Seems to me that if the Church publicizes its conversions then the church feels it is getting a benefit from converting people. Also conversion is an important aspect of all evangelical Christian churches. In a sense they exist to "save souls" -- hence their missionary activities at home and around the world. Since that is in part their raison d'etre then that should be sufficient "benefit" to the church to create the contract. And that benefit would exist whether it publicizes the event or not.
Furthermore, I wonder if there is a tort here -- intentional infliction of emotional distress or some very serious negligence action, since the church knew that bragging about this convert exposed him to literally moral danger and he relied on the church (and its promise) not to expose him, and then did so. ************************************************* Paul Finkelman Ariel F. Sallows Visiting Professor of Human Rights Law College of Law University of Saskatchewan 15 Campus Drive Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A6 Canada c) 518.605.0296 paul.finkel...@albanylaw.edu paul.finkel...@yahoo.com and Senior Fellow Penn Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and Constitutionalism University of Pennsylvania ************************************************* ________________________________ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu <religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> on behalf of Case, Mary Anne <mac...@law.uchicago.edu> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 8:45 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Christian convert's claim that church broke confidentiality promise and thus exposed him to attack for apostasy in Syria Eugene asks, “ Why wouldn’t that be a legally enforceable contract ?” What consideration is there for the Church and its agents? Conversion is a benefit to the convert, not the Church. Consider a secular analogue, plaintiff seeks to participate in the rituals of a secular organization, be it the KKK or Yale’s Skull and Bones, and extracts a promise that the organization’s leaders will keep his participation confidential. When the organization is offering a privilege and the individual is not even becoming a dues paying member, all the consideration seems to be flowing to the individual. It’s a different case when, for example, a reporter promises confidentiality to a source, because the consideration is the information exchanged. Eugene also says in his WAPO piece, “But if the defendants really agreed not to reveal this information, then they have waived their free speech rights on this score.” Does that mean that revenge porn is actionable breach of contract if before sending a compromising picture the victim extracted a promise that it will not be more widely circulated? From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 9:14 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Christian convert's claim that church broke confidentiality promise and thus exposed him to attack for apostasy in Syria Howard Friedman summarizes the decision in the case, but I’m not sure it’s right. Among other things, the Complaint asserts that church officials expressly promised that plaintiff’s “baptism and conversion would remain private,” and breached that promise. Why wouldn’t that be a legally enforceable contract (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/17/convert-to-christianity-sues-church-claiming-it-broke-confidentiality-promise-and-thus-exposed-him-to-attack-for-apostasy-in-syria/)? Eugene Feed: Religion Clause Posted on: Sunday, June 26, 2016 11:28 AM Author: Howard Friedman Subject: Court Says Religious Autonomy Precludes Adjudication of Suit By Torture Victim In a fascinating decision handed down June 17, an Oklahoma trial court held that the "religious autonomy doctrine" requires it to dismiss a suit against a U.S. church by a convert from Islam to Christianity who was captured and tortured in Syria because of his conversion. The facts are set out more fully in a complaint (full text<http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/1/40/140e84c2-8d10-5a54-9d3d-d13294c224d7/576db887d0b63.pdf.pdf>) filed in 2014. A Tulsa, Oklahoma resident who was born in Syria decided to convert, but told First Presbyterian Church leaders that his conversion had to remain confidential because he periodically traveled back to Syria and the punishment for apostasy under Sharia law was death. Despite assurances of confidentiality, the church published an announcement of his baptism in its Order of Worship, which was posted on the World Wide Web. After traveling back to Syria, plaintiff was bound, beaten and tortured by radical Muslims who threatened to behead him. He eventually escaped. His suit alleges that the church is guilty of negligence, breach of contract and outrageous conduct leading to extreme emotional distress. In Doe v. First Presbyterian Church USA of Tulsa, Oklahoma<http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/9/53/95392aab-1cb3-5434-bf1d-fb0f43dede43/576db88a24cf2.pdf.pdf>, (OK Dist. Ct., June 17, 2016), the court held that the public dissemination of the names of those who have been baptized "is a key part of how the Church requires a conversion and baptism to be 'visible" to the world." The court went on to say: the simple dispositive issue is whether the public dissemination of Plaintiff's name as a baptized person is "rooted in religious belief".... [A] secular Court like this one must not consider claims ... that arise out of a sacrament because a sacrament is part of the most sacred beliefs of that religious institution.... Defendants' deeply held religious belief about the visible, public nature of baptism must not be disturbed by this Court. [emphasis in original] Tulsa World<http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/religion/ex-muslim-breaks-silence-on-nearly-being-beheaded-for-converting/article_c91cfbc8-42ac-55eb-924c-15a6c0d58fcb.html> reports on the decision, with additional background. View article...<http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/06/court-says-religious-autonomy-precludes.html>
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
