At least they are consistent. A few weeks ago, the Texas Supreme Court decided it was OK for the FLDS cult in West Texas to abuse children, and ordered those children to be returned to the abusive environment. Now they have defended the right of another church to abuse youngsters -- this time the Assembly of God.
It seems that the Pleasant Glade Assembly of God in Colleyyville decided that a 17 year-old girl was possessed by a demon. Without her permission, or the permission of her parents (who were out-of-town at the time), the church members decided to perform an exorcism. They grabbed the girl and held her down while an exorcism was done.
She was not only physically bruised, but was so emotionally scarred from the incident that she later tried to commit suicide and was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I would have thought any reasonable person could see this was a case of abuse.
That's what the parents thought, and they filed suit against the church. A jury held the church liable and awarded the family $300,000. A Fort Worth appeals court later lowered the award to $122,000. Still, the church was held responsible for its actions. But the church again appealed the decision -- this time to the Texas Supreme Court.
This is where things went wrong. The Texas Supreme Court decided in a 6-3 decision, that even though the church did damage the girl emotionally and psychologically, they could not be held responsible. They overturned the verdict.
Justice Medina (who has his own legal and ethical problems) wrote the majority decision. He said since the injuries were caused by a religious activity sanctioned by the church, if the court imposed any legal liability for that religious activity "to which the church members adhere would have an unconstitutional 'chilling effect’ by compelling the church to abandon core principles of its religious beliefs. "
He went on to write, "Religious practices that might offend the rights or sensibilities of a non-believer outside the church are entitled to greater latitude when applied to an adherent within the church."
In plain English, any church can abuse its own members (even minors) without their consent (or their parent's consent) as long as they claim a religious reason for the abuse. This is a breathtakingly bad decision, even for a Republican court.
No one should be able to use religion to cover for abuse.
It's a good thing they didn't hear the cases dealing with pedophile priests.
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming this can be appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court ...
ReplyDeleteHoly Crap! By that reasoning, all an abusive Catholic priest has to do is say, "But, it's part of church ritual ..."
Makes about as much sense as what happened in the case you described.
Disgusting.
You both make a good point that I hadn't considered.
ReplyDeleteI hope this case is appealed to a higher court.
So does burning at the stake constitute a church ritual?
ReplyDeleteFor this court, it would if you were a member.
ReplyDeleteYour constantly bashing Christians and what you say is usually false or stretched very thin.
ReplyDeleteLets see if you will do a story on the real threat to the world.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/29/60minutes/main3553612.shtml
How about beating your wife as is common in Islam? You won't say anything about that I suspect.
ReplyDeleteAnd don't forget the previous majority liberal Supreme court said virtual child porn is ok and protected by the 1st Ammen.
Abortion is legal, even killing viable children is ok as long as it they are still in the womb.
Why should courts ruling against children this way surprise anyone?.
Let us know if this was a lib court or conservative.
CT-
ReplyDeleteAll six of the justices were CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS.
What I'm lerning about the courts is that regardless of politic's if something comes up that will make lawyers a bunch of money they will vote for it.
ReplyDelete