Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Saturday, June 28, 2008 | Reason : Wingnut News | print version Print | Comments |

Document Texas Supreme Court rules church can't be sued in exorcism

by Star-Telegram

Reposted from:
http://www.star-telegram.com/local/story/729096.html

Texas Supreme Court rules church can't be sued in exorcism
By MAX B. BAKER

A divided Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of a former Colleyville church Friday, saying church members who were involved in a traumatic exorcism that ultimately injured a young woman are protected by the First Amendment.

In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that the Pleasant Glade Assembly of God staff's efforts to cast out demons from Laura Schubert presents an ecclesiastical dispute over religious conduct that would unconstitutionally entangle the court in church doctrine.

Schubert described a wild night in 1996 that involved casting out demons from the church and two attempts to exorcise demons from her. The incident left Schubert physically bruised and so emotionally scarred she later tried to commit suicide. She was 17 at the time.

Justice David Medina, writing for the majority, said that while Schubert's argument regarding physical injuries might be tried without mentioning religion, her case was mostly about her emotional or psychological injuries from a religious activity that was sanctioned by the church.

For the court to impose any legal liability for engaging in a religious activity "to which the church members adhere would have an unconstitutional 'chilling effect' by compelling the church to abandon core principles of its religious beliefs," Medina wrote.

"Religious practices that might offend the rights or sensibilities of a non-believer outside the church are entitled to greater latitude when applied to an adherent within the church," Medina wrote.

He went on to say that when claims involve "only intangible, emotional damages allegedly caused by sincerely held religious belief, courts must carefully scrutinize the circumstances so as not to become entangled in a religious dispute."

Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, in a stinging dissenting opinion, wrote that the majority opinion is at times "imprecise and overbroad" and imposes an "erroneous standard" that would allow a church to simply claim a "religious motive" to avoid being sued.

He wrote that this "sweeping immunity" is inconsistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and that the First Amendment "guards religious liberty; it does not sanction intentional abuse in religion's name."

"This overly broad holding not only conflicts with well-settled legal and constitutional principles, it will also prove to be dangerous in practice," Jefferson wrote.

"Texas courts have been and will continue to be confronted with cases in which a congregant suffers physical or psychological injury as a result of violent or unlawful, but religiously sanctioned, acts," he wrote.

Since the incident, Pleasant Glade has merged with another Colleyville church.

The Schuberts moved to Georgia and were not available for comment Friday. William Wuester, their attorney, also was unavailable for comment.

David Pruessner, the attorney for the church, said he was delighted to win a case that has been a part of his life for more than a decade.

While he may not agree with what the church did, that doesn't mean it can be sued, he said.

"I personally don't agree and would not let one of my daughters face that kind of emotional pressure," Pruessner said. "But you can't sue a church because you find things they do emotionally disturbing."

Laying on hands

Schubert's account of what happened over several days at the Pleasant Glade church in June 1996 is harrowing.

Schubert and her brother were involved with church activities while their parents were out of town.

On Friday evening, during preparations for a youth group garage sale, the atmosphere became "spiritually charged" when another youth said he saw a demon.

Under direction of the youth minister, the youth frantically anointed everything in the church with holy oil until, at 4:30 a.m. Saturday, the minister told the exhausted youth that they had finally been successful.

At the Sunday evening worship services, Schubert collapsed. Church members "laid hands" on her and forcibly held her arms crossed over her chest, despite her demands to be set free.

She reportedly cried, yelled, kicked, sweated and hallucinated while also making guttural noises.

She was released after she calmed down and replied with requests to say the name Jesus.

The following Wednesday, during a weekly youth service, Schubert reportedly began to act in the same manner. She curled into a fetal position and asked to be left alone. Church members thought she was in distress and held her down in a "spread eagle" position with youth members holding down her arms and legs.

During the incident, she suffered carpet burns, a scrape on her back and bruises on her wrists.

Her father, Tom Schubert, himself an Assembly of God pastor and missionary, questioned what happened at the church.

His daughter experienced angry outbursts, weight loss and self-mutilation and eventually dropped out of high school her senior year. She was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

'Freedom to believe'

The family eventually sued the church, saying that their daughter had been abused and falsely imprisoned, but the 2002 trial never touched on the religious aspects of the case. The church's attorneys told a Tarrant County jury that Schubert's psychological problems were caused by traumatic events she witnessed while her parents were serving as missionaries in Africa.

A jury found the church and its members liable and awarded Schubert $300,000 for mental anguish, but the 2nd Court of Appeals in Fort Worth cut $122,000 from the verdict for loss of future income.

In the church's appeal to the state Supreme Court, it raised the question of whether the Fort Worth appeals court erred when it said Pleasant Glades' First Amendment rights regarding freedom of religion do not prevent the church from being held liable for mental distress triggered by a "hyper spiritualistic environment."

Justice Medina said that the court does not mean to imply that "under the cloak of religion, persons may, with impunity," commit intentional wrong, such as sexual assault or a minister having an affair with someone in marriage counseling, and get away with it.

"Freedom to believe may be absolute, but freedom of conduct is not, and 'conduct even under a religious guise remains subject to regulation for public safety,' " Medina wrote.

Pruessner, the church's attorney, agreed, saying that church members were simply trying to help Schubert and that there wasn't any evil intent.

"This was clearly a religious controversy, and I don't see how anyone can argue that they were seizing on religion as a get-out-of-jail-free card," Pruessner said. "I disagree vehemently with the spiritual beliefs of the church and how they handled it; it doesn't mean they are legally liable."

Joining Medina in the majority opinion were Justices Nathan Hecht, Harriet O'Neill, Dale Wainwright, Scott Brister and Don Willett.

Dissenting along with Jefferson were Justices Paul Green and Phil Johnson.

MAX B. BAKER, 817-390-7714

Comments 1 - 28 of 28 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #200721 by SomeDanGuy on June 28, 2008 at 7:01 am

I can psychology abuse and scar youths if I say it's part of my religion? Good to know, Texas.

How does freedom of speech allow you to hold down and torment a teenage girl??

Other Comments by SomeDanGuy

2. Comment #200727 by eellerto on June 28, 2008 at 7:09 am

 avatarAwesome! I live in Texas and there are a lot of people that I would like to abuse, namely republicans and religious nuts (surely a redundant statement). I just wonder which religion's umbrella I can do it under...I've got a lot to pick from.

Other Comments by eellerto

3. Comment #200728 by Corona Dave on June 28, 2008 at 7:09 am

>How does freedom of speech allow you to hold down and torment a teenage girl??

three easy steps:
1. the supreme court is mostly Catholic
2. they consider the pope a higher authority than the constitution
3. the Catholic church considers exorcism a valid procedure

the Catholic members of the supreme court have voted the Catholic position every time regardless of the constitution.

if the supreme court had the ability to write new laws, America would be a de facto Catholic theocracy.

Other Comments by Corona Dave

4. Comment #200735 by Mike O'Risal on June 28, 2008 at 7:23 am

 avatarCorona Dave,

This is the Texas Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court. I doubt that the Texas Supreme Court has many, if any, Catholics on it and the church in question wasn't a Catholic church but an Evangelical Protestant one.

That being said, what the court has done is effectively made churches in Texas a legal entity above normal law. They now have the right to hold people against their will for indefinite periods, inflict corporal abuse and punishments, and generally to force American citizens to accept any sort of religious ritual â€" no matter how barbaric â€" if they happen to be in a church in Texas. Laura Schubert, according to the court, effectively gave up her protection against false imprisonment by joining a church.

Which is very good reason, I think, for people in Texas to stop joining churches.

More here.

Other Comments by Mike O'Risal

5. Comment #200737 by PaulJ on June 28, 2008 at 7:25 am

 avatar
Church members thought she was in distress and held her down in a "spread eagle" position with youth members holding down her arms and legs.
That doesn't sound like action likely to alleviate distress.
"Freedom to believe may be absolute, but freedom of conduct is not, and 'conduct even under a religious guise remains subject to regulation for public safety,' " Medina wrote.

Pruessner, the church's attorney, agreed, saying that church members were simply trying to help Schubert and that there wasn't any evil intent.

"This was clearly a religious controversy, and I don't see how anyone can argue that they were seizing on religion as a get-out-of-jail-free card," Pruessner said. "I disagree vehemently with the spiritual beliefs of the church and how they handled it; it doesn't mean they are legally liable."
Just because "there wasn't any evil intent" doesn't, to my mind, let them off the hook. They clearly did damage, and should be held accountable for it. Saying you're sorry, but you were trying to help, doesn't absolve you from responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

Other Comments by PaulJ

6. Comment #200744 by EvidenceOnly on June 28, 2008 at 7:31 am

Freedom to believe also implies freedom to NOT believe.

These religious nuts deprived this teenage girl of her constitutional right not to be exorcised.

We need freedom OF and FROM religion.

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

7. Comment #200752 by TeraBrat on June 28, 2008 at 7:50 am

I'm stunned. I hope this goes to the federal supreme court.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

8. Comment #200760 by mordacious1 on June 28, 2008 at 7:59 am

 avatarTera said: "I hope this goes to the supreme court."

Do you mean the court that has 5 members that are of a church that supports excorcism? Good luck with that. It would be better if it just stops at a federal appeals level.

Other Comments by mordacious1

9. Comment #200770 by moderndaythomas on June 28, 2008 at 8:14 am

 avatarWon't be long before we're burning women at the stake again. A few more failed crops, a more resistant strain of bacteria, diminishing education. Hope you girls can run fast.

I'm going sailing.

edited for terrible spelling.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

10. Comment #200775 by heafnerj on June 28, 2008 at 8:22 am

 avatarIn the words of George Carlin, American is finished. With the courts stacked with conservative justices appointed by politicians purchased by big business, lobbyists, and groups like the NRA, there's no reason or hope to expect things to improve. It's over folks.

Other Comments by heafnerj

11. Comment #200778 by TeraBrat on June 28, 2008 at 8:24 am

As long as it's stopped. This is not justice!

Other Comments by TeraBrat

12. Comment #200806 by Lev-CapeTown on June 28, 2008 at 8:58 am

 avatarWas jus browsing conservapedia.com. Looked up FLAT EARTH THEORY as a joke and came up with the following sentence:::

"The Flat Earth theory was mostly invented and promoted by evolutionists for the purpose of slandering Christians."

Those religious fools will use any lie they can to keep people in the dark... What lying pigs

Other Comments by Lev-CapeTown

13. Comment #200840 by MikedubB on June 28, 2008 at 10:07 am

 avatarIs a 17 year old not underage in Texas? I was raised in El Paso, and I think it is. If so, then can she really be said to have been an 'adherent'? Especially when the religion in question may have dogmas and doctrines that can be expounded upon infinitely into unknown realms of obscurity? And can this not be said to be kidnapping in the instances where the group impeded the child's free movement without parental consent? Can you spank another parents child without their consent? I think the rights of the parents were violated here. Becoming a member in a church does not sign a persons children up for punitive actions from others does it?

Other Comments by MikedubB

14. Comment #200854 by PristinePanda on June 28, 2008 at 10:41 am

 avatarThree cheers for judeo-christian nutjobs! Just another proof that we're living (hopefully) at the very dawn of the evolution of our species. Sometimes I wish that I was born a few thousand years later. :D

Other Comments by PristinePanda

15. Comment #200883 by Border Collie on June 28, 2008 at 11:43 am

 avatarWhat have I been telling you guys about Fort Worth/Tarrant County?

Other Comments by Border Collie

16. Comment #200911 by AmericanGodless on June 28, 2008 at 1:00 pm

 avatarThe only thing that really troubles me here is that the girl was 17 years old, and her parents weren't there. What if she had been having an epileptic seizure? (For that matter, maybe she was!) Are people who hold an epileptic to keep them from injuring themselves in a seizure and to prevent choking going to be held liable for causing emotional distress? What about a sado-masochistic "scene"? At some points, this sounds eerily like S&M -- when she said the agreed-upon safe-word, "Jesus," she was released.

The lesson here is that in religion, as in so many other voluntary situations, there is an element of "caveat emptor." If she went in with open eyes (and was of legal age, an issue questionable, but not discussed in the article), had good reason to know how the others were going to act (as she certainly did on the second occasion), and suffered a rug-burn and a couple of bruises on the wrists, then she might have the right to complain about the injuries without bringing in the question of religion (says the court), but she doesn't have the right to complain in addition about emotional abuse.

This is a difficult case, but I don't think the decision is a license for churches to abuse their members. I would probably reluctantly agree with the court majority. Freedom of religion means the freedom to associate with nutty people. You do so, you take certain risks. I blame the parents.

Other Comments by AmericanGodless

17. Comment #200974 by qomak on June 28, 2008 at 4:50 pm

 avatarI can understand if they claim the emotional damage was caused in Africa. I can convince myself that maybe they did not mean harm. But I'll have to join the people above me who express their shock on this:

For the court to impose any legal liability for engaging in a religious activity "to which the church members adhere would have an unconstitutional 'chilling effect' by compelling the church to abandon core principles of its religious beliefs," Medina wrote.


In other words, let the Catholics psychologically torture their young, the mormons physically rape them and muslims honor kill their kids because they are supposedly participating one of their core principles? What the fuck is wrong with these people?

Other Comments by qomak

18. Comment #200978 by k1mgy on June 28, 2008 at 5:10 pm

 avatar"Schubert described a wild night"...

No, actually a really wild night, or two or three, is what the lot of them need. In fact, a non-stop weekend of boinking would wipe out all this nonsense.

Unfortunate side effect: they would multiply.

Other Comments by k1mgy

19. Comment #200999 by chuckgoecke on June 28, 2008 at 5:47 pm

 avatarDamn, Texas in the news again. The world must think we're a bunch of fucktards... well the people running this state are. The state always should have a compelling interest in requiring religious(or any other) groups to obey its laws and pay responsibly when they violate the rules or rights of individuals. Its not the court that would be doing the deciding, but a jury of citizens.

Other Comments by chuckgoecke

20. Comment #201043 by jo5ef on June 28, 2008 at 9:08 pm

"On Friday evening, during preparations for a youth group garage sale, the atmosphere became "spiritually charged" when another youth said he saw a demon. Under direction of the youth minister, the youth frantically anointed everything in the church with holy oil until, at 4:30 a.m. Saturday, the minister told the exhausted youth that they had finally been successful."
Talk about the demon haunted world, these people are detached from reality. Having said that, it sounds like the girls issues predate this particular episode to which she seems to have played along with to some extent (guttural noises etc).

Other Comments by jo5ef

21. Comment #201057 by flistr8 on June 28, 2008 at 10:12 pm

 avatarPerhaps it's just my bad attitude but, who gives a fuck?

What happens in Texas should stay in Texas.

Other Comments by flistr8

22. Comment #201075 by stephenray on June 29, 2008 at 12:22 am

Hey, good call.

I bet the Scientologists - as I write - are calculating how much it would cost to move lock stock and barrel from Flor'da to Texas. No more having to explain those pesky inconvenient deaths resulting from church doctrine.

Other Comments by stephenray

23. Comment #201146 by forksmuggler on June 29, 2008 at 7:14 am

 avatarThe only good thing ever to come from Texas is hold 'em.

Other Comments by forksmuggler

24. Comment #201150 by forksmuggler on June 29, 2008 at 7:20 am

 avatarThis has more to do with faith "healing" than exorcism, but a great comic nonetheless dealing with religious child abuse:

http://www.mattbors.com/strips/faithhealing.gif

This is the same guy who did the "praise Richard Dawkins" toon a few months back.

EDIT: Here's the link in case you missed it:

http://www.mattbors.com/2007/12/world-history.html

Other Comments by forksmuggler

25. Comment #201191 by 82abhilash on June 29, 2008 at 11:55 am

How about prosecuting individuals instead of prosecuting institutions. Institutions do not commit crimes people do. Some Institutions may be more agreeable to people with criminal tendencies but those too are created by people.

So the people who actively took part in the exorcism can be prosecuted as accomplices taking part in an act of torture. People who actually are responsible for inflicting the physical harm can be prosecuted for more severe charges.

The leadership of the church can be prosecuted for failing to exercise their authority to prevent a criminal act from taking place in the institution that they claim to run responsibly.

I do not know what laws are there in Texas that allows for this kind of legal strategy but it would have been a better way to go.

The beauty here is that the court need not officially express any opinion on the ideology of the institution in question. Only the criminality of the action of its individuals. So the first amendment is not an issue.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

26. Comment #201248 by ChicagoMolly on June 29, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Mike O Risal said:

... what the court has done is effectively made churches in Texas a legal entity above normal law. They now have the right to hold people against their will for indefinite periods, inflict corporal abuse and punishments, and generally to force American citizens to accept any sort of religious ritual " no matter how barbaric" if they happen to be in a church in Texas.


Hallelujah! This is the kind of decision the Busheviks have been waiting for. All they need do to get the heat off Guantánamo is turn the place into a religious retreat! If everything they do to the prisoners congregation is motivated by their sincerely held religious beliefs, they can do anything.

They could make waterboarding a sacrament. Arguably, it's a lot like baptism.

Other Comments by ChicagoMolly

27. Comment #201621 by action bastard on June 30, 2008 at 12:27 am

The real problem here is the fact that Texas elects their judges. Republican judges get campaign financing from conservative groups. Some candidates are not really qualified for state supreme court. When justice is for sale it skews the judiciary checks and balances.

Other Comments by action bastard

28. Comment #201629 by Roel on June 30, 2008 at 12:44 am

Many people fail to see that freedom of religion is a personal right. It allows you to practice your religion the way you want, but explicitly not to impose it to others. Not even if the other is a member of the same church as you are.

Other Comments by Roel
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: