MK forum

to clarify, i am not accusing anybody of anything or trying to imply anything about Jane Doe #7's case. i am merely stating that, the fact that activity X may not itself be wrong does not have any bearing on whether subsets of activities within X are right or wrong in their own right. in the context of a lawsuit, i think this is sometimes overlooked in the context of the more general "academic" discussion.

sorry for any confusion.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2001/1-200/01-179_rep.pdf

Florida Supreme Court's decision regarding vicarious liability under the docrine of "respondeat superior" in another case. As you can recall from the Jane Doe #7 complaint, one of the two causes of action relates to respondeat superior. Not identical facts, but gives you some idea of the law.

Correction: the above is not the court's decision, but rather the petitioners brief - i.e., one side of the story. but, gives some indication of the line or argument.

Not to put too fine a point on it, this thread is not about legal questions, which baffle most of us, but about relationships between Christians, which is almost as difficult!

I only started this thread because I was asked about Christians taking other Christians to court. Since the question arose in the context of the outstanding lawsuit against NTM, I have assumed that the point was to question whether or not this sort of thing was in harmony with the Bible. And, of course, the first question to answer was, "Is NTM my (our) brother in Christ."

I thought it would be hard to answer that with a "yes," but I had no idea that it would be impossible. At the very least, I expected someone to make an issue of the fact that NTM is allegedly (to borrow one of NTM's new buzz words) composed of nothing but believers. If it is objectionable to sue one brother in Christ, why isn't it objectionable to sue a bunch of them who have banded together to do the Lord's work? And, doubly so when most of them are innocent of both the original offense and the subsequent cover ups?

NTM is obviously not a brother in Christ. Looking at the letter of the law only, the verse would not apply in any circumstance to law suits against NTM. But, how narrowly should the passage be construed and how broadly should the underlying principles be applied? I don't know.

There certainly are principles from other passages that we generally apply more broadly than to the identical facts of the passage. "Love thy neighbor" for one.

Unfortunately, scripture does not give us an interpretational guide...so we are generally free to spin it however best "suits" our needs.

I, for one, do not see any inherent problem with a secular institution determining the application of secular law or a panel of peers determining what the facts are.