Plaintiff Uses "Religious Rhetoric"

Many details of Venessa Mills' case have already been described on this blog. However, one aspect that I have not highlighted so far is Mr. Mills' attorney's "put down" in court that Venessa (the plaintiff) was using "religious rhetoric."

I don't believe that a lawyer can make such a charge in court and still be considered ethical. But, unfortunately, double-talk to personally disparage the opposition is considered a "normal" form of attack in today's legal system.

The ironic thing is that Venessa Mills wasn't the one quoting scripture on the stand. Mr. Mills was the only one to do that - claiming that he wanted his children to be taught to "do to others what you would have them do to you." But while he was rewarded for his adultery by the judge, Venessa Mills suffered blatant prejudice against her religious beliefs in general. 

But while courts give lip service to "freedom of religion," they then engage in persecution and/or mocking if anyone actually exercises this right. Think of the term that was used against Venessa Mills; "religious rhetoric." It is meaningless verbiage, with the only intention of demeaning and ridiculing. It conveys no real point or purpose, and is used to make quoting the Bible or using Christian language appear to be somehow sinister.

This kind of accusation is used by people who either lack toleration for others' beliefs, or who are seeking to marginalize parts of the Bible that they do not understand or don't wish to put into practice themselves. It is used to twist the meaning of a person’s life and beliefs, while exempting the accuser from discussing the Bible or the issue in question. People often mock what they don't understand, and very rarely will anyone take the time to seek the truth.

When "freedom of religion" is acknowledged by the courts, but yet anyone who actually practices this right is immediately labeled "brainwashed" and ordered to get a mental evaluation - it's called hypocrisy. Since when does upholding the constitutional right to freedom of religion allow judges to order mental testing on anyone who doesn't fit into their own personal box of religious views? Since when can a mother's freedom of religion be used against her, and gossip and slander given more weight in a courtroom than evidence and truth?

Judge Mangum's interpretation of the Constitution, and of the term "fact," denies all logic and honest definition of the words.

It is blatant manipulation of the court system to allow such religious persecution and slander to conjure up knee-jerk reactions and condemnation. Any ethical lawyer or judge - or, indeed, anyone with a love for justice or a knowledge of such history as the Salem witch trials or McCarthyism - would be standing up against such behavior, not joining in it.

It is incredible that the courts can allow the accusation of "religious rhetoric" to be used against someone, but then will not allow the presentation of explanatory facts. The courts use the excuse that they cannot make decisions on whose religion is right or wrong - but that is a cop-out in this situation. It is clearly amoral and unjust by any standards to slanderously condemn the religious belief of a person and then muzzle the freedom of speech to defend oneself in court.

Secular psychologists will presume to test someone's mind because they use "religious rhetoric" - but there is no room for serious Bible discussion to prove sanity. I know that sounds like public school, but the schools have learned oppression from the courts.

There is a vast difference between disagreeing with a person's interpretation of the Bible and persecuting them for their beliefs. That difference is called justice.

Let's lay out the scenario this way:

• Attorney asks plaintiff to explain her behavior.
  
• Plaintiff quotes the Bible.
  
• Attorney demands that plaintiff explain in her own words.
  
• Plaintiff maintains that she believes what the Bible says and can only quote the Bible again.
  
• Attorney accuses plaintiff of "religious rhetoric" and of being "brainwashed."
  

Yet, transform the same sequence to a different setting and it becomes even more obviously ridiculous:

• Plaintiff asks attorney to explain her behavior.
  
• Attorney quotes the law.
  
• Plaintiff demands that attorney explain in her own words.
  
• Attorney maintains that she has to follow the law and can only quote the law again.
  
• Plaintiff accuses attorney of "legal rhetoric" and of being "brainwashed."
  

Venessa Mills should never have had this kind of accusation used against her in court, and the courts should never have had the authority to test her for "brainwashing" - which is a ridiculous idea, anyway - simply for practicing her right to freedom of religion by reading and quoting the Bible, praying, and teaching her children solid moral values.

Download this article as a PDF