In July 2003, the Iowa Supreme Court held that a United Methodist Church could be held liable for defamation because a church leader wrote a letter saying "the spirit of Satan" was at work in the church.
Does this validate the existence of the Satan? Doesn’t defamation require truth or must the slander be proven false for it be defamation? What about separation of church and state? What are your opinions?
2006-06-13 02:37:58 · 7 answers · asked by jon 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
No, the concept of the phrase is recognized as negative and that is all it does.
The second question will be answered by the trial court - once it returns there.
This is not a separation of church and state since the document was distributed to non-members of the church.
On a sidenote, the Supreme Court of Iowa said it could go forward, it didn't however decided the case. Now the US Supreme Court must determine if it wants to hear the case. If they disagree with the Iowa court, then it returns for trial. If they disagree, then the case will be dropped since there is no legal standing.
The point is that a ruling hasn't been made on the merits of the original case - this is just the finer points of the law being argued at this point. In general, you can't just go out and smear somebody in writing without justification. And that issue is for the trial court to decide eventually.
2006-06-13 02:50:31 · answer #1 · answered by dm_dragons 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know if you could say it validate's the existence of Satan, but if you believe in heaven so you have to believe in hell and if you believein GOD you have to believe Satan at least exists. I would think that to be defamed, it would all have to be false, which rules this case unrulable. I mean this is a methodist church and this is what the church as well as the minister believes, so you can not really go on what's wrong and what's right because satan could very well be at work at his church. So this is like a questionable case. As for separation of church and state, there are some things the church and state need to work in together and somethings you need to let church handle church and state handle state. And I don't think the preacher had any right to send that letter unless the spirit of Satan was like an act of robbery, murder, or anything like that into his church. Other than that, if its just someone coming by the church and he can see the demon in his eye or something, he coulda kept that to himself.
2006-06-13 02:48:05 · answer #2 · answered by yoshikoburney 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you got your facts wrong. How can the United Methodist Church be held liable for something the somebody said about the church? They can't!!!!
The guy who wrote the letter may be liable for making unproven negative statements.
The court doesn't decide religious issues.
Libel slander and defamation are not religious issues.
The court has jurisdiction over libel, slander and defamation.
2006-06-13 03:37:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the legal definition of defamation is "the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation."
So this could actually suggest that there is no Satan.
2006-06-13 02:43:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd just like to see them serve the subpoena to Satan to testify. What if he never shows up?
2006-06-13 02:41:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
See the next question for the rest of my answer.
2006-06-13 02:41:35 · answer #6 · answered by Smiddy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yeah i agree church leaders should be allowed to say whatever they want as long as it ain't lets go do violence
2006-06-13 02:41:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋