Icemoon, you sound like you are always angry and ranting.
Suggest you take a step back..this is just a discussion or debate
over issues that do not directly involve you and I. As a doctor, I
suggest you calm down...you are at risk of hypertension and heart
disease.
Clearly the plaintiff has deviated from the orthodox teaching of
the BP church on this issue and the defence will probably argue
that it is their duty to fight heresies within the church.
Therefore the BP church will probably rely on the defence of
justification, that it is substantially true that the plaintiff had
committed heresy against a long-established doctrine of the church
he has chosen to associate with.
Secondly, the BP church could also argue that it was fair comment
on a matter of 'public' interest within the BP church. If the
pastors' criticisms of the plaintiff, however harsh or cruel, were
disseminated only within the confines of the church or its internal
publication, then they could rely on the defence of fair comment.
That it was a matter of interest within the church can hardly be
disputed, since it touched on a core doctrine of the BP church. As
long as the pastors limited their criticisms within the church
member population, they can rely on this second defence.
Much depends on what was said. It would be factual for the church
to say that the plaintiff was a heretic for the reasons above. It
would not be factual and definitely not a valid defence if the BP
church had alleged that he was a wife-beater, adulterer or a cheat.
The court will have to examine the facts of the case to give a just
verdict.
Do you know the facts of the case? Do you know exactly what the BP
church leaders said? Are you pre-judging the BP church by yourself
alleging that the defendant had attacked the plaintiff's integrity?
That's the plaintiff's allegation but the court has yet to come to
a verdict. Until then, such matters are subjudice and I suggest we
should leave that to the proper authorities.
My comment in this matter only went as far as the actions of the
plaintiff when the conflict began. I find it strange that he
continued to remain within the church and therefore tacitly
submitting to the discipline of a church whose doctrines he
disagreed with.
