June 28, 2008
-
A score for religious freedom?
The Texas Supreme Court has upheld a church's right to perform exorcisms. But what about individual freedoms?
( From the Associated Press) 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. (more)
I find the dissenting opinion interesting:
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.
I think too many religions (or individuals within a religion) today are abusive, either of the individual or in financial matters. But, it is a slippery slope, and one that must be tred very, very carefully. Freedom of religion is one of the fundamental pillars of this country, so many immigrants have come here to escape religious persecution by their government even before this was a country, and that freedom should be safeguarded. At the same time, how do we protect individuals from "abuse in religion's name?"
Comments (4)
If there wasn't such a fear of our own mortality we'd all be existentialists and would realise that the buck always stopped "here" and take responsibility for own lives instead of trying to invent and involve supernatural forces.
@SavonDuJour - I definitely second your call for more personal responsibility.
@SavonDuJour - you put that perfectly!
Doesn't freedom of religion also include freedom from religion? Some will argue that agnostic and atheism are a form of religion. The right to not believe should be protected as well.
I am also troubled by the age of the complainant at the time that the "exorcism" was performed. She was legally a minor, and possibly not in a position to be able to say no. I do not think that the 1st amendment gives a church the "right" to mistreat a child.
Comments are closed.