1. I’m not an expert on contract law, but I had thought that
“If you do X, I promise to do Y,” there’s adequate consideration regardless of
whether X really “benefit[s]” the promisor in any tangible way. The classic
“I’ll pay you $1000 when you turn 21, if you don’t smoke before then” is, I
thought, an example of that (the X there consists in refraining from action,
but the analysis is the same). See Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 71 ill.
9.
It may well be that church officials do benefit from the
conversion – they might see promoting conversion as spiritually beneficial for
themselves (because it fulfills their religious duty) as well as for the
convert. But as I understand it, modern contract law doesn’t require us to
assess such matters, just as it doesn’t require us to determine whether the
offeror in the if-you-don’t-smoke illustration is benefiting from the offeree’s
not smoking. (The illustration had an uncle offering this to the nephew, and
the uncle may well derive emotional benefit from knowing the nephew is
abstaining from vice; but likewise church officials may derive emotional
benefit from knowing that the convert is achieving salvation through their
efforts.)
2. If V takes a nude photo of herself, sends it to D in
exchange for D’s promise not to distribute it, and then D breaches that
promise, I would think that would yield an open-and-shut breach of contract
case. Would there even be any controversy about that?
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Case, Mary Anne
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 8:46 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: RE: Christian convert's claim that church broke confidentiality
promise and thus exposed him to attack for apostasy in Syria
Eugene asks, “ Why wouldn’t that be a legally enforceable contract ?” What
consideration is there for the Church and its agents? Conversion is a benefit
to the convert, not the Church. Consider a secular analogue, plaintiff seeks
to participate in the rituals of a secular organization, be it the KKK or
Yale’s Skull and Bones, and extracts a promise that the organization’s leaders
will keep his participation confidential. When the organization is offering a
privilege and the individual is not even becoming a dues paying member, all the
consideration seems to be flowing to the individual. It’s a different case
when, for example, a reporter promises confidentiality to a source, because the
consideration is the information exchanged. Eugene also says in his WAPO piece,
“But if the defendants really agreed not to reveal this information, then they
have waived their free speech rights on this score.” Does that mean that
revenge porn is actionable breach of contract if before sending a compromising
picture the victim extracted a promise that it will not be more widely
circulated?
From:
religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 9:14 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Christian convert's claim that church broke confidentiality promise
and thus exposed him to attack for apostasy in Syria
Howard Friedman summarizes the decision in the case, but I’m not
sure it’s right. Among other things, the Complaint asserts that church
officials expressly promised that plaintiff’s “baptism and conversion would
remain private,” and breached that promise. Why wouldn’t that be a legally
enforceable contract (see
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/17/convert-to-christianity-sues-church-claiming-it-broke-confidentiality-promise-and-thus-exposed-him-to-attack-for-apostasy-in-syria/)?
Eugene
Feed: Religion Clause
Posted on: Sunday, June 26, 2016 11:28 AM
Author: Howard Friedman
Subject: Court Says Religious Autonomy Precludes Adjudication of Suit By
Torture Victim
In a fascinating decision handed down June 17, an Oklahoma trial court held
that the "religious autonomy doctrine" requires it to dismiss a suit against a
U.S. church by a convert from Islam to Christianity who was captured and
tortured in Syria because of his conversion. The facts are set out more fully
in a complaint (full
text<http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/1/40/140e84c2-8d10-5a54-9d3d-d13294c224d7/576db887d0b63.pdf.pdf>)
filed in 2014. A Tulsa, Oklahoma resident who was born in Syria decided to
convert, but told First Presbyterian Church leaders that his conversion had to
remain confidential because he periodically traveled back to Syria and the
punishment for apostasy under Sharia law was death. Despite assurances of
confidentiality, the church published an announcement of his baptism in its
Order of Worship, which was posted on the World Wide Web. After traveling back
to Syria, plaintiff was bound, beaten and tortured by radical Muslims who
threatened to behead him. He eventually escaped. His suit alleges that the
church is guilty of negligence, breach of contract and outrageous conduct
leading to extreme emotional distress.
In Doe v. First Presbyterian Church USA of Tulsa,
Oklahoma<http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/9/53/95392aab-1cb3-5434-bf1d-fb0f43dede43/576db88a24cf2.pdf.pdf>,
(OK Dist. Ct., June 17, 2016), the court held that the public dissemination of
the names of those who have been baptized "is a key part of how the Church
requires a conversion and baptism to be 'visible" to the world." The court went
on to say:
the simple dispositive issue is whether the public dissemination of Plaintiff's
name as a baptized person is "rooted in religious belief"....
[A] secular Court like this one must not consider claims ... that arise out of
a sacrament because a sacrament is part of the most sacred beliefs of that
religious institution.... Defendants' deeply held religious belief about the
visible, public nature of baptism must not be disturbed by this Court.
[emphasis in original]
Tulsa
World<http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/religion/ex-muslim-breaks-silence-on-nearly-being-beheaded-for-converting/article_c91cfbc8-42ac-55eb-924c-15a6c0d58fcb.html>
reports on the decision, with additional background.
View
article...<http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2016/06/court-says-religious-autonomy-precludes.html>
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
