Tuesday, July 29, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Church exorcism protected by First Amendment

by Telegraph

Thanks to John Humphrey for the link.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2466354/Church-exorcism-protected-by-First-Amendment.html

Church exorcism protected by First Amendment

A woman who claims she was injured during an exorcism performed by a Texas church group is reportedly planning to take her case to the US Supreme Court after state judges ruled the actions of the church were protected by the First Amendment.

Laura Schubert Pearson's lawsuit accusing members of the Pleasant Glade Assembly of God Church of subjecting her to a two-day exorcism ordeal in 1996 that left her so distressed she attempted suicide was dismissed by the Texas Supreme Court last month.

The judges overturned a lower court's decision awarding her damages and ruled that because Mrs Schubert Pearson's claims of injury amounted to a religious dispute over church doctrine it would be "unconstitutional" for the court to get involved.

Religious freedom campaigners say the case strikes at the heart of the US Constitution's First Amendment, which prohibits government interference in the free exercise of religion, and were the US Supreme Court to rule in Mrs Schubert Pearson's favour, it would signal "the end of church independence and religious freedom" in America.

Mrs Schubert Pearson, 29, claims she was left bruised and traumatised after members of her church group allegedly kept her captive for two days so they could perform an exorcism in which was pinned to the ground and "pummelled".

The incident happened after fellow members of the church group became convinced she was possessed by demons. She was 17 at the time.

After the alleged ordeal, she dropped out of school and tried to slit her wrists.

She told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, a Texas paper, that she was determined to seek justice from her alleged abusers after the Texas Supreme Court threw out her case claiming physical and emotional injury.

"You can't use your religious beliefs to get away with harming a child," the mother of two who now lives in Georgia told the paper. "This is so much bigger than myself. This is about not allowing the cover of religion to permit physical abuse in a church, and particularly to a child."

In the Texas Supreme Court ruling, Justice David Medina, writing for the majority, said that were the court to get involved and dictate a church's religious activities it would have "an unconstitutional 'chilling effect'".

The decision was opposed by three dissenting justices. Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson said it was "inconsistent with US 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," he wrote.

Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for Liberty Legal Institute, a non-profit organisation representing litigants in religious freedom cases, said the separation of church and state prevented government interference in religious practices except in extreme examples such as sexual abuse.

And while this might mean "certain harms may go unaddressed", he said, "the larger protection of the church and religious freedom is the overriding concern."

Mrs Schubert Pearson's claims were largely emotional and "so interwoven with religious practices" there was no way for a court to get involved, he added.

"The government can't get involved in overseeing religious practices. The best way to say it is it's not American.

"If she did prevail that would erase about 150 years of law in this country from the Supreme Court saying the government does not get involved in the internal affairs and operations of the church. It would effectively be the end of church independence and religious freedom in our country."

Posted: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 80 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #221237 by mordacious1 on July 29, 2008 at 12:58 pm

So, if my church believes in burning people at the stake, the government can't get involved? Nonsense.

Other Comments by mordacious1

2. Comment #221238 by nrvous on July 29, 2008 at 1:00 pm

And while this might mean "certain harms may go unaddressed", he said, "the larger protection of the church and religious freedom is the overriding concern."

Anyone else get a little chill from reading that?

Other Comments by nrvous

3. Comment #221239 by Ishruul on July 29, 2008 at 1:00 pm

If I get ordained does that mean I can hurt, kill, torture and mutilate people?

Sound like it a lot.

Other Comments by Ishruul

4. Comment #221248 by Gregg Townsend on July 29, 2008 at 1:06 pm

It would effectively be the end of church independence and religious freedom in our country

No. It would be the end of harming people against their will in the name of religion.

Protect freedom for those who want to participate, but take away the license to harm...in the name of god(s)

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

5. Comment #221251 by kraut on July 29, 2008 at 1:08 pm

This ruling means pure and simple:
Child abuse in the name of religion is permitted
Genital mutilation is sacrosanct
sexual child molestation is ok as long as it is done within a religious framework
killing apostates is condoned if done under the protective cover of a religion
killing atheists is perfectly legal, as to prosecute it would infringe on the rights of religious practice

Am I an idiot, or are those judges just plain bonkers?

Other Comments by kraut

6. Comment #221254 by SomeDanGuy on July 29, 2008 at 1:10 pm

If our commenters can point out the insanity of this position in just a sentence or two, what's wrong with these judges?

Next time I travel, I'm going to inform the TSA agents that my religion requires me to brandish a loaded gun throughout the flight. I'm sure they'll be ok with it.

Other Comments by SomeDanGuy

7. Comment #221256 by jamesspills on July 29, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Sounds to me like if anyone wants to commit a crime all one needs is the cover of religion. At least that is what the ruling judges opinion seems to state. Religion should have its freedom but it is still under the law.

Other Comments by jamesspills

8. Comment #221257 by Ishruul on July 29, 2008 at 1:13 pm

The Crusade is all the hype for the next decade it seem, with legal backing, no crime against humanity afterward....

Screw it all!

Other Comments by Ishruul

9. Comment #221264 by Ascaphus on July 29, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Nrvous: is this the chill you were talking about?

In the Texas Supreme Court ruling, Justice David Medina, writing for the majority, said that were the court to get involved and dictate a church's religious activities it would have "an unconstitutional 'chilling effect'".

Another question: are judges never held accountable for their official decisions?

Matt

Other Comments by Ascaphus

10. Comment #221270 by J Mac on July 29, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Odd, no one jumped to the defense of the attackers of 9/11. After all they were just expressing their religious freedom.

Oh yeah, they weren't a TEXAS church.

Other Comments by J Mac

11. Comment #221293 by Gregg Townsend on July 29, 2008 at 1:37 pm

9. Comment #221264 by Ascaphus

Wow. What a thought, Matt! That would be great but I can't think of a single instance I've ever heard of.

*opens a new tab to do a search*

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

12. Comment #221296 by Jagannath on July 29, 2008 at 1:38 pm

What troubles me the most is that the judges ignored her religious liberty. Perhaps they ignored other amendments also but am not well versed in them.

Had she agreed on an exorcism, things would be different. Written agreement, that is.

Other Comments by Jagannath

13. Comment #221310 by Notcrowingbutyawning on July 29, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Wonder if they'd take the same point of view if the complaint arose out of an act of homosexual sado-masochism?

Other Comments by Notcrowingbutyawning

14. Comment #221324 by Mango on July 29, 2008 at 2:00 pm

I don't expect the current U.S. Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, to overturn the lower court's ruling.

Other Comments by Mango

15. Comment #221334 by theonlybap on July 29, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Religious freedom campaigners say the case strikes at the heart of the US Constitution's First Amendment, which prohibits government interference in the free exercise of religion, and were the US Supreme Court to rule in Mrs Schubert Pearson's favour, it would signal "the end of church independence and religious freedom" in America.

So what do they want? With all the bills they try to push through Congress supporting their church and religious values, I can't imagine them actually wanting the complete separation of church and state! Of course, Christians always seem to pick and choose which laws (both church and state) apply to them. Is there no end to the hypocrisy?

Blake

Other Comments by theonlybap

16. Comment #221339 by rod-the-farmer on July 29, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Hiram Sasser, is the director of litigation for Liberty Legal Institute, a non-profit organisation representing litigants in religious freedom cases..... And while this might mean "certain harms may go unaddressed", he said, "the larger protection of the church and religious freedom is the overriding concern."

Good grief. Protection of A church takes precedence over the right of the individual to escape her tormentors. Prudence requires I not suggest ways of dealing with this, privately.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

17. Comment #221342 by Ascaphus on July 29, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Gregg: it seems that lawyers can be sued for malpractice if they don't address every available law, precedent, and legal technicality in pursuit of justice for their client. If they miss even one. Why can't judges be held accountable for ignoring precedent (as the other justices pointed out) or failing to protect the rights of the alleged victim in this case? Any rights! Religious, personal, inalienable, whatever. As long as they are immune to justice, how can they recognize it when they see it? The religious 'right' themselves are always carping about 'activist judges.' I agree - it's unacceptable. But the legislative branch has no say over how the judges act upon their laws. It is now up to the executive branch to chastise and remove the judges unwilling to protect individual rights over those of a church. Unlikely.

I can see why religious organizations would not want to be liable for 'emotional injury'...

Matt

Other Comments by Ascaphus

18. Comment #221344 by kraut on July 29, 2008 at 2:21 pm

"Is there no end to the hypocrisy?"

I assume this to be a rhetorical question.

Religion IS hypocrisy in ideology, and practice.
How else can one spout the "equality before god", but keep slaves, or other good intentions usually countermanded sveral pages later, spout respect of the human being (usually it means either the one from the same tribe - jews for instance - or the adherents to the same cult) and advocate geonocide.

The "sacred" idiocies - the quraen, the bible - old and new testament - are all amenable to interpretation to justify the most depraved actions, be it suicide bombers, witch hunts, slavery, intolerance, sexual discrimination etc.etc. The list is as long as the pages of those "sacred" unholy books.

Other Comments by kraut

19. Comment #221345 by kkelly on July 29, 2008 at 2:21 pm

I think her next legal move is a malpractice lawsuit for said botched exorcism.

Other Comments by kkelly

20. Comment #221349 by Gregg Townsend on July 29, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Matt,

It does seem hard to prove. (emotional injury) The 'victim' would need expert testimony of her condition that would need to be very compelling. Now, if she indeed had been bruised and it had been clearly documented, she should be able to prove physical abuse and may have a case against the perpetrators. Sadly, I think the religion is off the hook.

I agree with your comments about the judges. It's too bad they can't be held accountable for their decisions.

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

21. Comment #221353 by Ascaphus on July 29, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Kraut said:

"...Religion IS hypocrisy...."

I have never liked bumper stickers, but that is pretty good!

Matt

Other Comments by Ascaphus

22. Comment #221358 by kkelly on July 29, 2008 at 2:34 pm

I have never liked bumper stickers, but that is pretty good!

I have "93% of mothers regret their kids".

Other Comments by kkelly

23. Comment #221361 by thewhitepearl on July 29, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Oh but the church can weasle their way around the government any time.

I feel like I need a fag.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

24. Comment #221363 by EvidenceOnly on July 29, 2008 at 2:39 pm

So, all the current crooks in the white house need to do is to start the We-Fight-Them-There-So-We-Don't-Have-To-Fight-Them-Here Religion and they can torture anyone anywhere as long as they stay away from sexual abuse?

This is really really sick!

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

25. Comment #221368 by Ascaphus on July 29, 2008 at 2:43 pm

19 KKelly

Good point. Ever notice how religious organizations, creeds, churches or affiliates have absolutely no responsibilities or liabilities? Hmm...

Matt

Other Comments by Ascaphus

26. Comment #221370 by niyne on July 29, 2008 at 2:45 pm

The case is unpublished and currently unavailable for public view. I scanned it and it looks like the case was not about physical injuries. Emotional distress charges are almost always dismissed in cases against religious organizations because that would require investigation into the church doctrine and interpretation of scripture... which is certainly a separation issue. In this case, her psychologist said he could not separate the plaintiff's emotional distress from the religious grounds it was based on. Religious conduct is open to judicial scrunity, but courts cannot decide issues of religious doctrine.

It sounds to me that if a better case had been made regarding her physical and emotional state, it could have changed the outcome of this trial, because the woman was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (from this church event) after her suicide attempt. If the church isn't to blame, I don't know who is. She was a minor at the time...

Other Comments by niyne

27. Comment #221375 by The Schuermannator on July 29, 2008 at 2:52 pm

twp - I could use the same... I thought I was the only one who smoked here. hehe

Here's a hypothetical situation. How would the courts react if one of us walked into that church and announced we were atheists who were curious... I imagine they'd pin us down and exorcise us to get the demons out immediately.

What if Mrs. Pearson's traumatic event took place outside the church walls? In a park? At a friends house? At her own house? What would the courts say then?

Other Comments by The Schuermannator

28. Comment #221388 by stephenray on July 29, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Niyne:

Thank you. It's always useful to know the true basis on which cases are decided - often it clarifies if not explains the baffling aspects.

I'm still astonished to learn that in the USA actions that (in the UK, a country with an established religion) would be considered unlawful imprisonment - possibly kidnapping - assault, battery and possibly actual bodily harm, is (in the opinion of senior judges) protected by a constitutional provision protecting RELIGION.

Other Comments by stephenray

29. Comment #221420 by rthille on July 29, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Given the 'judge not lest ye be judged' bit, my church thinks all judges should be killed. That's ok, right?

Other Comments by rthille

30. Comment #221422 by Inferno on July 29, 2008 at 3:51 pm

This is pretty disgusting. The Christian Taliban wins again. Religious "freedoms" are more important than basic human rights.

Other Comments by Inferno

31. Comment #221428 by SASnSA on July 29, 2008 at 3:52 pm

"Mrs Schubert Pearson, 29, claims she was left bruised and traumatised after members of her church group allegedly kept her captive for two days so they could perform an exorcism in which was pinned to the ground and "pummelled"."

OK, that's false imprisonment and assault as a minimum. Now let's say the defendants were Muslim instead of Catholic (assuming Muslim doctrine included something similar to exorcism). Would the court have considered it out of their jurisdiction in that case?

Other Comments by SASnSA

32. Comment #221431 by Gregg Townsend on July 29, 2008 at 3:56 pm

27. Comment #221375 by The Schuermannator

I thought I was the only one who smoked here.

Not at all. I'm a two-pack-a-week smoker of Nat Sherman Natural Originals. Occasional cigar smoker as well.

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

33. Comment #221434 by kkelly on July 29, 2008 at 4:03 pm

33, Do you know that every year you smoke you're permanently destroying the walls of your alveoli? When you first notice symptoms of emphysema, you've likely already lost at least 50% capacity. Only about 20% of life-long smokers actually get a diagnosis of COPD, but practically ALL have significant loss of lung function that limits their freedom and comfort.

Other Comments by kkelly

34. Comment #221435 by Gregg Townsend on July 29, 2008 at 4:05 pm

34. Comment #221434 by kkelly

Yes, I know. *sigh*

Do you know that the only way to avoid death is never to be born?

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

35. Comment #221440 by kkelly on July 29, 2008 at 4:08 pm

35, do you know one of the surest ways to a miserable existence followed by premature death is smoking?

Other Comments by kkelly

36. Comment #221445 by 82abhilash on July 29, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Instead of bringing charges against the religious institution, why not just charge the people who perpetrated the vicious deed? That way the enlightened principle of religious freedom need not be threatened, the victim will still get justice and fewer churches leaders will be willing to perform exorcisms, because they do not want to go to jail for it.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

37. Comment #221463 by Pattern Seeker on July 29, 2008 at 4:41 pm

Those silly activist judges...

Comment #36-"do you know one of the surest ways to a miserable existence followed by premature death is smoking? "

"Do you know one of the surest ways to a miserable existence is listening to other people tell you how to live your life?"

Other Comments by Pattern Seeker

38. Comment #221480 by HitbLade on July 29, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Why shouldnt it be legal to hold people against their will for days and hurting them for their religious rituals. Religion is what needs to be protected!

Other Comments by HitbLade

39. Comment #221483 by Gregg Townsend on July 29, 2008 at 4:55 pm

36. Comment #221440 by kkelly

Not a very compelling argument there, bucko. I've been active, happy and productive for my whole life and smoked for more than half of it (longer than you've been alive by the looks of it).

Would the excellent quality of my life be enhanced by not smoking? I think you could make a good argument for that. But I'll warn you, guilt has no influence on me (thus I'm an atheist) and remember I've chosen my suicides with care and responsibility. So bring it on, laughing boy, convince me.

As just an observation: I'd say that your choice of the word "existence" suggests you don't have a high opinion of life. Perhaps you should turn that keen analysis of living inward. Hopefully, you could find, at least, some civility.

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

40. Comment #221488 by Goldy on July 29, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Comment #221480 by HitbLade
Oh good - a devil's advocate. Finally!

Other Comments by Goldy

41. Comment #221505 by thewhitepearl on July 29, 2008 at 5:12 pm

Why shouldnt it be legal to hold people against their will for days and hurting them for their religious rituals. Religion is what needs to be protected!

[WHACK]

Ohhhh son of a motherless goat, now I need to go buy a new bat.

35, do you know one of the surest ways to a miserable existence followed by premature death is smoking?

[pats head] That's your opinion dear.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

42. Comment #221508 by Apathy personified on July 29, 2008 at 5:15 pm

oh whitepearl...

Try a cricket bat this time - the flat edge and the other side both really HURT.

Edit: If i sometimes smoke when drunk - does that make me a 'smoker' and/or will i have a miserable existence because of it?

Other Comments by Apathy personified

43. Comment #221513 by funflower on July 29, 2008 at 5:21 pm

If she was there voluntarily, she has no claim regardless of how unhappy she was about the experience. If she was kept against her will, a crime has been committed, and the first amendment is irrelevant.

Other Comments by funflower

44. Comment #221516 by thewhitepearl on July 29, 2008 at 5:24 pm

If i sometimes smoke when drunk - does that make me a 'smoker' and/or will i have a miserable existence because of it?

According to the Teratornis Dictionary it does make you a smoker.

And according to the Kelly's Manual of Life you will.

But they aren't the only source of knowledge, thank jeebus.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

45. Comment #221520 by Apathy personified on July 29, 2008 at 5:28 pm

Oh well, can't please everyone.
Now we have a smoking ban - i have cut back, so still a 'teratornis smoker', but less 'kkelly miserable'?

Btw - you are free to use my aforementioned cricket bat, if you don't have a spare bat yourself.

Also

But they aren't the only source of knowledge

Are they not?

Other Comments by Apathy personified

46. Comment #221524 by thewhitepearl on July 29, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Apathy,

Thank you. I will borrow your cricket bat.Perhaps a warning to the public is in order?

Are they not?

Well they like to think that they are. Which is why we throw them a bone every once in awhile. It's a fun sport, I must say.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

47. Comment #221531 by Apathy personified on July 29, 2008 at 5:56 pm

Perhaps a warning to the public is in order?

Can do.
Attention. Any stupid comments WILL be punished by whitepearl expertly wielding a cricket bat. You have been warned

Other Comments by Apathy personified

48. Comment #221536 by thewhitepearl on July 29, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Excellent!

We're goofy. Please excuse us lurkers. Apathy is a prime example of what happens when you have been locked up with ants all day.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

49. Comment #221541 by croatcat on July 29, 2008 at 6:15 pm

Said while holding my ankles "religion is goooood".

Bring on the the bat. Man I miss seminary days!

Other Comments by croatcat

50. Comment #221547 by Apathy personified on July 29, 2008 at 6:22 pm

We're goofy. Please excuse us lurkers.

Maybe we are, maybe we are.... However, if others were commenting, our comments would be spread out - wouldn't look so bad, they deserve no apology. (see, blame everyone else - it works)

Apathy is a prime example of what happens when you have been locked up with ants all day.

Hehahaha - the ants! the ants!
Doesn't explain you though, does it?
Lurkers, whitepearl is a prime example of what happens when you hurt yourself doing a pas de bouree turn.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last