6.29.2008
A Troubling Legal Precedent in Texas
Twelve years ago a 17 year-old girl in a Pentecostal church was restrained for several hours on two different occasions for the purposes of exorcism. She experienced rope-burns, carpet burns, and bruises. Feeling emotionally traumatized by this involuntary action, the girl was eventually diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, and her parents sued the church for damages and won. However, the Texas Supreme Court has now reversed that decision, saying that the previous ruling unfairly impinged on the First Amendment rights of the church.
"...the state Supreme Court dismissed Schubert's case in a 6-3 ruling, saying her lawsuit violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protections on religious expression — the latest in a string of decisions limiting judicial oversight of religious institutions and practice. "The case, as tried, presents an ecclesiastical dispute over religious conduct that would unconstitutionally entangle the court in matters of church doctrine," said the majority opinion, written by Justice David Medina."
All three opposing judges, including Chief Justice Jefferson, filed dissents. Arguing that this decision will sanction abuse, so long as the offending organization holds a fig-leaf of religion.
"After today, a tortfeasor need merely allege a religious motive to deprive a Texas court of jurisdiction to compensate his fellow congregant for emotional damages. This sweeping immunity is inconsistent with United States Supreme Court precedent and extends far beyond the protections our Constitution affords religious conduct. The First Amendment guards religious liberty; it does not sanction intentional abuse in religion’s name. Because the Court’s holding precludes recovery of emotional damages - even for assault and other serious torts - where the defendant alleges that the underlying assault was religious in nature, I respectfully dissent."
While this case happened within a Pentecostal church community, one could hypothetically imagine scenarios involving the modern Pagan community that could echo this young woman's trauma. Covener held against his or her will due to a "psychic attack"? Sexual misconduct? Abusive initiations? Inappropriate emotional control? So long as the rest of the group testifies that these practices are normal and accepted by the group, the abusers in question could escape prosecution or having to pay damages. Worse, imagine the fate of Christian minors interested in Paganism who could now be subjected to traumatic "exorcisms" or "re-education" with no recourse after the fact.
"Because providing a remedy for the very real, but religiously motivated, emotional distress in this case would require us to take sides in what is essentially a religious controversy, we cannot resolve that dispute," the Supreme Court ruled. "Determining the circumstances of (Schubert's) emotional injuries would, by its very nature, draw the court into forbidden religious terrain."
While I admire judicial neutrality when it comes to making decisions regarding religion (we don't want judges to favor one faith over another). This carries that ethic too far. Using "neutrality" as a way to avoid causing controversy allows for a multitude of evils to flourish. Abuse done in the name of religion is still abuse. No still means no, even if your abuser thinks a demon said it, and separation of Church and State doesn't mean religion is above the law or judgment. No religious faith should be a law unto itself, and I can only hope this case goes to the Supreme Court and is overturned.
Labels: abuse, law, litigation, Religion Clause, Religious Freedom, Texas
Comments:
It's not quite like that, according to the source material.
The reason that the case was thrown out, is because the physical injuries were not the issue the defendants were being tried for.
Laura was awarded for the damages, and then the defendants appealed to the supreme court.
This was based on the fact that the court had previously ruled that looking into the emotional damages would require religious inquiry barred by the first amendment.
Since all of the damages tried were psychological in nature, and it was impossible to separate the damages based on the religious practice and the damages from physical restraint, the supreme court ruled that trying the case would involve inquiry barred by the first amendment.
Laura's own psychologist was unable to say whether the PSTD that Laura is suffering from is due to religious damage or from the physical nature of the exorcism.
If the psychologist had been able to say without a reasonable doubt that the events in a non religious environment would cause the same effect, then the case could be tried.
Here's another example of existential bullshit overwealming common sense. If ANY body, motivated by ANYthing, harms me, physically or mentally, our constitution protects us regardless of that motivation from abuse. There is definitely something wrong with the critical thinking skills of this court.
Abuse is abuse is abuse. These people caused the girl mental and physical trauma, regardless of motive. The court's decision is wrong, wrong, wrong.
While morally it may be wrong, the legal system isn't going to touch how the church and it's members believe what they believe, with a ten foot pole. Laura, who was 17 at the time, also WANTED this to be done. She believed she was possessed, or that demons were trying to kill her or something, was terrified about it, and still attends the same church.
It's hard to tell whether it was the experience of the exorcism itself or whether she ALREADY had problems manifesting psychologically.
Mental disorders usually come in groups. I'd be surprised if she wasn't more than just PSTD.
While I agree that the system sucks, the problem is that the supreme court can't decide what church doctrine is real, and what is false. They would have to debate the validity of Christianity and the practices of the church itself.
That is why they are protected by the first amendment. Now, if the girl had been dragged kicking and screaming and wasn't attending the church anymore, that would probably be another story. But even then, they would still have to determine the source of the PSTD.
You can sue for abuse, but you can't sue the church because it's ideas on the existence of demons etc traumatized someone to the point of PSTD. The courts cannot determine if someone was actually possessed either. That would also be meddling in church doctrine.
So while we can say that the verdict is wrong, whether we, or the judges like it or not, legally, the hands of the supreme court are tied in this matter. Legally, there isn't anything further that can be done, without going into the validity of church doctrine, and the violation of the first amendment.
Post a Comment
It's not quite like that, according to the source material.
The reason that the case was thrown out, is because the physical injuries were not the issue the defendants were being tried for.
Laura was awarded for the damages, and then the defendants appealed to the supreme court.
This was based on the fact that the court had previously ruled that looking into the emotional damages would require religious inquiry barred by the first amendment.
Since all of the damages tried were psychological in nature, and it was impossible to separate the damages based on the religious practice and the damages from physical restraint, the supreme court ruled that trying the case would involve inquiry barred by the first amendment.
Laura's own psychologist was unable to say whether the PSTD that Laura is suffering from is due to religious damage or from the physical nature of the exorcism.
If the psychologist had been able to say without a reasonable doubt that the events in a non religious environment would cause the same effect, then the case could be tried.
Here's another example of existential bullshit overwealming common sense. If ANY body, motivated by ANYthing, harms me, physically or mentally, our constitution protects us regardless of that motivation from abuse. There is definitely something wrong with the critical thinking skills of this court.
Abuse is abuse is abuse. These people caused the girl mental and physical trauma, regardless of motive. The court's decision is wrong, wrong, wrong.
While morally it may be wrong, the legal system isn't going to touch how the church and it's members believe what they believe, with a ten foot pole. Laura, who was 17 at the time, also WANTED this to be done. She believed she was possessed, or that demons were trying to kill her or something, was terrified about it, and still attends the same church.
It's hard to tell whether it was the experience of the exorcism itself or whether she ALREADY had problems manifesting psychologically.
Mental disorders usually come in groups. I'd be surprised if she wasn't more than just PSTD.
While I agree that the system sucks, the problem is that the supreme court can't decide what church doctrine is real, and what is false. They would have to debate the validity of Christianity and the practices of the church itself.
That is why they are protected by the first amendment. Now, if the girl had been dragged kicking and screaming and wasn't attending the church anymore, that would probably be another story. But even then, they would still have to determine the source of the PSTD.
You can sue for abuse, but you can't sue the church because it's ideas on the existence of demons etc traumatized someone to the point of PSTD. The courts cannot determine if someone was actually possessed either. That would also be meddling in church doctrine.
So while we can say that the verdict is wrong, whether we, or the judges like it or not, legally, the hands of the supreme court are tied in this matter. Legally, there isn't anything further that can be done, without going into the validity of church doctrine, and the violation of the first amendment.
Links to this post:
