Texas Court: Exorcism Protected by Law

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-06-28 02:07pm

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.

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.

"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.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25423465/

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-06-28 02:34pm

Wait, so if a church believes that molesting children is some sort of sacred ritual, it is OK? What about forced marriage and sexual slavery? Under this ruling the Warrent Jeffs sect cant be charged with anything

loomer · Post by **loomer** » 2008-06-28 02:56pm

Only in Texas, which is not where the majority of the FLDS cases take place.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2008-06-28 11:54pm

loomer wrote:Only in Texas, which is not where the majority of the FLDS cases take place.

They still had a fuck-ton of them. As I recall, that is where that Yearning for Zion Ranch which involved in the latest big case was located.

Of course they let them go because enough fruity cultists said they weren't fruity cultists, so there is precedent.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-06-29 12:07am

Stormbringer wrote:
loomer wrote:Only in Texas, which is not where the majority of the FLDS cases take place.
They still had a fuck-ton of them. As I recall, that is where that Yearning for Zion Ranch which involved in the latest big case was located.

Of course they let them go because enough fruity cultists said they weren't fruity cultists, so there is precedent.

Yeah... sadly all the crazy cultists (I resemble fruity, thanks) will go there because now it is legal....

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2008-06-29 12:30am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
loomer wrote:Only in Texas, which is not where the majority of the FLDS cases take place.
They still had a fuck-ton of them. As I recall, that is where that Yearning for Zion Ranch which involved in the latest big case was located.

Of course they let them go because enough fruity cultists said they weren't fruity cultists, so there is precedent.
Yeah... sadly all the crazy cultists (I resemble fruity, thanks) will go there because now it is legal....

Or stay because, you know, nothing has really changed and that's pretty much business as usual below the bible belt.

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » 2008-06-29 02:22am

I hope this gets appealed to a higher court, because it's an insanely irresponsible ruling.

Post by **Edi** » 2008-06-29 09:39am

The judges who were the majority in this decision ought to be impeached, removed from office and disbarred for egregious incompetence and failure to do their jobs.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2008-06-29 10:34am

Meh. It's Texas. This is what the voters want, and in a democracy where judges are treated like any other politician, it's what they'll get. That's one of the reasons I've never been there, and never intend to visit.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-06-29 04:36pm

Austin's not bad.

It's probably the least Texas-y place, in Texas.

The Spartan · Post by **The Spartan** » 2008-06-29 05:04pm

Kanastrous wrote:Austin's not bad.

It's probably the least Texas-y place, in Texas.

Yeah but this is took place in Fort Worth, which is probably the most conservative of the major cities in Texas.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-06-29 05:30pm

The Spartan wrote:
Kanastrous wrote:Austin's not bad.

It's probably the least Texas-y place, in Texas.
Yeah but this is took place in Fort Worth, which is probably the most conservative of the major cities in Texas.

I know.

I was responding to Darth Wong's general feeling toward Texas.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2008-06-29 06:17pm

I'm sure Bobby Jindal will be thrilled.