Althouse: "I am being forced to go before a court run by a religion I no longer believe in."

November 4, 2015

"I am being forced to go before a court run by a religion I no longer believe in."

"How could that happen?"

The answer, of course, is that you entered into a contract in which you agreed to resolve disputes by that method.

34 comments:

Robert Cook said...: This is becoming a common practice, with the "agreement to arbitration" slipped in to user agreements that no one reads. It's being used to prevent aggrieved parties from being able to seek legal redress. As the article at this link states plainly: it's business power run amuck!; 11/4/15, 8:05 AM
Curious George said...: "Robert Cook said...
This is becoming a common practice, with the "agreement to arbitration" slipped in to user agreements that no one reads. It's being used to prevent aggrieved parties from being able to seek legal redress. As the article at this link states plainly: it's business power run amuck!"

Well, we are talking about a church, not a business, and it wasn't a user agreement, but other than that it was exactly the same.; 11/4/15, 8:10 AM
Robert Cook said...: The point is, CG, individuals are having their right to legal redress removed from them by covert arbitration clauses that many "agree" to without knowing they have done so. It is the same tactic to achieve the same end result.; 11/4/15, 8:18 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Contract law applies. It's no big mystery. We can discuss the extent to which these contracts should be regulated, but should the argument that you left the religion get you out of the agreement?

If you go into religion to serve your needs and it doesn't suit you in the end, when can you sue it for defrauding you? There's a bottomless pit of liability. How far into it do you want to go?; 11/4/15, 8:22 AM
Lyssa said...: If the arbitration agreement is truly covert, then I would agree that it is a problem. The article did not show that to be necessarily the case, though. People are responsible for reading and understanding contracts before they agree to them.; 11/4/15, 8:23 AM
Hagar said...: Do not sign things you have not read or do not understand after reading them.
How difficult is that?; 11/4/15, 8:26 AM
Lyssa said...: The idea of suing a church for it's failure to grant you a promised "enlightenment" is nuts. Makes you see why this person fell for Scientology's obvious racket in the first place, though. And a person signing an employment contract with a church school should be savvy enough to make sure that they understand that this is entirely different from a public teaching job.

I have a bit more sympathy for the parents of the alcoholic, as there may be a bit of a bait and switch or even outright fraud by the camp, and the person was under a slight bit of duress (though of his own making, as he was avoiding a justly earned sentence), but even if the camp was as terrible as alleged, I would have a very hard time finding the camp responsible for his OD. He was an adult and made his choices. It definitely seems like the state should investigate this camp further before allowing it to be used to avoid criminal sentences, though.; 11/4/15, 8:31 AM
Paco Wové said...: Business power run amuck? Well, somebody better reign that in.; 11/4/15, 8:50 AM
MadisonMan said...: I also have sympathy for the parent in the case of the OD. (I have sympathy for any parent of a teenaged/early 20s boy). I hope the mother can find the facts in the case, and I would think the State would have an interest in having the facts exposed, especially if they're still using the camp.

(It would also be interesting to see how the State's use of the Camp came into being. Who greased a palm?); 11/4/15, 9:01 AM
Gahrie said...: Mr. Ellison was also openly gay — something his friends said was not easy in Knoxville public high school, where teachers were allowed to question evolution.

1) What the hell does evolution have to do with homosexuality?

2) I would hope that teachers are allowed to question evolution, given that it is a so far unproven theory. That is kind of what teachers do.; 11/4/15, 9:37 AM
Gahrie said...: The point is, CG, individuals are having their right to legal redress removed from them by covert arbitration clauses that many "agree" to without knowing they have done so

Anyone who signs a contract they haven't read and understand is a fool.; 11/4/15, 9:38 AM
Freder Frederson said...: If the arbitration agreement is truly covert, then I would agree that it is a problem. The article did not show that to be necessarily the case, though. People are responsible for reading and understanding contracts before they agree to them.

The problem is that contracts are supposed to be an agreement between two parties. When you are dealing with a large corporation you can either take or leave the contract they offer. This used to be called a contract of adhesion, but no courts bother to look into the unfairness of it anymore.

Try this: Next time you apply for a credit card or loan, strike through the arbitration clause and substitute a paragraph that any disputes will be solved by the court system in your state. I bet they don't let you do that.; 11/4/15, 9:42 AM
John Henry said...: I agree with the commenters that if you sign a contract, you must abide by the contract. With certain caveats, of course.

What really jumped out at me was this part:

Then, almost as an aside, Mr. Ellison wrote about how the Christian-run program that was supposed to cure his drug and alcohol problem had instead “de-gayed” him.

“God makes all things new,” Mr. Ellison wrote in bright green ink. “The weirdest thing is how do I come out as straight after all this time?”

To his family and friends, Mr. Ellison’s professed identity change was just one of many clues that something had gone wrong at the program, Teen Challenge, where he had been sent by a judge as an alternative to jail.

Nobody else noticed that? Our hostess, as well as many others, have been telling us that gayness is innate. It can never be changed. (I've always thought that bullshit, myself)

Yet here, in a program that was not even trying to "de-gay" him, he winds up straight.

Perhaps it is not so innate after all.

It is also weird that he views this as a bug, not a feature given how we are constantly told that nobody would ever choose to be gay because of how hard life is for them. If that were true, who in their right mind would not want to be straight? (I've always found the life is harder argument to be at least partly bullshit, especially in the past quarter century)

John Henry; 11/4/15, 9:42 AM
John Henry said...: Emphasis added by me in the comment above

John Henry; 11/4/15, 9:43 AM
Freder Frederson said...: I would hope that teachers are allowed to question evolution, given that it is a so far unproven theory. That is kind of what teachers do.

Liar. evolution is not an unproven theory.; 11/4/15, 9:43 AM
Lyssa said...: Next time you apply for a credit card or loan, strike through the arbitration clause and substitute a paragraph that any disputes will be solved by the court system in your state. I bet they don't let you do that.

They would certainly *let* me do that. They would, however, choose not to enter into a contract with me with those new terms, as is their right. None of us are entitled to a credit card or loan on whatever terms we choose, any more than the company is entitled to have us as a customer.; 11/4/15, 10:18 AM
Lyssa said...: John Henry, I really don't think that this troubled young man "ended up straight." That was pretty much the point; his problems were not solved in any way, and ultimately led to disastrous consequences. Whether those problems were related to his sexuality, we have no idea, but coming to the conclusion that he was now straight certainly didn't help matters.; 11/4/15, 10:20 AM
John Henry said...: Lyssa said:

"coming to the conclusion that he was now straight certainly didn't help matters."

But isn't straight/gay all about what conclusion one comes to? Unlike male/female we have no penis/vagina to differentiate the two. If someone thinks they are gay, there is no physical evidence that they are or aren't. Ditto someone who thinks they are not gay.

So if he didn't think he was gay any longer, seems to me that he was not.

Now you could claim that this was the result of a mental process and you would be right. But it would have been the same mental process that made him gay in the first place.

John Henry; 11/4/15, 10:41 AM
YoungHegelian said...: Yet some lawyers and plaintiffs said that for some groups, religious arbitration may have less to do with honoring a set of beliefs than with controlling legal outcomes.

There's another reason, of course not stated in the article, for avoiding litigation & going to arbitration: the costs of litigation are routinely ruinous to both parties involved. If someone is serious about reducing the use of arbitration, how about trying to rein in legal costs?

Also, missing from the article, which discusses only Christian & Scientology use of arbitration, is any discussion of the two religious traditions that most often use religious courts: Muslims & Orthodox Jews. If in an Orthodox religious community, you take a fellow Jew to civil court before taking him to rabbinic court, that would be a huge black mark against you in the community. I can only think that Jessica Silver-Greenberg is well aware of this fact, but chooses not to mention it so she can dwell on the "religious weirdoes" the NYT wishes to target.; 11/4/15, 10:54 AM
n.n said...: The pro-choice cult practices rites of [virginal] human sacrifice and cannibalism. How could anyone miss that?; 11/4/15, 11:05 AM
Real American said...: "In 2008, Mr. Garcia reached the highest level in Scientology, where he said all of one’s past lives are supposed to be easily recalled. 'But that didn’t happen,' he said. 'That’s when I began to question everything.'”

That was the first clue?; 11/4/15, 11:18 AM
Wince said...: When he was admitted to the program, at age 20, Mr. Ellison signed a contract that prevented him and his family from taking the Christian group to court.

Can an individual sign away a family's member's own cause of action?

I always thought that avoiding a court (verdict anyway) in such cases had to be attempted through an indemnification clause, which would have little effect if the signor was judgment proof.; 11/4/15, 11:44 AM
MadisonMan said...: Can an individual sign away a family's member's own cause of action?

I was assuming the family members also signed -- and why wouldn't they? It would prevent the son from going to prison. So, signed under duress.

But the article doesn't address that at all.; 11/4/15, 12:17 PM
Michael said...: Never, ever, agree to arbitration on anything other than an accounting dispute. Otherwise, work it out or litigate.; 11/4/15, 12:20 PM
damikesc said...: Hell, I recommend people I have to deal with at work to READ our contracts and the contracts for others they want to use the services of instead.

All call me an "Asshole" for mentioning it.

Oh well.

When I worked at a game store, I was one of the few who made parents come in and buy mature titles for the kids that were underaged. I got nothing but grief for it.

People don't want responsibility.; 11/4/15, 12:51 PM
Quaestor said...: Always read the fine print.; 11/4/15, 6:46 PM
Adina said...: I have read about how Scientology uses contracts to limit peoples' right to recourse over at Tony Ortega's website The Underground Bunker.
When people sign contracts, they are almost never allowed to take them to show an attorney, or to keep a copy for their records.
Many of the processes in Scientology are based on hypnotic techniques, that are designed to make a person compliant, and do what they are told.
People are taught that if they disagree with anything they are told to do, that they are evil, as well as if anyone hurts them that they caused it by their own evil actions.
Even though many people who are out of the group report that they were unhappy while in, they kept going because they hoped it would get better. This is similar to someone who is in an abusive relationship who stays, hoping the person will change.; 11/4/15, 6:47 PM
SJ said...: @Freder,

evolution is not an unproven theory.

Darwinian, neo-Darwinian, or punctuated-equilibrium theory?

The latter two came after someone questioned Darwininan evolution.

Darwin's theory came after he questioned the stories that earlier biologists had told of slow changes to species. His big contribution was not the idea of evolution, but the idea of natural selection.

Darwin wasn't the first biologist to propose that many species had descended from fewer, earlier species.; 11/4/15, 7:41 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Anyone who signs a contract they haven't read and understand is a fool."

Maybe so, but do you read every bit of every user agreement for every product you buy, for every software application you install on your computers and smart devices, on the multiple pages of every cable or credit card bill you receive? If you find something you don't like, do you refuse to agree...and then return the product? Virtually no one reads that stuff...it's the white noise of technical writing. People click "agree" so they can get on with using the product.; 11/4/15, 9:12 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Business power run amuck? Well, somebody better reign that in."

When both parties are servile friends of business, who will reign it in? Not the Democrats, and sure as fuck not the Republicans.; 11/4/15, 9:15 PM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: Gays and Christians! Pretty sure it isn't contract law that's getting the NYT all het up.; 11/4/15, 11:10 PM
Carnifex said...: WOW!! All this could be solved if we just went to a sharia based court system. I didn't read the article, i don't waste my time with claptrap. Was sharia even mentioned?? Or is it just the old bubbaboo's about Catholics, and the Joo's?; 11/5/15, 1:18 AM
Carnifex said...: As an aside, I have yet to see a logical Darwinian explanation for the evolution of an eyeball. Organisms are supposed to carry around useless tumor like growths for millions of years and the SHAZAM!! It hooks up to the brain and we receive waves of light that get generated into coherent pictures of the world around us. SO... we have to evolve the eyes and their mechanisms for perceiving the light. At the same time evolving the nerves to direct the visual images to our brains, while evolving the mechanisms in the brain to receive the signals from the optic nerves, and also evolve the mechanisms that translate the optic nerve pulses into a coherent picture. All by chance. Over millions of years.

See that box over there? Its got all the parts of a car in it, unassembled. If you shake that box long enough, all the parts will eventually fall into the correct place and you'll have a fully formed car. I'll just wait over here til you get done.; 11/5/15, 1:27 AM
JamesB.BKK said...: A proven theory becomes known as a law. There is no Law of Evolution.

Here is an interesting and witty read from Fred Reed on the topic of evolution. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/fred-reed/darwinism-is-nonsensical/. And a follow up. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/fred-reed/the-end-of-evolution/; 1/6/16, 7:16 PM