1st Amendment Protects Church that Publicized Syrian's Conversion

[Jerome]

After assuring privacy, Presbyterian church announced on the internet its baptism of a Syrian convert from Islam:

CT: Oklahoma Supreme Court rules against convert tortured in Syria after Tulsa church publicized his conversion online

The man, whose identity remains anonymous for security purposes, said the church promised to keep his baptism quiet, since shari‘ah law demands that converts from Islam be executed.

in Syria, he was kidnapped by Islamist extremists—including his uncle and his cousin—who said they learned about his conversion....It was the first thing that popped up under his name in an internet search

He managed to free his bound arms, then struggled with his uncle for a gun. He shot his uncle, then fled. During the next few months, the man and his wife managed to make their way through Lebanon and Turkey back to the United States. An Oklahoma pastor who had known the man for several years told the Tulsa World that the convert’s claims were “absolutely credible”

“A key tenet of the Presbyterian Church is that baptism makes one part of ‘the visible church,’” wrote Judge Daman Cantrell. Listing those who have been baptized publicly “is a key part of how the church requires a conversion and baptism to be ‘visible’ to the world.”

 

[utilyan]

If he asked not to prior and they do anyways. Attempted Murder which might not fly in USA legally, but what agenda does someone have if you know they can be killed for revealing this stuff.

Forcing martyrdom that's murderous.

Jesus had to hide and run away multiple times. He avoided capture.

When Harod was killing all the infants, Mary and Joseph didn't say.....oh well hey "visible church".

Visible Church implies the use of Invisible church. Does baptism not qualify you for the invisible church?


Let those who force martyrdom on other try it themselves. Try going to north Korea.....quit being invisible over there. Lets get all those who think its ok a plane ticket over there.



Hey if a man sues your for your shirt you give them coat too.


"$75,000" <--- That is God almighty. Folks can sugarcoat that any-which-way.

Church should have said they didn't release that info as requested the action of some loose cannon attempting murder ect. or accident.


Website announcement is not a religious requirement, Jesus Christ did not instagram his baptism.

 

[JonC]

Interesting article.

The church, IMHO, should not have told the man it would remain private if they were going to put it on the website. But if it is a public declaration, then they should have told the man before baptizing him. Our history (Baptist history) is full of baptisms followed by persecution precisely because baptism identifies one with Christ. So I can see a failure on the part of the church, at least in educating the man to what would take place so that he could weigh the consequences of his faith.

That said, this is not an issue to be taken up within the secular courts. I believe Scripture teaches that these things are matters for the church (for me, the local congregation, but I suppose for this man it would be the presbytery).