So the church's first amendment rights trump a 17 year-old girl's right not to be pummeled?
How would this affect, say, a native American's case on the constitutionality of smoking peyote?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Nothing at all, the first amendment protects religious liberty not their right to abuse children, this to me is so clear cut that it shouldn't even be debatable.
IP: Logged |
posted
Woah, no way will that be sustained in the US Supreme Court, and if it is, that's pretty messed up.
I'm as big a supporter of the separation of church and state as the next guy, but only so long as you aren't actively violating any laws. You can't just say "well it's my religion" and get away with anything you want. I'm pretty sure witch burning is still illegal. What happened to this woman is assualt. Breaking the law for religious reasons is still breaking the law.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: "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."
I give up. Where was mom during all this? Did she consent to the exorcism initially and now is essentially claiming spiritual malpractice? If so, why didn't she say anything about what she considered abuse when it happened?
Because if the church did this without her knowledge or consent at the time or didn't fully discolse what they were going to do when obtaining mom's consent, that would be a whole other issue.
I wish they gave a better description of what actually happened.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How would this affect, say, a native American's case on the constitutionality of smoking peyote?
It's already been determined that the First Amendment provides no protection for peyote use.
As for this case, I have no way to really evaluate. As described - holding her against her will and hitting her - it seems clear that this is not protected by the First Amendment. Which leads me to two possible conclusions: either the state court is off its rocker, or there's something else going on, which may or may not actually provide first amendment protection but which makes the issue closer than it appears in this article.
From the articles, I guess the former is more likely.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I give up. Where was mom during all this? Did she consent to the exorcism initially and now is essentially claiming spiritual malpractice? If so, why didn't she say anything about what she considered abuse when it happened?
When they say mother of two there I think they are talking about the girl who got abused, who is now an adult and a mother herself. They never mention the girl's mom.
And this is sick. I can't believe the degree to which the courts and people are defending the churches actions. It is not religious freedom to kidnap people and beat the crap out of them cause you think they're possessed!
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: And this is sick. I can't believe the degree to which the courts and people are defending the churches actions. It is not religious freedom to kidnap people and beat the crap out of them cause you think they're possessed!
I can believe it, but I still think it's sick.
Put yourself in their state of mind. If this girl was actually possessed by a demon, of course she would be resisting and asking them to stop. It's like the old witch trials when constant denial was seen as a confirmation of guilt.
I'll be very happy when a higher court overturns this travesty.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I don't know. If enough people start using the excuse "my religion made me do it", the SCOTUS may have to deal with it.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A couple of things jump out of the opinion at the start:
1) "Beating the crap" out of her probably overstates the extent of physical injuries.
1) The court specifically says "the First Amendment does not protect it from Laura’s claim of physical injury." The court notes that Laura's claims are not about physical injury, but emotional and psychological injury. They rely heavily on a 9th Circuit case (not binding in Texas, but used as persuasive authority) that says "[a] religious organization has a defense of constitutional privilege to claims that it has caused intangible harms – in most, if not all, circumstances." So this decision is NOT saying that the First Amendment allows churches to physically assault people.
2) The obvious response to the court's opinion is to distinguish mental harm caused by physical torts from mental harm caused by religious doctrines. The court found that Laura's expert "admitted that he could not separate the damages resulting from Laura’s physical restraint and the psychological trauma resulting from the discussion of demons at the church." There seems to be (I haven't evaluated it myself) pretty strong constitutional protection against damages caused by the mere discussion of religious beliefs.
3) The court spends a good bit of time saying their decision does not mean that "'under the cloak of religion, persons may, with impunity,' commit intentional torts upon their religious adherents." The touchstone seems to be whether the emotional anguish can be linked to the actions of the alleged tortfeasor without requiring an analysis of the religious beliefs.
The decision is not nearly as outrageous as I thought it would be based on the newspaper accounts. The decision also does not allow assault in the name of religion. It is, however, not a good decision.
I think the general proposition that the first amendment protects against imposition of emotional damages arising from the mere expression (NOT including actions such as restraining someone) of religious beliefs is a sound one. However, I think the majority opinion does not sufficiently explain its conclusion that there was no way to determine damages arising from the physical acts that accompanied the expression of those beliefs. To my mind, they rely too heavily on a single statement by Laura's expert. The rule as applied seems to eliminate damages if there is any element of religious beliefs having caused them. I think this is too broad a protection. It's clear from the expert that the restraint did contribute to the damages. I'm not sure if i think the commission of an intentional tort should totally breach the protection or if I think the expert should be required to assign some kind of percentage. But total immunity is wrong.
On my first scan, the dissenting opinions don't seem to squarely address this issue, which I think is unfortunate. I think they do adequately refute the idea that any amount of contribution by religious doctrine to the emotional damages should provide full immunity. But they don't fully engage on the issue of disentangling those damages.
In other words, and based only on a quick reading, I think the dissent narrows the protection to much, when the proper decision is a level of first amendment protection less than that provided by the court and greater than that desired by the dissent, with a finding that most or all of the damages lie outside that protection.
quote:I don't know. If enough people start using the excuse "my religion made me do it", the SCOTUS may have to deal with it.
True. but SCOTUS is not a court of errors - that is, it's primary purpose (as it views it, which is what counts given rules on cert.) is not to correct a single judicial error except in rare circumstances. Rather, it's primary purpose is to resolve disputes between different authorities (circuits, states) about what the law is. I've personally heard form 4 different justices at various times that they regularly vote to deny cert. in cases where they are convinced the lower court was dead wrong.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of curiosity, is there any legal "level" of restraint that can be applied by a parent to hold a child against their will? For example, on the low end I imagine that it is legal to put a baby in a crib. However, there must be a threshold above which (say a ten year old in a cage) that must be illegal. Is there an explicit one or is it one of those "reasonable person" thresholds?
As another example, if the Exorcist was real, would it have been legal to restrain Regan in that fashion?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is there an explicit one or is it one of those "reasonable person" thresholds?
I expect there's a general rule similar to reasonable person plus a host of court rulings which address specific instances, such as handcuffs illegal, holding arms OK, etc. And I'm sure this varies from state to state.
quote:As another example, if the Exorcist was real, would it have been legal to restrain Regan in that fashion?
Restraints in persons with mental disabilities is a hugely controversial issue. There is definitely a high level of restraint allowed when a case can be made the person is likely to hurt others or themselves.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The “laying of hands” and the presence of demons are part of the church’s belief system and accepted as such by its adherents. These practices are not normally dangerous or unusual and apparently arise in the church with some regularity. They are thus to be expected and are accepted by those in the church. That a particular member may find the practice emotionally disturbing and non-consensual when applied to her does not transform the dispute into a secular matter. (Bolding mine.)
I think that's a lot of what bothers me about the decision.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As soon as I get my Church of Odin registered, not only will I stop paying taxes, but I'll be able to raid coastal cities as part of my protected worship!
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clearly the exorcism did not work as she is still attacking Jesus.
This is a very interesting issue. I personally have been in situations where I am certain people were possessed but whether they were a danger to others or not has gone both ways. I don't think you could put a blanket statement about the constitutionality of exorcism. I think it would have to be on a case by case basis. When Mormons practice exorcism there is no physical violence involved, but neither is there prolonged restrainment, at least not that I'm aware of.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was the exorcism of Newel Knight, early in Church history.
The guidelines I've read on the subject state that it should not be done in cases where the suffering is due to mental or physical illness.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
A few church leaders, and not a few church members, describe experiences with evil spirits and casting them out.
IMO there's not much reason to try to distinguish between psychosis and phenomena that were archaically described as evil spirits or demons. From the LDS point of view the power of the priesthood should be able to cope with either. From the secular point of view there'd be no distinction whatsoever. From what I remember the LDS church doesn't have a well-developed theological stance on possession, other than the existence of stories about it in the canon literature.
(I should disclose I'm no longer a practicing LDS member lest my post appear to presume to speak for the LDS church.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: That a particular member may find the practice emotionally disturbing and non-consensual when applied to her does not transform the dispute into a secular matter.
I think that's a lot of what bothers me about the decision.
At 17, doesn't consent fall to her parent or guardian and not herself? Let's face it, parents do all sorts of things their kids don't consent to. Vaccinations spring to mind.
Ruling on if an exorcism is something a parent can consent to for their kid seems like the part that would violate the First Amendment. How could the government even rule on the existence of demons or evil spirits without infringing on someone's beliefs?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Mormons practice exorcism????
I've never seen THAT - or heard of it.
Puffy mentioned one example. I would not be surprised if the method is outlined in the priesthood manual.
Also remember if Jesus did it, and more especially if the apostles did it, the church's priesthood in theory must also be able to do it should it be required of them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't recall any place in the New Testament that has Jesus restraining an adolescent girl and beating the crap out of her.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exorcisms like what I have seen Catholics and some Protestant do are very similar to secular interventions for drug abuse. The difference is one has prayer and a Bible while the other has a person dragged to re-hab. There is the pleading and cajoling and even physical kidnapping in both situations. The secularist intervention even has therapists that act in the priest roles. If you don't believe me, just watch the A&E "Intervention" some time.
As for Mormon exorcism, it is rare and completely different than what you regulary think of. Laying on of hands is strictly the typical open palm touch that accompanies baby blessings, blessing of the sick, and etc. There is no restraint and no physical holding back unless the person is a danger to self or others. In that case a police officer or other secular person would be called in for help. Mormons are much more willing to concede abnormal behavior to mental illness or personal actions. Part of this is because it is considered up to YOU as an individual to get rid of satanic influences. That is because the belief that Satan cannot do anything without some kind of invitation.
Most of the stories of excorcism in Mormon folklore, if you will, comes from areas where a form of ritual paganism is practiced. Often the objects involved with the rituals have to be gotten rid of before the person can be purged. In non-pagan related stories it often manifests itself with those who use wiji boards, seances, and other activities were the dead are supposedly contacted. A place or a house is more likely to be exorcised of satanic Presence than a person.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: I don't recall any place in the New Testament that has Jesus restraining an adolescent girl and beating the crap out of her.
The New Testament does record several incidents where the Savior and the Apostles cast out demons.
In LDS belief, the keys they held were restored to the Church. That's what BlackBlade was referring to. He was not trying to claim those incidents were the same activity as the case referred to in the original post, nor implying that LDS exorcisms are the same treatment.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, the difference is that while people may use limited force to get a drug abuser into rehab, the force is not the method of rehab. Whereas force seems to be the entire point behind exorcisms.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
From my admittedly limited knowledge of exorcisms, it is possible that holding a girl to the ground and pummelling her might be an atypical form of exorcism. Perhaps other ones place more emphasis on the "the power of Christ compels you!" aspects.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't recall any place in the New Testament that has Jesus restraining an adolescent girl and beating the crap out of her.
This is a severe mischaracterization of the facts of the case that inspired this thread.
quote:Mormons are much more willing to concede abnormal behavior to mental illness or personal actions.
"More willing" than whom. It appears that you are comparing this to the Catholics and some Protestants mentioned in the preceding paragraph. If so, i think you're very misinformed.
quote:Whereas force seems to be the entire point behind exorcisms.
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: At 17, doesn't consent fall to her parent or guardian and not herself?
The ability of minors to consent to medical treatment varies from state to state (US) and province to province (Canada). The allowance in any case may depend on the state/province involved, whether it is consent to or denial of recommended treatment, the nature of the particular treatment involved, the nature of the relationship to the parents/guardians, certain characteristics of the minor (often subjective judgments about the minors state and quality of mind as made by others, such as the provisors), etc.
There is surely no hard and fast rule. It is always complicated.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, that seems to be what is alledeged by Ms. Schubert Pearson according to the Telegraph article in the initial post of the thread.
None of the descriptions in the dissents or the court opinion - each of which attempt to present the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff - support the characterization to which I objected.
Of course, the facts may not be as described in the court opinions. But the law is analyzed as if those ARE the facts. So, especially with regard to Alcon's use of the phrase, it's important to bear in mind what is that the court is "defending" under the auspices of religious freedom.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whereas force seems to be the entire point behind exorcisms. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As are you.
Then, Dag, the people that performed this exorcism, and the many others that resulted in the 'possessed' person's assault and/or death, are misinformed on how you or your particular religion peforms exorcisms.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then, Dag, the people that performed this exorcism, and the many others that resulted in the 'possessed' person's assault and/or death, are misinformed on how you or your particular religion peforms exorcisms.
Well, no - as far as I can tell, they weren't making a sweeping state about "the entire point behind exorcisms" - a phrase with an intentional broadening word "entire" and no limiting word on "exorcism."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then, Dag, the people that performed this exorcism, and the many others that resulted in the 'possessed' person's assault and/or death, are misinformed on how you or your particular religion peforms exorcisms.
Well, no - as far as I can tell, they weren't making a sweeping state about "the entire point behind exorcisms" - a phrase with an intentional broadening word "entire" and no limiting word on "exorcism."
Excuse me. The entire point behind exorcisms like these.
The calm, relaxing and consensual exorcisms are exempt from my opinion.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you. Given that you were responding to a post that discussed several types of exorcisms, the clarification is welcome.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have never heard of a calm, relaxing and consensual exorcism as least as reported in news stories and dramatized. What are those like?
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it is anything like an english bus driver telling two italian ladies who insist on putting their bags on the seats that if they don't remove them, he will kick them off the bus, it goes something like this:
"Excuse me, Demon. I am afraid that if you don't cease this activity at once, I am going to have to ask you to leave the person immediately. It is against divine law for you to continue your persecution of this person after I have clearly stated that you must do otherwise in order to ensure a safe reality for everyone."
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have never heard of a calm, relaxing and consensual exorcism as least as reported in news stories and dramatized. What are those like?
The statement of yours I objected to was "Mormons are much more willing to concede abnormal behavior to mental illness or personal actions."
Both the Catholic and the Anglican Church start off with the assumption that mental illness or personal actions are the cause of abnormal behavior.
I doubt most exorcisms are calm or relaxing. But most (in modern times, at least) are consensual. And they most certainly are not acts where the entire point is the force used. But that's a much smaller and less important issue than your statement about Mormons being more likely to think abnormal behavior is the result of mental illness or personal actions.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, CT. I still think since the charges against the church didn't include kidnapping, this was probably some kind of consensual act.
Occasional, the Mormon version is exactly the way I've heard exorcisms described before. The person possesed must want the demon removed or there's no point.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I have no idea one way or the other about this Church. I was just bemoaning/celebrating the vastly incomprehensible world of minority consents. *grin
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, FWIW, even in the context he put it in, I read the statement as "Mormons are much more willing to concede abnormal behavior to mental illness or personal actions than to consider them possibly inspired by demonic possession." Not comparing what Mormons think to what Catholics and Protestants may think but to what Mormons could think but usually don't (at least most Mormons-- but don't get me started on that.)
After a re-read I'm not sure which of us is correct in our reading, and if he meant it the way I read it he could certainly have been more clear about it, but just a possible interpretation.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I consider Mormons as fundimentalists (not the polygamy kind), and therefore I was comparing them to fundimentalist Catholics and Protestants. I define fundimentalists as those who believe in literal active divine interactions with people and not just a G-d concept.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
