Comments on: “Lawyer Says Televangelist’s No-Divorce Policy May Have Led to Killing”

By: A.W.

A.W. — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:40:14 +0000

captn

indeed, i bet the ministry teaches its followers not to sue them either.

By: captnhal

captnhal — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:54:11 +0000

Even assuming that the “no divorce” policy was the cause of the murders, I have a problem with holding the deep pocket ministry financially responsible. That same ministry most likely also had “no adultery” and “no murder” policies (AKA the 10 commandments). It’s hard to imagine otherwise. How is it reasonable for any ministry to be held financially responsible for the acts of its members and employees when those acts are contrary to their teachings?

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:13:09 +0000

If someone steals money from me to buy a Ferrari can I sue Ferrari claiming their high prices led to the theft?

By: Bumper

Bumper — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:31:14 +0000

I’m just surprised that the husband isn’t begging for mercy on the grounds that he is a widower and isn’t suing himself for loss of companionship.

By: A.W.

A.W. — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:54:07 +0000

I think we call this the Henry VIII defense.

I will point out that they have a better claim saying that they should have investigated email complaints to the family that they knew of.

By: nevins

nevins — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:07:27 +0000

Her family is entitled to grieving in their own fashion. But they don’t need to drag everyone else down into their wallowing self pity and money grubbing. There is no directly damaged party left unfortunately, for he killed his wife and children. Her parents never had a financial claim in their daughter as if she were some sort of insurance policy for them.
While Joyce Meyers ministries is a thinly veiled scam, there is no reason for them to be the deep pocket here.
No one or no organization forbade divorce. There might have been a morals clause that would require him to be separated from his job, but that’s not to be unexpected or unreasonable in a libertarian association and free ability of people to contract for employment. A divorce to this employer is likely just as much a problem as it would be if he got caught with a girlfriend (as was subsequently revealed). So arguing that the divorce clause was the cause of his mass murder is rediculous because he had already violated his employment morals clause (most likely) when diddling his girlfriend.