It is relatively rare for a judge to be placed into a position of having to determine who gives a sermon at a church but that unenviable position was forced upon Montgomery County Circuit Judge Charles Price who was faced with an uprising against Rev. Juan McFarland, 47, at his Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church. They had good cause to want McFarland out. The not-so-good reverend has admitted to using drugs, having sex with church members in the church building and having HIV but not telling sex partners. Price, a GW grad who was honored for this service by having the courthouse named after him and , ordered him to step aside.
Deacons and trustees went to court to ask for the removal of McFarland. The congregation voted to fire him on October 5th but McFarland refused to step down and had the locks changed. It is remarkably unrepentant for a pastor who admitted to having sex in the church and not disclosing that he was HIV positive. The church leaders are also suing church parliamentarian Marc Anthoni Peacock for his involvement in changing the locks and bank accounts. Witnesses said that McFarland had armed guards at the church.
After McFarlane admitted to his actions in a sermon, the congregation first tried to help him but decided later that he would have to go. The meeting on October 5th was described by Peacock as “holy hell.”
The issue for Price was not a religious one but a matter of interpretation. The church bylaws adopted in January 2013 state that cannot be terminated and can leave only through resignation or death. The bylaws, which are written to give virtually absolute power to pastors, allows them to also fire church leaders. However, the former chairman of the board of deacons (“former because McFarland fired him) said that the bylaws were not properly adopted and that the church members voted 80-1 to rescind them Oct. 5. That was the same day that they voted to fire McFarland.
The meeting took on a menacing character. Peacock accused Nathan Williams Jr., the former chairman of the board of deacons, of threatening him when they argued. He said that Williams, 80, threatened to kill him and to “pop” him. When police arrived, Peacock asked about “castle law,” or “castle doctrine,” the right to defend one’s property with force — something that we have previously discussed. Williams and other deacons said that it was Peacock who was threatening.
It does sound like McFarland has an argument about the legitimacy of the vote, though the bylaws were disturbingly one-sided. Moreover, the conduct of McFarland truly shocks the conscience. He has since turned over the keys, though there remains a question of access to the roughly $50,000 in the bank account for the church.
Price, a 1972 graduate of George Washington, ordered McFarlane to temporarily step aside. In 1997, Price received the prestigious John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award from the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library Foundation.
Source: AL
“Make a happy plate, for tis not thy goose that lies cooked here.” Shakespeare (Titus Andronicus)
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The first four million state court cases that were reversed gave the same clue as the second four million state court cases that were reversed.
NIl.
“You speak unskilfully: or, if your knowledge be more, it is much darkened in your malice.” – Shakespeare (Measure for Measure)
Squeeky – have you ever seen Julie Taymor’s Titus? It is her rendition of Titus Andronicus. Showed it to my h.s. students and they loved it.
“[Thine] face is not worth sunburning.” – Shakespeare (Henry V)
He is white-livered and red-faced. – Shakespeare (Henry V)
[music]
House could fall down. Baby could drown.
Wouldn’t none of them people care.
I’m a cracker. You’re one too.
Gonna take good care of you.
We’re Rednecks. Rednecks!
We don’t know our arse from a hole in the ground.
We’re Rednecks.
We are keeping the Baptists down.
–Jerry Jeff Walker
bigfatmike
@Dredd: “The Complaint in this case (PDF Link) clearly shows that a secular court is being asked to decide religious matters.”
Well, maybe. I haven’t read the complaint and might not understand the legal issues if I did.
But this is not the first time a court has decided which party is entitled to legal possession of church property.
In Fairfax, VA, beginning 2006 through 2012, the courts made decisions dividing church property between different groups of Episcopalians.
There may be important differences between that case and the one in this article. But if ever there were a case that involved state courts becoming involved with church law the VA case would seem to be it.
———————————————-
Paul C. Schulte
Periodically, the state is called in to settle disputes over church property. This is not the first and it will not be the last. Although I tend to think the 80 year old man was not going to ‘pop him’ since ‘pop’ would probably not be part of his vocabulary. Spreading God’s word, yourself and HIV (secretly) is a new one on me. 😉
===============================
If every time a state court did something it was ipso facto correct there would be no need for appellate courts.
I posted the Supreme Court cases on the issue of state or federal courts deciding religious matters.
If it does not involve a crime the secular courts must not establish their interpretation of a particular religion should do in a case.
Your opinions are noted and given their proper weight as was the Supreme Courts opinions..
issac
It may be time, or well past time, to place all religions under the same law(s). This business of fairy tales is nothing more than that, a business.
It is not a Business. Sorry. That is your opinion and you are obviously of a secular bend. Unfortunately, this man became involved in substance abuse and injected the drugs thereby contacting his disease and the balance of his mind was affected. This happens. It is very sad. The people in charge of the Church tried to remove him and he would not give up his Church. Did you even read the article and have any compassion whatsoever? NO. People like you never do. You just sneer at those who worship because you don’t understand it and you think it’s stupid and its something for you to project your negativity on. I hope you feel superior now.
Select persons profit because of their relationship(s) with the financial power of certain groups. The catholics, jews, protestants, muslims pool their money to give them advantages over those who simply can’t sit through a shpeal about this or that super hero. Then they get to keep the profits without paying taxes. If money is earned and then given to charities then that tax exemption/deduction should be universal. Churches are given preferential status to continue the separation of people. Perhaps if the state would simply cut all religions loose the sort mentioned in this article would diminish.
Issac, This is not about their power, its about Your power, Obviously you understand absolutely nothing about how a Church works and uses their Finances or sat through a meeting.
It is not so much the freedom of religion we should be focusing on. We have that and as long as all religions are subject to civil laws, a person should have the right to believe whatever fairy tale floats the boat/ark. What is more important is the freedom from religion. When we get past that, perhaps we will get closer to the most important goal, a intelligently functioning democracy; can’t have that with churches telling people how to vote.
Whatever. Get a life dear. 🙂
I think having sex with somebody when you know you have HIV should be legally forbidden regardless of consent. Only way to keep the crap from spreading.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
squeeky – in some states failure to warn someone that you have HIV is a crime.
@Sqeeky: “Only way to keep the crap from spreading.”
Actually, if you count condoms, there are at least two ways.
But you are right it is pretty despicable to infect a partner.
I suppose he could plead for mercy on the basis of impaired reasoning from a drug addled mind.
On the other hand he does seem pretty crafty, seizing the church assets, and did I read he had his crew guarding the church?
Oh well, Christians are so amusing. When it comes to entertainment value I put them right up there with pro football players.
@Dredd: “The Complaint in this case (PDF Link) clearly shows that a secular court is being asked to decide religious matters.”
Well, maybe. I haven’t read the complaint and might not understand the legal issues if I did.
But this is not the first time a court has decided which party is entitled to legal possession of church property.
In Fairfax, VA, beginning 2006 through 2012, the courts made decisions dividing church property between different groups of Episcopalians.
There may be important differences between that case and the one in this article. But if ever there were a case that involved state courts becoming involved with church law the VA case would seem to be it.
Periodically, the state is called in to settle disputes over church property. This is not the first and it will not be the last. Although I tend to think the 80 year old man was not going to ‘pop him’ since ‘pop’ would probably not be part of his vocabulary. Spreading God’s word, yourself and HIV (secretly) is a new one on me. 😉
It is unclear from the linked article, but it appears the restraining order concerns possession and control of the church’s property rather than the position of the minister.
Screw the parishioners? I never knew it was literal. Perhaps it is a new rite of that particular cult … no, sect.
HIV is not always a death sentence. Witness this case..
It may be time, or well past time, to place all religions under the same law(s). This business of fairy tales is nothing more than that, a business. Select persons profit because of their relationship(s) with the financial power of certain groups. The catholics, jews, protestants, muslims pool their money to give them advantages over those who simply can’t sit through a shpeal about this or that super hero. Then they get to keep the profits without paying taxes. If money is earned and then given to charities then that tax exemption/deduction should be universal. Churches are given preferential status to continue the separation of people. Perhaps if the state would simply cut all religions loose the sort mentioned in this article would diminish.
It is not so much the freedom of religion we should be focusing on. We have that and as long as all religions are subject to civil laws, a person should have the right to believe whatever fairy tale floats the boat/ark. What is more important is the freedom from religion. When we get past that, perhaps we will get closer to the most important goal, a intelligently functioning democracy; can’t have that with churches telling people how to vote.
McFarland sounds like he has some issues.
This is exactly why I oppose making employees unfireable, whether it’s in the public sector, clergy, government, or anywhere. Clearly the bylaws giving so much power to pastors, and making them unfireable, was a terrible mistake. The same thing happens when teachers get convicted of sexual assault against their students. They are virtually unfireable, so they get to retire on a nice pension when they get out of prison.
This also seems to be a criminal matter, in that he knowingly spread a terminal STD.
The Complaint in this case (PDF Link) clearly shows that a secular court is being asked to decide religious matters.
A criminal prosecution against Rev. Juan McFarland was the proper action, not the case that was filed in civil court IMO.
Although libertarian, I have to hold my nose on this one and say the judge had cause to rule as he has. But, allow me to give another side of the coin.
Annise Parker is the openly gay mayor of Houston. She pushed through what is called the HERO ordinance in Houston, and ordinance pertaining to equal rights for gay and transgender people. Some local pastors object to the ordinance and instituted a petition campaign for it’s repeal. Parker has subpoenaed emails, letters, sermons, of these pastors regarding the petition campaign. Although, Parker recently backed down on the sermons being subpoenaed.
There is an assault on the First Amendment and Second Amendments from the left. From this WH wiretaps of reporters, to universities speech codes and assault on due process regarding sexual offenses, to frightening instances like this situation in Houston. I was a liberal. Being a liberal when I was back in the 60’s and early 70’s is NOTHING like it is today. Free speech, the Constitution, were the core of liberal values. Now the Constitution is the enemy and the First Amendment an impediment to “progress.”
“In this country, the full and free right to entertain any religious belief, to practice any religious principle, and to teach any religious doctrine which does not violate the laws of morality and property and which does not infringe personal rights is conceded to all. The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect. The right to organize voluntary religious associations to assist in the expression and dissemination of any religious doctrine, and to create tribunals for the decision of controverted questions of faith within the association and for the ecclesiastical government of all the individual members, congregations, and officers within the general association, is unquestioned.” (Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679).
“During the course of a protracted dispute over the control of the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States and Canada, the Holy Assembly of Bishops and the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church (Mother Church) suspended and ultimately removed and defrocked the Bishop, respondent Dionisije, and appointed petitioner Firmilian as Administrator of the Diocese, which the Mother Church then reorganized into three Dioceses. The Serbian Orthodox Church is a hierarchical church, and the sole power to appoint and remove its Bishops rests in the Holy Assembly and Holy Synod. Dionisije filed suit in the Illinois courts seeking to enjoin petitioners from interfering with Diocesan assets of respondent not-for-profit Illinois corporations and to have himself declared the true Diocesan Bishop. After a lengthy trial, the trial court resolved most of the disputed issues in favor of petitioners. The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that Dionisije’s removal and defrockment had to be set aside as “arbitrary” because the proceedings against him had not in its view been conducted in accordance with the Church’s constitution and penal code, and that the Diocesan reorganization was invalid because it exceeded the scope of the Mother Church’s authority to effectuate such changes without Diocesan approval.
Held:
1. The holding of the Illinois Supreme Court constituted improper judicial interference with the decisions of a hierarchical church and in thus interposing its judgment into matters of ecclesiastical cognizance and polity, the court contravened the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 426 U. S. 708-725.
(a) “[W]henever the questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of [the] church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final, and as binding. . . .” Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 80 U. S. 727. Pp. 426 U. S. 708-712.”
(Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (1976)). The Opinion that matters is the one that counts.
“This Court first considered the issue of government interference with a church’s ability to select its own ministers in the context of disputes over church property. This Court’s decisions in that area confirm that it is impermissible for the government to contradict a church’s determination of who can act as its ministers. See Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679; Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U. S. 94; Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States and Canada v. Milivojevich, 426 U. S. 696. Pp. 10–12.”
(HOSANNA-TABOR EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ET AL.). Unanimous Opinion, 2011.
To me it seems like an ordinary Quo Warranto case. The church I presume is at least an organization registered with the government as such and has bylaws governing appointments of positions of leadership and is subject to the laws in this regard as is with other organizations such as domestic profit corporations, government political positions, trade unions or whatever it might be.
I don’t agree with his position this is strictly a church matter and not subject to the availability of courts of law to address the matter.
State intrusion into a church is unconstitutional.
Just prosecute him for intentional HIV infection.
“Thou call’st thyself a hotter name than any is in hell.” – Shakespeare (Macbeth)