As you might expect from the headline, this case is disturbing, disgusting, and revolting.

What you might not expect is that the good guy in this story is the religious leader.

In 2009, an 11-year-old girl told her mother that, two years earlier, her 15-year-old male cousin had raped her (when she was nine). The facts in the case are horrific:

The victim awoke in the middle of the night when defendant pulled down her pants and underwear. He then penetrated her rectum with his penis. When the victim tried to yell, defendant allegedly pushed her face into a pillow and threatened to kill her if she told anyone. The second night of her visit, [the victim shared a bed with defendant's sister] H. The victim alleged that defendant came into the room in the middle of the night while H was sleeping. Defendant allegedly put his hand inside the victim’s pants and fondled her buttocks and vaginal area.

Upon hearing this, the girl’s mother informed the police, her husband, and the pastor of the church which — as it turned out — both families attended. The pastor, Rev. John Vaprezsan, knew the defendant well and asked him and his mother to come to the church to speak with him. He didn’t tell them what it was about.

Rev. John Vaprezsan

During that meeting, he elicited a confession from the defendant. Later, he told the victim’s family what the defendant had said. The family, in turn, told the police what had transpired.

While this sounds like an open-and-shut case — we have a confession, after all — it’s not quite that clear-cut.

In court, the defendant said that the pastor’s testimony could not be used against him because he had made it in private to an acting member of the clergy. There’s precedent for that — many states agree that when a person tells their pastor (or priest or whatever) something that is necessary to allow the pastor to fulfill his function, that statement is considered confidential.

It didn’t matter here. The trial court allowed the pastor’s testimony to stand. To no one’s surprise, the ruling went against the defendant.

So there was an appeal. This time, the new court said that it was wrong for the pastor to testify because the defendant’s statements had been made within the clerical-congregant relationship and were therefore privileged, meaning that the court cannot compel the pastor to testify, and the defendant can prevent the pastor from testifying.

Normally, if another “unnecessary” person is present during what would otherwise be a confidential communication, the privilege is destroyed. For instance, if I bring my sister with me to see my lawyer and I tell the lawyer I committed a crime, the lawyer could potentially divulge that to the police. I said it in front of someone else, after all.

But naturally, if the person making the statement is a minor, the rules are different. It’s pretty important for parents to be allowed to accompany their children during important conversations (like police interrogations, attorney consultations, etc). So, in this case, having the defendant’s mother present didn’t break the “confidentiality” rule.

The Appeals court essentially ruled in favor of the defendant. Even though a confession happened, it was considered confidential. It couldn’t be used against him. They excluded critical evidence in the case of an abhorrent crime.

…

This leads to some important questions: Is this really the morally correct thing to perpetuate in our society? Should there be a special privilege that’s based purely on religious views and hinders the prosecution of horrendous crimes?

The answers to these questions are complicated. The privilege is rooted in the Free Exercise Clause. That is, courts have found that it would violate the First Amendment to require clergy to violate their conscience by betraying the confidence their parishioners place in them. On the one hand, I have no desire to see First Amendment protections reduced in any way. On the other hand, we infringe on people’s rights all the time in order to serve some greater societal good.

The way most other privileges work (physician-patient, attorney-client, psychotherapist-patient) is that the professional in question may not reveal statements about past crimes. If someone tells their lawyer about a crime they’re planning which involves serious harm to another person, in some states, the lawyer must tell the authorities. But, if the crime occurred in the past, then the statements are still privileged.

We often require “violations of conscience” where they would serve a public good, like when we punish parents for withholding medical care from their children. Because of this, the Free Exercise issue pales in comparison to the cost in this case: A child rapist walking free.

The only remaining consideration, then, is whether there are any other reasons to respect the confidentiality of the relationship between a pastor and his flock. We protect communications between the other professionals and their respective clients/patients because we believe that frankness is crucial to those relationships.

Without believing you could privately tell your doctor the truth, you might not get the proper treatment. Without being able to tell your lawyer the full truth, no lawyer could adequately represent you. Does the same principle apply to clergy? Well, if you’re religious, I’m sure it does. I presume that the members of that church believe that their ability to receive spiritual counseling depends heavily upon the degree to which they can be sure it’s confidential. The question is, to what degree should a secular society be concerned with the spiritual health of church-goers, when it potentially has terrible consequences for crime victims?

Personally, I’d rather put this on the list of Free Exercise rights that are not absolute than allow such critical evidence to be excluded. The benefit of respecting the sanctity of that relationship just doesn’t rise to the level of overshadowing the benefit of putting a child-rapist in jail.

Would your cost-benefit analysis be different?

When it comes to Jehovah’s Witnesses and their religiously-motivated reasons to deny blood transfusions, the argument usually goes like this: If adults want to let themselves die for dumb reasons like that, let them. When they let their children die for the same reasons, they’ve gone too far.

…

A group of Amish men are currently in court because they refuse to install smoke detectors in their New York homes:

(via Blaine Shahan - The Associated Press)

[Amish resident] Andy Miller explained that it would be against their Christian beliefs to have something so modern in their homes.

It did not wash with the judge. Miller and the other Amish men were fined.

They refused to pay — pointing out that that would imply they had accepted that obeying God’s laws was wrong — and how could God be wrong?

Mr Ballan persuaded the judge to stay the case and contacted a religious liberty law firm that has taken it to federal court, where now it sits waiting to be heard.

Director David Belton spoke to one of the Amish men taking this case to court. He asked the man (Mose Miller) why he didn’t want to use a smoke alarm. Miller’s response was horrifying:

“I use this,” he said pointing at his nose, “or him,” and his finger pointed upwards. “I don’t need a devil on the wall to tell me if my house is burning.”

I asked him what would happen if he did not wake up and all his children were burned to death.

“If God does not wake us, well, that must be part of his plan,” Mose told me.

In other words, if something happens to my kids because of my own negligence, it must be part of God’s will.

It’s the same argument used by Christian Scientist parents who refuse to take their children to a hospital in an emergency because they wrongly think God will just magically fix everything.

It’s a bad argument and the safety of others ought to come before the irresponsible habits of deluded people.

…

What does all this have to do with blood transfusions?

When a blood transfusion is needed, it really only affects the person needing the blood and that person’s family.

When a house catches fire, it can quickly spread to neighboring homes in the community. Failing to detect fires early isn’t just a personal decision — the ramifications are huge.

The Amish deserve to lose this case.

Belton doesn’t think they will:

The chances are Mose and his recalcitrant friends will win their battle — they usually do.

For the sake of everyone else in that community, I hope Belton is wrong.

(Thanks to James for the link)

Attorney Cheryl Bormann is in the midst of defending alleged September 11^th conspirator Walid bin Attash, a member of the so called Gitmo 5.

It was while meeting with her client that the Chicago-based lawyer began dressing in an abaya — a traditional Muslim woman’s garment that covers everything but the wearer’s face — to avoid distracting her extremely conservative client.  Bormann herself is not Muslim. 

She claims:

“I want him to be able to fully concentrate on the proceedings at hand without any kind of interference or loss of focus.”

Bormann defending bin Attash in court (AFP)

As an atheist and a feminist, I generally find the idea of abayas, burkas, etc disgusting and offensive.  I think that they promote victim-blaming in cases of rape and the objectification of women in Islamic countries.  My initial reaction to her choice of covering her body, arms, legs, and hair was that she was  caving into a misogynistic tradition and that she was just encouraging their attitude against women.

Of course, who am I to tell anyone how to dress?  I kind of swayed to the thought that it is her choice to dress the way she wants and if she thinks that it is in her client’s best interest to not be distracted by her slutty, slutty hair, then so be it.  Sure, I find it fundamentally sick, but a lady needs a court victory!  I am pro-sensible clothing.  Maybe this is a really bright move on her part.

And then she said this:

“If because of somebody’s religious beliefs, they cannot focus when somebody in the courtroom is dressed in a particular way, I feel then incumbent on myself as his counsel to point that out and ask for some consideration from the prosecution.”

Nope.  You don’t get to tell other people how to dress, Ms. Bormann.  Sorry.  Your client has an insane, misogynistic, religious philosophy, not an ankle-allergy.  You do what you think is best for him, and if that includes covering your body or doing back flips or setting yourself on fire, that’s all your choice and your prerogative as his legal counsel.  Please do not expect anyone else to bend over backwards to accommodate his irrational fear of women’s extremities.

Julie Anne Smith used to attend Beaverton Grace Bible Church in Oregon. After her family left, other church members began to shun her — it was as if the pastor told them all to avoid the Smiths at all costs.

So Smith wrote up some 1-star reviews of the church online… and began a blog called “Beaverton Grace Bible Church Survivors.”

How did Pastor Charles (Chuck) O’Neal respond? With forgiveness? With an apology for her bad experience?

Nah. He’s suing her for $500,000:

… the pastor claims in the lawsuit he filed that her words, “creepy,” “cult,” “control tactics,” and “spiritual abuse,” are defamation.

…

The lawsuit didn’t just target Smith. Her daughter and three other commenters are also being sued.

“He can say what he wants in the church and say, don’t talk about this or don’t talk about that, or don’t talk to this person, but when you’re out in the civil world, you don’t do that anymore,” Smith said. “And he’s not my pastor anymore. He does not have that right to keep people from talking.”

The Smiths filed a special free speech motion to dismiss the lawsuit. It goes before a judge later this month.

The Streisand Effect is in full force since the media’s taken notice:

Neither the pastor, the pastor’s wife, nor his attorney wanted to speak with the press. Because, you know, they don’t want any negative attention…

Interestingly enough, in the few days since the story went public, the church has gotten multiple 1-star reviews on the Google and DexKnows websites

The way Pastor O’Neal’s handled all this just goes to show Smith was right to point out the “control tactics” in the church. They can’t handle honest criticism — it messes with the whole “let’s brainwash our congregation” thing.

So where are all the people who attend the church? Why aren’t they speaking out? Even if they like the church, do they support this frivolous lawsuit? Or are they just keeping silent so they don’t piss off this pastor-dictator?