without compassion.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Richard Berg gets my vote for Funniest and Most Sensible Post.
Seriously, if you believe it isn't true, what do you care? It isn't like the names are published in some sort of keeping score column. No one is forced. No one's remains are disturbed. If it isn't true, then that means the Mormons are spending a whole lot of resources on a fruitless endevor instead of, say, missionary work. If you're really that opposed to people that aren't you possibly embracing a gospel you don't believe in, you should be GLAD.
And if it is true, isn't it wonderful?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, if someone knows that you said you didn't want the proxy baptism done and they did it anyway, then that person is in the wrong. It is the responsibility of those submitting the names to make sure that it's okay to submit them.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's the thing: ultimately, I don't regard living people as arbiters for the dead. When I die, I don't want my family or anyone else telling other people what to do or not to do with regards to my soul. I'll worry about that.
But your feelings on that are between you and your faith. However, your faith can be further insulted to those in life, and your death can be marginalized in the context of your faith. If you belong to an institution, your institution can be damaged by it. Whether or not you care about that, it matters to those still living.
quote:What nonsense is this? If the Jews are right, posthumous baptisms don't even reach the dead*! If the Jews are right, then Mormons are just chanting some rites in temples with some actors and some genealogical records!
The LDS do not even allow non-LDS in their temples in order to keep blasphemy and insult from their institution, and yet the very act of proxy baptism does that very same thing to other faiths. It's called a double-standard. It's called arrogance. It's called justified bigotry (intolerance to other faiths to be allowed the same respect demanded)
quote:What if it's just some wrongheaded nincompoops in a phony temple, performing some ignorant superstitious rites that have no spiritual power whatsoever, and they throw your name in the mix?
Then if those names appear in LDS records, they need to be removed, and those who performed the actions excommunicated. The Church has said that they refuse to do either of the two.
quote:Sorry I'm derailing...I just don't think there'd be any legal issues at all, unless an actual binding contract was ever printed up and signed.
Have you read the articles? According to them, there was.
quote:Seriously, if you believe it isn't true, what do you care?
If other religions make it actual ritual to insult the faiths of yours, what would you care? If such insulting isn't important, why can't non-Mormons enter LDS temples? Because it's okay only as long as your own faith isn't being completely insulted?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
What, then, do you think are the requirements necessary to get into Heaven? (Since you mentioned it).
Jeff, see John 3:16
Seriously, I am of the opinion that salvation is very easy. He who believes in Christ will not perish but have everlasting life. I believe it is entirely faith-based, not by works.
Some people read certain passages in the Bible and interpet them as baptism being necessary for salvation. I disagree. I think it's an act of obedience. Certainly Jesus didn't get baptized to be saved - he did it out of obedience and love for his father, and his father recognized that by saying "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased."
My baptist relatives and I hash this out every now and then, but when it all comes down to it, it's no big deal. Although it did throw me for a loop the day one Southern Baptist told me I'd better pray my children grow up, join a Baptist church and get Baptized so they don't go to hell because we only had them sprinkled as infants.
The way I look at it - the thief on the cross wasn't baptized, right? And, if a man stops in the street and says "Lord, I believe. Forgive my sins, I accept you as my savior" and then gets hit by a bus a second later I expect to meet that man in heaven. I don't think he's hell bound just because he never had the chance to get dunked.
And for the record, it doesn't upset me all that much that my relatives think my children need to be re-baptized, I see it as a doctrinal difference. What would upset me though, is if those same relatives baptised my children or me by proxy against my will. See, there is a difference between just disagreement, and with taking action in someone elses' name.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Paul, if someone knows that you said you didn't want the proxy baptism done and they did it anyway, then that person is in the wrong. It is the responsibility of those submitting the names to make sure that it's okay to submit them."
It is my contention that anyone who didn't take baptism in life, and had the knowledge of baptism, by default did not want to be baptised and does not want to in death.
To assume otherwise is self-centered jerkishness.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Paul, if someone knows that you said you didn't want the proxy baptism done and they did it anyway, then that person is in the wrong. It is the responsibility of those submitting the names to make sure that it's okay to submit them.
According to the articles, the church is still recording the names. After all, who checked to see if the Holocaust victims' families wanted the proxy baptisms? Why has the church not removed the names? Why keep such a black mark in its history so blatantly kept open like that? Is it not more righteous to make it right instead of continuing the wrong?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The LDS do not even allow non-LDS in their temples in order to keep blasphemy and insult from their institution, and yet the very act of proxy baptism does that very same thing to other faiths. It's called a double-standard. It's called arrogance. It's called justified bigotry (intolerance to other faiths to be allowed the same respect demanded)
I really don't see any double standard here. Other religions frequently practice beliefs that Mormons feel to be blasphemous or incorrect, but do we try to stop them because we feel insulted by it? Of course not. It's their beliefs, and it's their right to practice those beliefs as long as they don't hurt anyone.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, because some people may not know this. Promises are generally not legally enforceble. Even promises written down and signed are not necessarily legally enforceable. In almost all states, even promises written down, signed by the promisor, sealed, and notarized are not necessarily legally enforceable. The following summary is vastly simplified, but it should provide the idea.
Traditionally, for a promise to be enforceable, it requires "consideration." Consideration is a bargained-for benefit provided by the promisee or a restraint of some legal right of the promisee. This consideration can be immediately granted or can be a promise to perform later.
There are two situations in which a promise will be legally enforced absent consideration. The first is called the doctrine of material benefit, which doesn't apply here. The second is called promissory estoppel, and depends on the reliance theory of contract. It says some promises, absent consideration, will be enforced if the promisee has placed themselves in a worse position by relying on the promise which was not performed. Even when this detrimental reliance is present, the promise will not be enforced in many situations.
In this case the LDS is the promisor. We have no information about what the other side gave or promised. If they gave or promised nothing, consideration is absent. I see little opportunity to make a promissory estoppel argument here, because the protestors are in exactly the same situation they were before the promise was made.
Even if the contract is held to be enforceable, LDS may not have violated it. Remember, the promisor is the Church as an organization. This does not cover individual actions of its members. They have made several specific promises, according to the link provided by Mrs.M: (numbers added by me)
quote:1. Remove from the next issue of the International Genealogical Index the names of all known posthumous baptized Jewish Holocaust victims who are not direct ancestors of living members of the Church.
2. Provide a list of all Jewish Holocaust victims whose names are to be removed from the International Genealogical Index to the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Commission, the N.Y. Holocaust Memorial Commission, the Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles and Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem, Israel, and confirm in writing when removal of such names has been completed.
3. Reaffirm the policy and issue a directive to all officials and members of the Church to discontinue any future baptisms of deceased Jews, including all lists of Jewish Holocaust victims who are known Jews, except if they were direct ancestors of living members of the Church or the Church had the written approval of all living members of the deceased's immediate family.
4. Confirm this policy in all relevant literature produced by the Church.
5. Remove from the International Genealogical Index in the future the names of all deceased Jews who are so identified if they are known to be improperly included counter to Church policy.
Promises 1 & 2 were clearly kept, according to one of the sites linked in this thread (it's a Jewish site). We have no info on whether promise 3 was kept, since it was to issue the directive, not a promise to stop putting such names into the database. I assume the directive was issued. 4 falls in to a similar vein.
So we are left with promise 5. Again, it states "Remove from the International Genealogical Index in the future the names of all deceased Jews who are so identified if they are known to be improperly included counter to Church policy." This sentence (which is a summary - again, I can't find the agreement) clearly states that only names that are known to violate Church policy will be removed. This means that once a name is identified as belonging to a Holocaust victim, it will be remove when it is known that it is present in the database in violation of Church policy.
Note, Church policy does not prohibit all Holocaust victims from being in the database - those with Mormon descendents can be placed in the database. Therefore, a simple scan of the database against a list of Holocaust victims will not provide information making it known that the name is present in violation of Church policy.
Further, the removal is supposed to happen prior to subsequent releases. I don't know how often such releases happen, but presumably their not very often. So there has to be a time period, after the name is known to be present in violation, to remove it.
posted
kat, I knew the "why do you care?" argument would come up and that's why I addressed it.
I think what you're doing is pointless, in that its' not going to affect anything because I think we are only given this life in which to make the rights choices and there are no "second chances" after death. However, even with the acknowledgment that if you did a proxy baptism for me I'd never know and it wouldn't affect my salvation - it still bothers me. I won't bother the dead me if it's done to me, but the idea bothers the live me right now.
For all the reasons that have already been listed - it's disrespectful, it's arrogant, it's taking something very sacred to me and demeaning it.
I know you won't get this or at least won't admit to it, because this is such a central part of your faith. I can respect that you hold this belief very strongly. But I wish you could accept that standing there and screaming "You shouldn't be offended!" at all of us that have protested this idea doesn't change the fact that we are.
And, considering how many different faiths find this offensive, can you not accept we may have some valid reason to feel this way? Don't you see how it takes something that most people have put a lot of thought into (the choice to be baptized or not and into what faith) and disrespecting it? Not only the presumption to act in that person's name without their permission?
I don't buy that my descendants can make those decisions for me. God sees me as an individual and my choices are mine alone to make.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many good points have been made above. I'll return to an earlier one.
Exhibit A: a preacher on the sidewalk proclaims that my soul is going to hell.
Facts: he is making unwelcome assumptions about my theology, in effect rejecting the choices I have affirmed with my life. Meanwhile, I don't actually believe in the Fundie Christian Hell, so I get on with my life. If pressed, I would defend his right to free speech and free exercise of religion, perhaps limiting him to a soapbox corner of the park as a local noise ordinance.
Exhibit B: a Mormon proclaims that my soul is going to heaven.
Facts: all of the above applies. If he were doing it in the street, we would afford him the same broad (albeit limited) Constitutional protections as the Fundie. In reality, the act is done in private -- nobody is cold-calling these descendents with the "good news" -- yet our outrage intensifies. This seems quite opposed to our conventional ideas of freedom.
In short, there seems to be very selective moralizing going on. Posthumous baptism may be inordinately silly, but I must come to its defense when it is singled out in this fashion. (No, I don't put outrage over the Auschwitz cross in the same category; that's a church/state issue.)
Of course, LDS members should obey the commands of their church, especially given how authoritative they seem to be, but the issues here are rather independent of that command. Of course, we shouldn't limit ourselves to the framework of legality; evaluating actions in the light of common decency is only fair practice in a civil society. But even in this light our objections fall short of the respect society rightly gives to religion, especially when viewed comparatively.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I really don't see any double standard here. Other religions frequently practice beliefs that Mormons feel to be blasphemous or incorrect, but do we try to stop them because we feel insulted by it? Of course not. It's their beliefs, and it's their right to practice those beliefs as long as they don't hurt anyone.
What religions are compiling a list of people of other religions, stating openly that those individuals' religions are insufficient, and recording the ritual where this happens? It may not sound like that's what is happening from your POV, but from the outside, that's definitely what it looks like. That's infinging.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
I would not posthumously baptize you, unless sometime in the future you mentioned a change of heart on the issue.
I'm not sure what the Church's stance is on this. (Baptizing people who have clearly said, "Don't do this to me after I'm dead!") But even if the Church's position is, "It's OK even if they say don't," I would not, as a new member, do so.
Now, a relative that's been dead for a long time and has no expressed opinion on the matter? I'm not so sure. I'm going to pose a potentially tangly question. Let's suppose you and I are related. You're not LDS, I am. We've got numerous deceased relations who have expressed no opinion, one way or another, on posthumous baptism. So I do so-what would you do?
posted
There are entire industries devoted to insulting and "hating on" my religion. For proof, check the bottom of the thread. And their targets are LIVING people. I'm not freaking out because (1) they're wrong, and (2) it's a free country.
According to your logic, John, should I threaten to sue everyone who doesn't believe I'm as right in my religion as I am for disrespecting me?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeff, I would voice my protest loudly. Because I don't think one does religious acts in another person's name. Period.
I wouldn't be able to stop you from doing this to our mutual ancestors, obviously, but I would protest it and I would let you know I disagreed with you.
Then we'd have sweet tea and cookies together.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
You can't anyway, unless you marry her daughter. Even then, YOU can't. Females are baptized for females.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, your faith won't even let non-believers enter the temple, and you're asking why the insult of proxy baptism even matters to other beliefs. Your faith seems to take open insult rather seriously when it comes to itself, and yet you're making the argument others shouldn't?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: has completely disregarded their agreement to cease infringing upon the Jews
I never understood how one group of people in a group can speak for others who have passed on. Who are living Jews to say what can or can't be done to a dead jew? Names are a matter of public record and once they are in the public domain, how can a group of people oppose their use?
I am not arguing that the LDS church infringed on an agreement, but I question the validity of such an agreement. Can the mormon church tell another entity what to do with my name or records after I die? I don't think so.
I don't see how it is an infringement.
On a side note tho, I don't buy that it is individuals in the church who are proceeding with temple ordinances. It is a church run program, if there are people not following the churches council, then it is the churches responsibility to stop it or take accountabiltity.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
John, do you honestly not see the difference between someone entering our temple illegally and someone preaching against our temple in their own church?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure what the Church's stance is on this.
You're supposed to get the permission of the immediate family. It is NOT church policy to baptize those whose immediate family objects. Since members should only submit names of members of their own family, what they consider immediate is up to the individual.
It is, as is apparent, largely a matter of self-policing.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the baptisms are closer to libel than to the "emotional damage" given by gay marriage (since someone pointed out the similarity between intangible damage in gay marriage and in baptisms). None of the three of these, baptism/libel/gay marriage result in direct physical damage. However, we all know that libel is a punishable offense (right?) and causes harm. As with libel, the Mormon baptism names an individual in association with the ritual. It's not the same, because it's not that the Church is saying "Jane Doe is now a member of the Church," but it's close. It's along the lines of, "Jane Doe has been given the opportunity to join us in our Heaven."
Lets say I owned a restaurant that sold dog meat (like in South Korea). And I had a sign in it which read, "We invite the following people to eat dog meat at our restaurant." Then I posted the same list online, and generally let it known that these folks were kindly requested to partake in my food.
It's not libel. But is it okay? After all, maybe in 10 years, dog meat will be all the rage and I'll have done Joe Doe a lot of good by associating his name with my restaurant before it became mainstream. And it's not like I'm doing him any harm. I'm not saying Joe Doe eats dog meat. He has the choice to come into my restaurant at any time.
But I think we should have control over the representation of ourselves.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't include prayer because the religious act is MINE in that case. I am the one approaching God with prayer. For the two to be equal, it would have to be praying to God in proxy for another person.
"God, I know John Doe is an athiest, so I'm going to stand in proxy for him and pray. God, this is John Doe, please forgive my sins and allow me to accept Christ as my savior...."
In one case I, as a Christian, can approach my God and ask for something. In the second, I'm presuming to ask for someone else when I have no idea where the heart of that someone else truly lies.
I don't think I have the right to stand for someone in front of God. Proxy baptism is you standing in someone else's place before God, and that's why I don't like the idea and why it's different from prayer.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:John, do you honestly not see the difference between someone entering our temple illegally and someone preaching against our temple in their own church?
You mean the proxy baptisms are just the LDS way to preach against other faiths? I have a hard time deciding if that would be better or worse than actually claiming that faiths of the dead of other faiths have no validity.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
And I don't know if it does. But probably if there's a legal representative, it does. After all, can you really write untrue things about Walt Disney in the papers?
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But we're not saying anything untrue about dead people. We're saying that we've offered them the chance to accept a Mormon baptism in the afterlife.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
This underscores the fact that there are two separate issues here:
1.) Should the LDS Church posthomously baptize people whose living relatives do not want it done?
2.) If not, what should be done when it happens?
The answer to 1 is pretty clearly "No." Even the Church directives say this is the case.
The answer to level 2 depends directly on the extent of the harm caused. Voluntarily living up to the 1995 agreement to remove names is the minimum that should be done. But, assuming this doesn't happen, should anyone have a legal cause of action to stop and/or receive damages from the Church. I would answer absolutely not.
There are constitutional limits on libel. Even statements that meet the clear common law definition of libel are not actionable in certain circumstances (public figure, absent malice, etc.). This restriction was placed on libel actions by the Supreme Court, which decided that the courts should not be used to "chill" speech, and that to accomplish this goal certain people who were clearly wronged would lose their right to collect damages. Intentional infliction of emotional distress that stems from a libelous statement not actionable under this standard is also not actionable, as Jerry Falwell found out.
The free exercise of religion is in the same amendment as free speech. It seems reasonable (although by no means sure) to predict that the same rationale will be used to limit liability arising from otherwise lawful exercises of religion. This is certainly how I view it. Anyone who values free exercise of religion should fear any other result.
posted
No, Kat they are not the same thing and I've illustrated why.
I personally make a strong delineation between praying for someone's salvation and standing forth as a proxy to baptize someone against their wishes.
In the first scenario, I am merely asking God to act - I can't save anyone, I'm only asking God to do something. In the second scenario, you are actually taking an action in someone's name. I don't pray in proxy, I'm not praying John Doe's prayer, I'm praying MINE.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think libel applies to dead people.
Normally, the dead cannot be libeled. However, the widow of George Clooney's character in "Perfect Storm" tried to sue on his behalf, claiming the movie made him look reckless.
I haven't tracked down the ultimate result, but last I heard the Circuit court had accepted the case for appeal. This was more than a year ago.
Dagonee Edit: The suit proceeded not as straight libel but under a Florida law prohibiting commercial use of somone's likeness without permission.
quote:I personally make a strong delineation between praying for someone's salvation and standing forth as a proxy to baptize someone against their wishes.
But we don't baptize people against their wishes!
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, Kat they are not the same thing and I've illustrated why.
You've explained why you think they are not the same, and I've explained why I think they are. Apparently neither explanation was definitive.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you Dag, you've been very helpful with regards to the legal impact of all of this. It's looking more and more to me like this is going to become a political headache, rather than a legal one.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do proxy baptisms against people's express wishes, Jon Boy.
There have been people who've said "I do not wish this done after my death" and it was done. The last time we discussed this on hatrack someone posted on the thread that that had happened with their grandmother, IIRC.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think one viable legal claim is negligent/intentional infliction of emotional distress upon the dead person's close relatives. Of course, if the relatives are the ones requesting it...
For the record, feel free to perform this ceremony for me. I like to hedge my bets.
posted
Jon Boy: Is it 100% alright for the dog-meat scenario? In what cases? With full permission, without permission, no permission needed for dead folks, relatives grant permission...
I didn't say Baptisms are libel. But I'm trying to draw out the characteristics that are most problematic. For me, part of that is having it written down for posterity. I could be less offended by prayer because it's done on a one-time basis in someone's head or aloud but not recorded. And not public.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No problem. The ramifications are endless and fascinating. It shouldn't be much of a political problem - the people who made the agreement the first time are still in charge, aren't they? I think LDS needs to reinforce their directive, and I think both sides need to set up a repeatable process for reviewing and removing names. And both sides need to acknowledge the others' good intentions. After all, they didn't have to sign the 1995 agreement.
I'd be happy to help set up such a process. Sounds like what my old company used to do.
As a side note, it looks like LDS has the most up-to-date IT infrastructure of any religious institution.
posted
Kat, let's break down your statements and see if they're the same thing.
quote:I baptize you for and in behalf of [blank]." "I'll pray for you. I'll pray on your behalf."
The first problem I see is that the two "I"'s are not equivalent. In the first statement, the I is the pastor or whomever is performing the baptism. In the second, it's the person offering to pray.
Okay, let's put me in the scenrios. In the first scenario, I'm standing in proxy for someone, and when the words "I baptize you for and in behalf of John Doe" are said, I am baptized, and my intention is that this baptism is John Doe's, not my own.
In the second scenario, I am going to God and saying "Lord, I would like to pray for John Doe, on his behalf. I really would like to see him become saved. Lord reveal yourself to him, please."
In scenario #2 I am not taking any action as John Doe. I'm not standing in for him, and the prayer is not his. It is my prayer and my intent is for it to be my prayer, and not for it to stand for anyone else or for it to represent anything other than my personal communication with God.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think one viable legal claim is negligent/intentional infliction of emotional distress upon the dead person's close relatives...
First, negligent infliction of emotional distress, accept in Hawaii, requires some contempraneous viewing of the death/serious injury of a loved one or reasonable fear for one's own safety. So it won't apply here.
Second, there might be a facial case for intentional infliction of emotional distress. LDS have ample warning this upsets people, given the 1995 agreement. However, as I posted above, the constitutional considerations are very important here. Free speech has been used to limit the right to recover for libel; it seems reasonable that free exercise of religion will limit IIED recovery as well.
Consider this scenario: a preacher on television says all Catholics are going to hell. He's received complaints detailing how these statements are terribly upsetting to certain people (especially children). Assume the sermons are accompanied by brutal images of hell.
Would a Catholic have a cause of action under this scenario? Doubtful. What if Jack Chick followers kept leaving pamphlets under the windshield wipers of cars parked near the local Catholic Church (which implies targeted behavior)?
I think injunctions or damages for such actions are incredibly problematic.
posted
Dag, if I were still in law school I would ask to copy your outline. (That's a compliment, for I only copy from the best!)
You are right down to the last detail. The only thing I could add is that there are some cases involving funeral homes that may be used by an enterprising lawyer to make a NIED case.
In Phillip Blackwell v. Dykes Funeral Homes, Inc, the Indiana Supreme Court opened the door to claims of emotional damages in virtually any context where one family member has observed an injury to another family member … even if that family member has been dead for nearly 12 years. some site, not lexis/westlaw. In Dykes, the funeral home misplaced the remains of the plaintiff's son and the plaintiff did not discover this until 12 years after the burial.
I'm not saying a lawyer could win, but he might have enough to survive summary judgment and create enough bad publicity for the church to force a settlement.
posted
Belle, you are asking God to interfere when John has clearly expressed that he not only does not want God to interfere, he doesn't want you to treat him like he needs it.
Just to clear it up, they are not baptized. The Lord does not consider them baptized. The church does not consider them baptized. It's like... a lawyer entering a plea agreement for someone in prison. The lawyer's doing the filing, but they don't make the decision of what to plea.
---
I know that is going to make someone act like they are offended, but the reason religions have historically conflicted is because they often believe mutually exclusive things.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It think the LDS Church's making the agreement was wrong. It was done in good faith, and the Jews are not showing any good faith other than using it to hit the LDS Church on its head. This year has been very hard to keep a charitable oppinion of Jews -- and I consider the dislike of them a sin.
Frankly, I think the Church should say "agreement is OFF!," and everyone will be happy. At least, there won't be a "legal" reason to hate the Mormons. Knowing the leadership of the Church, however, they will try to find some kind of a solution to accomodate the Jews. They will, eventually, shoot themselves in the foot trying to be accomodating. Its the way of charity in today's world.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
If you're really that opposed to people that aren't you possibly embracing a gospel you don't believe in, you should be GLAD.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(That's a compliment, for I only copy from the best!)![[Frown]](frown.gif)
