Was there anything interesting in the news yesterday?

I thought this was interesting. It's the story of a local start-up evangelical church (actually, not so start-up anymore, judging by their now-fancy web site). I know of this church because a former co-worker attempted to recruit me to visit it; one glance at their by-laws and rules, which were rife with important roles for men and only lowly servitude roles for women, provided all the evidence I needed to know this was not the church for me.

Apparently, two of this church's members spoke to the minister in what they intended to be a confidential manner about their struggle with adultery. The minister, plucking a passage out of the Book of Matthew in the Bible, decided that the appropriate way to deal with their confessions was to intervene one-on-one and, when that didn't work, to involve other church member and intervene in a group and, when that didn't work, to send letters to church members, the two individuals' employers and others in and out of the church in an attempt to shame them into changing their conduct. A few weeks ago, the two were able to obtain a temporary restraining order stopping the letters; however, an Associate Judge recently dissolved that order, permitting the dissemination of the letters.

I realize that the separation of church and state in the U.S. generally requires that the government not intervene in church affairs (no pun intended). But it seems to me that church affairs cease to be "off-limits" when they reach beyond the walls of the church. If an individual decided to send letters about her best friend's affair to anyone who would open them, I'm guessing the law would provide some sort of remedy to the best friend. I would also think an church may not lawfully commit murder or rape in the name of religion. Thus, in my off-the-cuff, haven't researched it on this early Friday morning view, the church should not be able to invade a person's privacy or commit other tortious conduct in the name of the Book of Matthew. My two cents.

***************************

Oh, maybe you thought the title of this post refers to this, the story of the Lay and Skilling convictions in the Enron trial?



Here's my take:

• Based on the evidence I observed, and I followed the trial rather closely, I believe they were guilty and the convictions were appropriate.
  
• I'm surprised Skilling dodged the bullet on most of the insider trading charges.
  
• Reading about the jurors' comments after the verdict, I was frustrated by the fact that they appeared to have relied at least in part on individual experiences that had nothing to do with the evidence in reaching their verdict, in contradiction of the jury instructions delivered by the Court.
  
• I am worried that the verdicts may not stand up on appeal, due to certain decisions made by the Court, including those regarding which jurors to seat and whether to give the jury an "ostrich instruction," meaning essentially that Lay and Skilling could not use wilful blindness to the company's problems as an excuse.
  
• It seems unfair that Lay and Skilling are able to remain free until their sentencing, that Lay can travel outside the Southern District of Texas (i.e., the Houston area) to travel to Colorado and that the sentencing will not happen until September.
  
• I am bothered that their sentencing will occur very near in time to that of my friend, Jamie Olis (Dynegy executive being resentenced after the Court of Appeals overturned Judge Lake's prior sentencing of him to 24 years), and in the same court as his sentencing, because I think Lay and Skilling's transgressions are far greater than Jamie's and fear there being any comparison being made in setting their comparative sentences.

My thoughts, for what they're worth.