Texas Court: Chuches can legally abuse followers under First Amendment

[The Senator]

FORT WORTH, Texas - The Texas Supreme Court on Friday threw out a jury award over injuries a 17-year-old girl suffered in an exorcism conducted by members of her old church, ruling that the case unconstitutionally entangled the court in religious matters.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices found that a lower court erred when it said the Pleasant Glade Assembly of God's First Amendment rights regarding freedom of religion did not prevent the church from being held liable for mental distress triggered by a "hyper-spiritualistic environment."

Laura Schubert testified in 2002 that she was cut and bruised and later experienced hallucinations after the church members' actions in 1996, when she was 17. Schubert said she was pinned to the floor for hours and received carpet burns during the exorcism, the Austin American-Statesman reported. She also said the incident led her to mutilate herself and attempt suicide. She eventually sought psychiatric help.

But the church's attorneys had told jurors that her psychological problems were caused by traumatic events she witnessed with her missionary parents in Africa. The church contended she "freaked out" about following her father's life as a missionary and was acting out to gain attention.

Abuse and false imprisonment?
The 2002 trial of the case never touched on the religious aspects, and a Tarrant County jury found the Colleyville church and its members liable for abusing and falsely imprisoning the girl. The jury awarded her $300,000, though the 2nd Court of Appeals in Fort Worth later reduced the verdict to $188,000.

Justice David Medina wrote that finding the church liable "would have an unconstitutional 'chilling effect' by compelling the church to abandon core principles of its religious beliefs."

But Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, in a dissenting opinion, stated that the "sweeping immunity" is inconsistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and extends far beyond the Constitution's protections for religious conduct.

'Intentional abuse'
"The First Amendment guards religious liberty; it does not sanction intentional abuse in religion's name," Jefferson wrote.

After the 2002 verdict, Pleasant Glade merged with another congregation in Colleyville, a Fort Worth suburb.

A message left for the church's attorney Friday evening was not immediately returned, and calls to two numbers listed in Schubert's name went unanswered.

Wonderful.

 

[Superhobo]

Here would be normally where I'd make an inappropriate joke about exorcisms and carpets burns - but this is just...whoo.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Insane. Literally insane. People think they can do whatever they want so long as it's done in God's name. Next were going to hear that catholic Priests should be allowed to molest children because they are merely practicing their religion.

 

[Sandman138]

Okay. So what's the problem with Muslim's forcing their wives or daughters to wear the veil? Or to stone her for being raped? Wouldn't prosecuting those actions be entirely defendable under this decision? How about Mormons marrying three girls under the age of consent?

I was under the impression that religious liberty ends where the constitution begins.

 

[StorminNorman]

Doesn't this throw out the entire case the state has against the radical extreme polygamist cult?

 

[Sandman138]

It should.

 

[Raiden]

I guess more cults will move to Texas now in order to avoid prosecution over their own practices, since this ruling basically gives them free reign over their followers.

 

[The Senator]

Okay. So what's the problem with Muslim's forcing their wives or daughters to wear the veil? Or to stone her for being raped? Wouldn't prosecuting those actions be entirely defendable under this decision? How about Mormons marrying three girls under the age of consent?

I was under the impression that religious liberty ends where the constitution begins.

Exactly. This is probably one of the most appalling state court decisions I have come across, when the court rules against a girl who was forced into partaking an exorcism against her will and suffered physical and mental repercussions from it.

Don't get me wrong--the Catholics can perform as many exorcisms as they want. That's fine with me. But I believe the church should be held at fault the moment that procedure goes bad, especially after the victim in question is harmed in the process, and even more so when the victim is forced to undergo such a procedure.

 

[The Senator]

Doesn't this throw out the entire case the state has against the radical extreme polygamist cult?

Nope, because those guys are radical Mormons, and Mormons are just plain icky.

 

[Sandman138]

Justice isn't blind, she's just myopic... and a ****e.