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. […]
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. […]
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.”
A Dallas attorney, defending the Texas Court’s decision, said that “no one should think Friday’s ruling would give protection to a church leader accused of abusing a child.” But as PZ Meyers points out, that’s precisely what this decision did.
There is one thing I’d disagree with PZ about. PZ frames this case as being about religion:
No religious beliefs are to be examined critically, no matter how disturbing they may be. That’s the way things work down in Texas, I guess.
But only Christian churches would ever be accommodated this way; if a similar situation ever comes up involving a non-Christian religion in Texas, the Court will distinguish that case from this one, so the abusers may be punished. As David of The Debate Link argued in a paper last year (pdf file — see pages 58-64), US Courts tend to find that the first amendment requires bending the law to accommodate Christian customs and practice — even as it forbids bending the law to accommodate the customs and practices of minority religions.
If I’m right about that, then a peculiar and ironic result of the favoritism Courts give to Christianity is that Christian kids (especially girls) may (in this one, narrow area of the law) effectively have less legal protection than kids from minority religions.
This sort of logic chills me. I quickly can see the implications for women’s rights outside of just the basic right not to be assaulted during a bout of make-believe over demons that people have convinced themselves is real. Most of these churches are anti-choice—what if they argue that their religious freedom gives them the right to kidnap and contain women that they suspect of being sexual active or of seeking abortion or contraception? Is there a time limit on how long a church can restrain a woman because they believe their god gives them ownership over her body?
Or — seeking to be slightly less blatant about it — couldn’t a Texas church simply say that they’ve perceived a demon in any girl or woman whose plans they disapprove of, and hold and torture her on that basis?
they most certainly could.
its a scary possibility when all you have to do is claim to commit an act in the name of God & get away with it.
But its not new in history.
Look at the Inquisition.
The Christian religion has a particularly terrifying history of violence against women. To support the church without questioning the wider social impact is to agree with the submission, and abuse of women. We have not gone so far from the Salem witch trials that women forget what is possible in the name of the Christian religion.
You describe this as a women’s rights issue, but I have no idea who’s most at risk of violent exorcism. Women? Teenagers? Low status/unpopular people in general?
I have no idea who’s most at risk of violent exorcism.
My first thought was “children, particularly teenagers, who are so unfortunate as to have parents who belong to some especially deluded religion” but then I realized that I have no idea what the limits of this ruling are. Have Christian churches just been given legal permission to, say, kidnap Islamic people off the street and forcibly convert them? If no church can be held liable for what it does in the name of its religion, then why should its right to abuse be limited to its own members?
Have Christian churches just been given legal permission to, say, kidnap Islamic people off the street and forcibly convert them? If no church can be held liable for what it does in the name of its religion, then why should its right to abuse be limited to its own members?
Perhaps it would help people if they read the decision before jumping to wild conclusions. Religious organizations are not immune from liability for physical damage. In fact, in this particular case the church conceded liability for the bruises and carpet burns; at issue was the emotional damage to the girl surrounding the entire notion of demon possession. The court details all the many ways in established case law where churches would be liable. No sexual abuse by clergy, no kidnapping of Muslims could be considered acceptable, even after this particular ruling.
I would also like to point out another problem with relying on news reports rather than primary texts: neither the court, nor the church, nor the plaintiffs described the exorcism as violent. The girls injuries were consistent with a person being restrained during a seizure, not a violent attack as some have assumed.
The court appears to have made its decision on the chilling effect that would be caused by deeming the doctrine of demon possession and the practice of laying of hands, which regularly occurs with no physical injuries, liable for tort due to emotional distress; the girl claimed also to be distressed not just by the laying of hands to her but by the general teaching of demon possession. Perhaps this girls PTSD was particularly severe; perhaps these particular pastors were jackasses. But this ruling does not say that no church can be held liable for what it does in the name of religion. It is particular to the emotional distress caused to its members by its doctrines.
This is Texas, right? The same Texas that just said it’s okay to shoot & kill people that you perceive are burglars as long as they’re Latino… (which I’m sure extends to any minoriy)
I wish I could say I’m suprised at this, but from the state that thinks shooting minorities is okay, kills more people in their court system than any other state, & was the defendant in Lawrence v. Texas it really doesn’t suprise me that you can perform exorcisms to your hearts content.
Christians always seem to have ways of getting around the law. They can be blatantly misogynist and not even get a slap on the wrist and be LAUDED by the right-wingers. The same right-wingers who completely oppose the idea of Muslim women wearing hijabs, even if it’s completely their choice. If it’s THEIR fundamental religion, it’s all fine and dandy, if it’s someone else’s, it’s a problem. And anybody (such as Barack Obama, for instance) who says this isn’t right, this isn’t the way things should be–well, they’re crazy. Seperation of church and state is crap, after all, right?
Sorry for the rant, but it’s summer and I’m living in my parents’ house and I get so fucking sick of the right-wing crap.
The same Texas that just said it’s okay to shoot & kill people that you perceive are burglars as long as they’re Latino
Actually, it’s legal in Texas to shoot any person of any ethnicity if they are on your property without your permission (with some exception that I never quite understood involving beach access). The assumption is that you are protecting your home. Undoutedly, this is selectively enforced with minorities being the majority of the victims, but legally you have just as much right to shoot Bush if he wanders onto your propery without permission as you do a homeless, gay, black hispanic, atheist woman who does the same.
Religious organizations are not immune from liability for physical damage. In fact, in this particular case the church conceded liability for the bruises and carpet burns; at issue was the emotional damage to the girl surrounding the entire notion of demon possession. The court details all the many ways in established case law where churches would be liable. No sexual abuse by clergy, no kidnapping of Muslims could be considered acceptable, even after this particular ruling.
No one said attempts at forcible conversion have to be physically violent. What if they didn’t leave any marks? Then it’s all perfectly ok, right? After all, we’re still holding the churches to a higher standard than we’re holding the government.
Perhaps it would help people if they read the decision before jumping to wild conclusions.
Sorry about the multiple posts, everyone, but I wanted to add one last thing: Michael, you are absolutely right about this. Unfortunately, I can’t find a link to anything but the media coverage. Do you have a link to the decision itself? (Not that I’ll be able to interpret the legalese, but one should at least try.)
Dianne:
http://www.texas-opinions.com/08-Pleasant-Glade-Assembly-of-God-v-Schubert-Tex-2008-by-Medina-tort-immunity-for-religious-practices.html
The link is at the top of the page to the pdf.
No one said attempts at forcible conversion have to be physically violent. What if they didn’t leave any marks? Then it’s all perfectly ok, right? After all, we’re still holding the churches to a higher standard than we’re holding the government.
Well, I don’t think this is entirely correct. The decision did specify that deference should be given to the adherents of churches when it comes to proximal emotional distress. A cited case was a woman who sued the Jehovah’s Witnesses for “shunning” her; the court found them to not be liable for the emotional distress and loss of standing in the community. It does not sound from their reasoning that a forced conversion, violent or otherwise, would be acceptable. And I have a hard time imagining a situation in which a church (not individual Christians) could forcibly compel a Muslim to convert.
Of course what disturbs me is if there really is systemic bias against other religions in court decisions. I don’t think the remedy is necessarily less deference to religion but a more even-handed application of that deference. The government has an interest in promoting religious freedom and should be very wary of stepping into legitimizing or discrediting those belief systems, no matter how wacky they may seem.