While for some folks the attempt by a British magistrate to summons the head of the Mormon church to a hearing in England seems silly, for others, including this writer, ominous is a better word. British magistrates, similar to their American counterparts, are at the bottom rung of the judicial ladder. This doesn't mean they don't perform a meaningful function, but they are not judges in the classic sense. Mostly, they hear cases involving minor infractions, and make decisions about whether people should or should not receive bail, and, if so, how much. Cases involving significant crimes are passed on to the higher courts.
One wonders, then, what this magistrate could have been thinking. According to an article in the British paper, The Telegraph, "Thomas S. Monson, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
has been ordered to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London next
month to defend the church’s doctrines including beliefs about Adam and Eve
and Native Americans." The theory, propounded by a former LDS member, is that by teaching certain doctrines, the church has defrauded him of the money he gave because these teachings are false.
Generally speaking, from a legal standpoint, fraud requires both an intent to defraud and that the defrauder know that what he is saying is false. How does Tom Phillips, the person who swore out the complaint (whatever term the British use in this instance), go about proving that Monson (a) knows the church's doctrines are false and (b) that Monson (or the church, generally) thereby intended to defraud him? Isn't the point so many naturalistic materialists are consistently making is that church people are deluded specifically because they in fact believe what they are saying is true? Legally, one cannot commit fraud by saying something is true and believing that something is true, even if it turns out the person is wrong.
What makes this ominous is that the magistrate would even allow something like this go past the initial stages. District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe, who issued the summons, has some discretion here and was not required to issue the summons, at least as I understand it. While we might laugh this off as something happening across the pond and, thus, having no meaning in the United States, think again. While the American colonists may have thrown off British rule, they didn't chunk everything British and anyone who doesn't recognize the intimate and longstanding tie between the two countries hasn't studied history. Our legal system still recognizes Blackstone, an 18th century British judge, as an important and meaningful commentator on the law. He's taught about in law schools and still cited by our Supreme Court.
While for right now we can laugh this off, knowing that the British magistrate has no authority to have the head of the Mormon church arrested if he fails to appear in her court, we should consider the larger implications. Right now in the United States the scenario is being played out in a different way with the legal actions against religious believers who disagree with homosexual behavior. This application of the weight of legal authority stems from a different notion (civil rights), but the implications are very similar: religious belief is merely that, belief. As a result, it isn't entitled to the same weight, or legal protection, as other views of reality. As secular courts continue to enforce what are peculiarly secular notions on those who are religious believers, the circle of reality religious believers will be legally allowed to inhabit will become smaller and smaller.
As a Christian, who happens to be a lawyer, what concerns me is not so much that we must face this new world, but how will we stand up to it? Will we, like Daniel, when faced with the edict to pray to King Darius or face the lion's den, continue to trust God and simply continue to exercise our faith, no matter what the cost, or will we close our doors and shutter our windows so that no one can see what we are doing? Or, will we lash out with our own lawsuits, belligerently demanding our "right" to speak, our "right" to exercise our religion and our "right" to peaceably assemble? My hope is that we find our inspiration in Daniel, who understood his true sovereign was not Darius, but the God of the universe. Jesus gave us the same example when confronted by Pilate.
No, the British aren't really coming, at least not in that sense. But we cannot ignore what is right in front of us as believers. Christianity has already been hauled in front of the court of public opinion and found lacking by many (I would argue most, but we'll get to that another time). Now, however, we are finding Christianity being hauled into legal courts and we should be ready for how we will answer. Will we simply lash out and lash back, or will we seek refuge in our creator and redeemer?
No comments:
Post a Comment