Community | July 28, 2008 | 11 comments

Church exorcism protected by First Amendment

source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2466354/Church-exorcism-protected...

Image
goldenways

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2466354/Ch...

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."
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Culture,   WTF,   13 more
  2. tags:
    News,  News and Politics,  Law,  World,  9 more
  3.     
    |

11 comments // Church exorcism protected by First Amendment

  • remanns
    • +1
      remanns  

    • "Why are we granting more deference and respect to MAGICAL PRACTICES in the 21st century than we are to psychology and medicine"?

      that IS the question.

    • 2 years ago
  • crob80227
    • +1
      crob80227  

    • The intertesing question is why religion is given special status over and above (for example) philosophy or psychology or even medicine?

      If these adults decided that the best PSYCHOLOGICAL treatment for the girl was a "re-birthing" exercise wherein she (at 17) would re-enact her own birth via being smotherd with pillows until she could physically fight her way out -- would we (as society) still insist that we must respect this practice and give it special legal protection?

      What if a doctor decided that the best way to treat the young lady was to simply drill a hole in her head to release the "ill bodily humors" as they did in the 1600's and then to attach leeches to the gaping skull wound? Would THAT be given extra special legal protections?

      I think the court have set a disturbing and dangerous precedent by allowing ANY insanity short of organ failure or death to be done so long as it's being done in the name of magic.

      And isn't that what this is? Magic?

      So the precendent is that you have a blank check in life to do almost anything you wish (just short of death) so long as you can excuse it be claiming....magical powers? That can't be right.

      Why are we granting more deference and respect to MAGICAL PRACTICES in the 21st century than we are to psychology and medicine?

      If a doctor pulls some questionable bullshit (like driling holes in someones head or "bleeding" someone) they recieve no special protection from the courts.

      If a quack psychologist accidentally suffocates or permentantly damages someone using a questionable technique such as "re-birthing" they receive no special protection from the courts.

      But if your legal defense is to claim that you were simply using your magical powers to battle invisible magical beings and that any injuries the girl recieved were the result of "demons" and not your fault -- you receive extra special legal protection?

      This is 2008 and not 1608, right?

    • 4 years ago
  • remanns
  • good_stuff
  • drownthem
    • 0
      drownthem  

    • This is fucking outrageous. If it was any other religion it wouldn't be tolerated. Why should there be such an attitude of respect to such ugly and primitive beliefs? Aren't we more advanced than this? It's time religion stopped being respected and started being belittled. I think tolerance can only take you so far. Then you need to start getting serious. There is no fucking excuse for this. If this was your sister, would you be in the mood for tolerance?

    • 4 years ago
  • RudyRudell
  • Nettle
    • 0
      Nettle  

    • This is rather sticky as Saladin said, but in response to what Delia said;

      In voodoo, among other smaller religions, it is ritual to sacrifice animals; slitting their throats and letting them bleed to death. It's really gruesome and the law sees that as animal abuse, but because it's a part of the religion it's untouchable. Boy do I know some vegans that would like to sink their teeth into that law.

      I think the only time the government can interfere is when there is massive damage or death caused to a human. The justice system doesn't take emotional distress seriously.

    • 4 years ago
  • JanaPokana
    • 0
      JanaPokana  

    • This is clearly a case of abuse and involuntary incarceration and I do not understand how this can be deemed acceptable only by virtue of it being religiously motivated.

    • 4 years ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • +1
      DeliaTheArtist  

    • This asks the classic question of where we draw the line between religious "respect" and common sense. Should every strange ritual automatically be respected just because it's "sacred" to someone? What about when it's dangerous and harmful, like in this circumstance? Human rights violations should not be protected under "my god told me to do it".

    • 4 years ago
  • goldenways
  • Saladin
    • +1
      Saladin  

    • A bit of a sticky issue.

      Clearly the first amendment protects them, but this is also clearly child abuse.

      The court doesn't have the right to stop the practice, but if the child says they do not believe and are in distress, I believe action should be taken immediately.

      It's not an issue of free practice if you make the arrests based on assault or harassment. If you are endangering another human's life, the practice of your religion is irrelevant.

    • 4 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos