Exorcism protected by the 1st Amendment?

[cantata]

Now I'm very much in favour of you folks across the pond having this "separation of church and state" malarkey, but this story put the wind up me somewhat:

"The Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colleyville church Friday saying that church members involved in a traumatic exorcism that ultimately injured a young woman are protected by the First Amendment.

"In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that the Pleasant Glade Assembly of God’s efforts to cast out demons from the [sic] Laura Schubert presents an ecclesiastical dispute over religious conduct that would unconstitutionally entangle the court in church doctrine."

http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/728136.html

Now as an individual case, it may be that the church had more or less to do with the young woman's injuries and suffering, but the legal precedent that might be set is surely more worrying; surely something like this should at least be properly and thoroughly legally investigated, and there should be a hearing? What do you think?

(It'd be nice if one of you helpful Americans could explain more to this ignorant Brit about your 1st Amendment and exactly why it gets in the way of investigating exorcisms.)

 

[stan1980]

It's early, and I'm kind of half asleep, but let me get this straight. If a church holds an exorcism, then the precedent is set that they can unlawfully lock people up and bruise and cut them? I mean, there is a good chance the young lady is milking all this, but that isn't the point really, it still shouldn't give the church the right to do whatever they want.

In the poll as well, 50% of respondents believe in exorcisms. What is wrong with people today?!? Sometimes I think we're still living in medieval times.

 

[Washington]

(It'd be nice if one of you helpful Americans could explain more to this ignorant Brit about your 1st Amendment and exactly why it gets in the way of investigating exorcisms.)

First and foremost, this is a southern court, and a Texas court, which means rulings that fly in the face of reason aren't all that unusual. (The force of the ruling only extends to the borders of Texas.)

As justice Wallace Jefferson said in his dissenting opinion, which I agree with, "This sweeping immunity is inconsistent with United States Supreme Court precedent and extends far beyond the protections our Constitution affords religious conduct," Jefferson wrote. "The First Amendment guards religious liberty; it does not sanction intentional abuse in religion’s name." I think it's a dangerous precedent for Texas jurisprudence. And, why the court ignored this aspect is a real poser, but as I said, This is Texas

 

[Crazy Liz]

You can read the actual court decision here:

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2008/jun/050916.htm

 

[Maren]

I'm hoping the case is appealed to the US Supreme Court. Since the issue hangs on a freedom of religion issue and appears to be based on the US Constitution, the US Supreme Court has a reason to look at this case. The decision looks to be poorly decided. While it would be true that it would be purely a religious claim if it was just about the existence of demons and exorcism, I would agree it is a 1st Amendment issue. Instead, it appears there are elements where the church leaders physically restrained her and continued to restrain her after she requested to be let go, as such the church abused the girls rights.

 

[Crazy Liz]

If the TX Supreme Court ever reaches a constitutional issue in a FLDS case, it will be interesting to see how they deal with this decision as a precedent.

 

[Beanieboy]

I don't think one can foam at the mouth at will for attention. It sounds like she has mental imbalance, and then coupling on the fear of "demons", it kind of exasperbated it. It is hard to determine whether the bruises and carpet burns were done by the Church, or self inflicted when she was writhing on the floor.

It does have all the makings for a cult, however (deprivation of sleep, not allowing them to eat), a form of brainwashing, and seems abusive to do this to a youth group. It's like telling 5th grade campers ghost stories, getting them worked up, and then saying, "what's that sound? It's the Crying Woman!" and soon, kids are sure that they hear it, too.

This kind of thing reminds me a lot of the show A Haunting. Usually, there is a family that starts seeing ghosts. It inevidably ends with calling a priest, holy water, annointing things with oil, which makes one wonder: Why is it that on this show, all of the people who are haunted Catholic?

It seems that the more you believe in God, the stronger you believe in the power of the Devil (sometimes seeing an archangel or even a demon, a peon of the devil, as stronger than the protection of God the Father, the HS, or Jesus.

You don't see the same reaction to people that aren't so religious, because they question if there is a devil at all, and if it is not simply man who can choose good or evil, because it exists within, and not without.

I worked at a half-way house, and there were a lot of people that sounded similar to this, but stopped when medicated.

 

[morningstar2651]

Now I'm very much in favour of you folks across the pond having this "separation of church and state" malarkey, but this story put the wind up me somewhat:

"The Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colleyville church Friday saying that church members involved in a traumatic exorcism that ultimately injured a young woman are protected by the First Amendment.

"In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that the Pleasant Glade Assembly of God’s efforts to cast out demons from the [sic] Laura Schubert presents an ecclesiastical dispute over religious conduct that would unconstitutionally entangle the court in church doctrine."

http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/728136.html

Now as an individual case, it may be that the church had more or less to do with the young woman's injuries and suffering, but the legal precedent that might be set is surely more worrying; surely something like this should at least be properly and thoroughly legally investigated, and there should be a hearing? What do you think?

(It'd be nice if one of you helpful Americans could explain more to this ignorant Brit about your 1st Amendment and exactly why it gets in the way of investigating exorcisms.)

Here is an annotated copy of the first amendment. It's a few pages long...I've included the most important sections, as well as the TOC.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1afrag1_user.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1afrag5_user.html#amdt1a_hd18
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1afrag6_user.html#amdt1a_hd25

Here are the actual words of the court:
Opinion
Dissent
Dissent
Dissent

 

[Eleveness]

[The First Amendment] still shouldn't give the church the right to do whatever they want.

I strongly agree with you, Stan1980. I certainly understand and appreciate the separation of church and state--each negatively impacts the other when the two are intertwined. But there are times when the government should step in and prohibit certain actions that a church may wish to take.

We all have human rights. Absolutely nothing can take those rights away from us--not our neighbor, not the government, and not a church. The government is charged with the task of defending our rights from those who would try to take them from us, as this church group evidently did to this young woman. There is nothing behind which a church, or any group of people, can hide in order to justify the violation of a person's rights.

 

[Merlin]

Now I'm very much in favour of you folks across the pond having this "separation of church and state" malarkey, but this story put the wind up me somewhat:

"The Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colleyville church Friday saying that church members involved in a traumatic exorcism that ultimately injured a young woman are protected by the First Amendment.

Now as an individual case, it may be that the church had more or less to do with the young woman's injuries and suffering, but the legal precedent that might be set is surely more worrying; surely something like this should at least be properly and thoroughly legally investigated, and there should be a hearing? What do you think?

(It'd be nice if one of you helpful Americans could explain more to this ignorant Brit about your 1st Amendment and exactly why it gets in the way of investigating exorcisms.)

The Texas Supreme Court decides on Texas law only.
the 1st amendment is a Federal law.
They cannot interpret federal law .

 

[Maren]

The Texas Supreme Court decides on Texas law only.
the 1st amendment is a Federal law.
They cannot interpret federal law .

This isn't technically correct. State Supreme Courts can and do make rulings based on the US Constitution. One example was Baker v. Nelson, a decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court that denied two men who sued to marry. At least a portion of their decision was based on the 14th Amendment.

When it was appealed to the US Supreme Court (since part of the ruling was based on the 14th amendment), the Supreme Court refused to hear the case "for want of a federal question". As such, the US Supreme Court was stating they believed the Minnesota court properly interpreted the US Constitution and that case is now considered a precedent for all courts in the US.

And since someone will ask why this doesn't mean the Massachusetts and California Supreme Courts ruled wrong and could be appealed to the US Supreme Court: both of those decisions were based on their state Constitutions rather than the Federal Constitution and so there again is no federal question.

 

[lawtonfogle]

It's early, and I'm kind of half asleep, but let me get this straight. If a church holds an exorcism, then the precedent is set that they can unlawfully lock people up and bruise and cut them? I mean, there is a good chance the young lady is milking all this, but that isn't the point really, it still shouldn't give the church the right to do whatever they want.

In the poll as well, 50% of respondents believe in exorcisms. What is wrong with people today?!? Sometimes I think we're still living in medieval times.

I answered yes, but on a much more general level. I would say the only help 99% of these things offer are Psychological in nature, but I do not discredit other things. I could come up with a bunch of crazy theories, but in the end, all I am saying is that I am leaving that door open for now.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I strongly agree with you, Stan1980. I certainly understand and appreciate the separation of church and state--each negatively impacts the other when the two are intertwined. But there are times when the government should step in and prohibit certain actions that a church may wish to take.

We all have human rights. Absolutely nothing can take those rights away from us--not our neighbor, not the government

Death penalty much?
and I could make a list if I need be.

 

[Merlin]

This isn't technically correct. State Supreme Courts can and do make rulings based on the US Constitution. One example was Baker v. Nelson, a decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court that denied two men who sued to marry. At least a portion of their decision was based on the 14th Amendment.

No.
the decision was a ruling about the state's law and its legality.

 

[Maren]

No.
the decision was a ruling about the state's law and its legality.

It doesn't matter. It was a Federal Constitutional issue that helped drive the ruling and, as such, precedent was set when the Supreme Court agreed that the decision was not covered by the 14th Amendment, it set a precedent that applies to all states and courts based on the US Constitution.

 

[Crazy Liz]

No.
the decision was a ruling about the state's law and its legality.

As I read the decision, it was about the constitutionality of the state's law under the First Amendment. The First Amendment is part of the US Constitution.

 

[Merlin]

As I read the decision, it was about the constitutionality of the state's law under the First Amendment. The First Amendment is part of the US Constitution.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

I read it as "Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (Minn. 1971), 409 U.S. 810 (1972), was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law..."

 

[Maren]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

I read it as "Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (Minn. 1971), 409 U.S. 810 (1972), was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law..."

Yes, the ruling was about state law but it was being challenged using the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. As such, the Supreme Court agreeing with the decision of the Minnesota court made that interpretation of the 14th Amendment binding in all of the United States.

 

[Merlin]

Yes, the ruling was about state law but it was being challenged using the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. As such, the Supreme Court agreeing with the decision of the Minnesota court made that interpretation of the 14th Amendment binding in all of the United States.

No.
It's not binding.
It is likely to be followed, but not mandatory.
It still can be tried in Federal court too.

 

[Maren]

No.
It's not binding.
It is likely to be followed, but not mandatory.
It still can be tried in Federal court too.

Perhaps the easiest way to explain this is from the Wikipedia article about Baker v Nelson,

Upon losing their case before the Minnesota Supreme Court, Baker and McConnell appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court dismissed the case "for want of a substantial federal question." Unlike a denial of certiorari, a dismissal for want of a substantial federal question constitutes a decision on the merits of the case, and as such, is binding precedent on all lower Federal Courts.