Freethought & Rationalism Archive

George Oilwell · 09-13-2004, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Televangelist Paul Crouch, founder of the world's largest Christian broadcasting network, has waged a fierce legal battle to prevent a former employee from publicizing allegations that he and Crouch had a sexual encounter eight years ago.

Televangelist Paul Crouch Attempts to Keep Accuser Quiet

Why am I no longer surprised by this?
Will we see another "oh lord I have sinned" windowdressing speech?

jdlongmire · 09-13-2004, 07:56 AM

As a Calivinist, I am not...

But for fair and balanced posting...

TBN Responds - what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

ToMeK · 09-13-2004, 08:32 AM

That sure is a lot of money. Gotta try and be an accuser myself one day!

Question is, would at least 400 million do more good for charity (Oxfam, Unicef) than not accepting it and going after the freak?

Tomek

Demigawd · 09-13-2004, 09:24 AM

That's pretty funny, Jdlongmire, given one of the central dogmas of your theology is guilty until washed innocent in Christ's blood.

bfair2all · 09-13-2004, 01:49 PM

I really believe that every single one of the televangelists, every single one, is an atheist out ripping off the "sheep". And by the looks of it, they're doing a pretty good job.

jbernier · 09-13-2004, 08:07 PM

I am not sure why this is such a big deal. Settling out of court is a common practice in civil law. It is not necessarily an admission of guilt; it could simply be a case where lawyers are saying "You know, it would probably be in your own best interest to bite the bullet and let it go quietly." That might simply be because the lawyers think it might cost more to fight or a variety of other possible reasons. Corporations do this all the time, very often just for the sake of expediency. It is an important part of the legal system, lest things get too congested.

Either way, as jdlongmire pointed out, it does not sound like he has been found or plead guilty of anything yet. Until that happens I will give him the benefit of the doubt. That is because I think that western democracy came up with a great idea when it invented that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. This is important because, well, false allegations have happened once or twice in human history. It is not at all impossible that the accuser is simply lying through his teeth (maybe counting on the fact that many people will immediately assume that because the accused is a televangelist that he just must be guilty; which is to say that if he's a con man those who make such assumptions are precisely the people he's playing).

jbernier · 09-13-2004, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfair2all

I really believe that every single one of the televangelists, every single one, is an atheist out ripping off the "sheep". And by the looks of it, they're doing a pretty good job.

Who's being ripped off here? Let's look closely at a paragraph from the cited article, shall we:

Quote:

After Ford threatened to sue TBN in 1998, claiming that he had been unjustly fired, Crouch reached a $425,000 settlement with him. In return, Ford agreed, among other things, not to discuss his claim about a sexual encounter with the TV preacher.

But in the last year, Ford has threatened to go public with his story, prompting a flurry of legal maneuvers — conducted in closed court hearings, sealed pleadings and private arbitration.
<snipped to reduce length>
TBN and Crouch went on the legal offensive after they learned that Ford had written a book manuscript that included an account of the alleged sexual encounter.

In a dramatic flourish, Ford had appeared at a TBN broadcast studio in Costa Mesa, minutes before the start of a "Praise-a-thon" fundraiser, and, without comment, handed Crouch a copy of the manuscript.

Ford's lawyer later told ministry officials that they could keep the work out of public view by buying the rights. After some discussion, he suggested that $10 million might be a reasonable price.

While negotiations continued, Crouch sued to enforce the 1998 secrecy agreement and obtained a restraining order barring Ford from seeking a publisher for his book.

Orange County Superior Court Judge John M. Watson also granted Crouch's request to conduct the case in secret, sealing all documents and expunging any mention of the suit from public court records.

Both sides eventually agreed to let a private arbitrator decide the matter. In June, the arbitrator ruled that Ford could not publish the manuscript without violating the 1998 settlement — an act that could subject him to monetary damages.

Whoa. Hold the presses. So, basically Ford is saying "I'll make allegations against you. You offer me money to agree to stop making the allegations. I accept that money. Then I'll write a book about allegations that I already accepted money to agree to stop making. I'll threaten to publish the book of allegations that I already accepted money to agree to stop making if you don't buy the rights for another $10 million." Again, I ask, who is being ripped off? To me this reads like good ol' fashioned extortion.

jdlongmire · 09-14-2004, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demigawd

That's pretty funny, Jdlongmire, given one of the central dogmas of your theology is guilty until washed innocent in Christ's blood.

Paul Crouch is a sinner. So am I. Guilty as hell and doomed for eternity without the propitiation of Christ. Please make sure and get my sins right and not extort money from me based upon your knowledge of what implied guilt will do to the organization I manage.

Also, I do not support TBN in any shape matter or form, except in the hope that, admidst the garbage, a pearl of God's glory will shine through.

Happy Wonderer · 09-14-2004, 09:20 PM

That is a damn big settlement. How much was the guy earning at TBN? It seems like a hell of a lot more money than a jury would have given him for wrongful termination.

I vote "extortion." I also vote that this Crouch fellow must be loaded (or have a really interesting insurance policy...)

hw

I think these dollars are tax free, BTW.

Happy Wonderer · 09-14-2004, 09:23 PM

So why is Crouch in red? I didn't type that.

hw

Hmm, some weird display problem, on refresh it isn't. Demons! Demons, I tell you!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-13-2004, 07:56 AM	#2
jdlongmire Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: American by birth, Southern by the grace of God! Posts: 2,657	As a Calivinist, I am not... But for fair and balanced posting... TBN Responds - what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

09-13-2004, 08:32 AM	#3
ToMeK Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Melbourne Posts: 372	That sure is a lot of money. Gotta try and be an accuser myself one day! Question is, would at least 400 million do more good for charity (Oxfam, Unicef) than not accepting it and going after the freak? Tomek

09-13-2004, 09:24 AM	#4
Demigawd Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: On a sailing ship to nowhere, leaving any place Posts: 2,254	That's pretty funny, Jdlongmire, given one of the central dogmas of your theology is guilty until washed innocent in Christ's blood.

09-13-2004, 01:49 PM	#5
bfair2all Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: USA Posts: 115	I really believe that every single one of the televangelists, every single one, is an atheist out ripping off the "sheep". And by the looks of it, they're doing a pretty good job.

09-13-2004, 08:07 PM	#6
jbernier Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: ON, Canada Posts: 1,011	I am not sure why this is such a big deal. Settling out of court is a common practice in civil law. It is not necessarily an admission of guilt; it could simply be a case where lawyers are saying "You know, it would probably be in your own best interest to bite the bullet and let it go quietly." That might simply be because the lawyers think it might cost more to fight or a variety of other possible reasons. Corporations do this all the time, very often just for the sake of expediency. It is an important part of the legal system, lest things get too congested. Either way, as jdlongmire pointed out, it does not sound like he has been found or plead guilty of anything yet. Until that happens I will give him the benefit of the doubt. That is because I think that western democracy came up with a great idea when it invented that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. This is important because, well, false allegations have happened once or twice in human history. It is not at all impossible that the accuser is simply lying through his teeth (maybe counting on the fact that many people will immediately assume that because the accused is a televangelist that he just must be guilty; which is to say that if he's a con man those who make such assumptions are precisely the people he's playing).

09-14-2004, 09:20 PM	#9
Happy Wonderer Veteran Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Washington, the least religious state Posts: 5,334	That is a damn big settlement. How much was the guy earning at TBN? It seems like a hell of a lot more money than a jury would have given him for wrongful termination. I vote "extortion." I also vote that this Crouch fellow must be loaded (or have a really interesting insurance policy...) hw I think these dollars are tax free, BTW.

09-14-2004, 09:23 PM	#10
Happy Wonderer Veteran Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Washington, the least religious state Posts: 5,334	So why is Crouch in red? I didn't type that. hw Hmm, some weird display problem, on refresh it isn't. Demons! Demons, I tell you!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.