Exorcism protected by the 1st Amendment?

[Paulos23]

Honestly, what the members of that church did was a crime. The 17 year old girl was subjected to physical restraint and emotional stress. She suffered bruises and was so scarred she tried to commit suicide. This was done not once but twice to her, the first time because she collapsed, the second because she curled up into a ball and became non-responsive. Neither of those justified what was done to her, in fact it probably made it worse.

How would you like to have a group of friends you trust just start beating you up. That is what it was like for her. This was a big betrayal of trust and the church nor its members should be exempted from facing the civil suit consequences.

This really needs to go to the US Supreme Court, since what the Texas Supreme Court just justified is any religious organization mistreating its members. If that is the case, might as well let the FDLS members back onto their compound with their kids.

 

[Eleveness]

Honestly, what the members of that church did was a crime. The 17 year old girl was subjected to physical restraint and emotional stress. She suffered bruises and was so scarred she tried to commit suicide. This was done not once but twice to her, the first time because she collapsed, the second because she curled up into a ball and became non-responsive. Neither of those justified what was done to her, in fact it probably made it worse.

How would you like to have a group of friends you trust just start beating you up. That is what it was like for her. This was a big betrayal of trust and the church nor its members should be exempted from facing the civil suit consequences.

This really needs to go to the US Supreme Court, since what the Texas Supreme Court just justified is any religious organization mistreating its members. If that is the case, might as well let the FDLS members back onto their compound with their kids.

Yes! I completely agree with this entire post.

This ruling sets a dangerous precedent (even if it is only limited to Texas): It says that a church can do quite literally anything it wants to a person under the protection of the First Amendment. I certainly believe that individual rights trump any privileges permitted to churches--and this young woman's rights we most definitely violated by the church during this incident.

 

[Merlin]

Honestly, what the members of that church did was a crime.

Sadly, the court said it isn't a crime.

This really needs to go to the US Supreme Court, since what the Texas Supreme Court just justified is any religious organization mistreating its members.

agreed

If that is the case, might as well let the FDLS members back onto their compound with their kids.

They should!

 

[Crazy Liz]

If that is the case, might as well let the FDLS members back onto their compound with their kids.

They should!

Based upon the decision in this case, it is hard for me to imagine the Court doing anything else, if/when the FLDS case reaches the TX High Court.

 

[Paulos23]

Based upon the decision in this case, it is hard for me to imagine the Court doing anything else, if/when the FLDS case reaches the TX High Court.

I don't think they should since enough criminal counts have been raised against the FLDS, unlike the church where the exorcism happened where none where brought up as far as I know (though they should have). But the logic of the ruling does make it likely they will rule that way if FLDS case does get that far.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I don't think they should since enough criminal counts have been raised against the FLDS, unlike the church where the exorcism happened where none where brought up as far as I know (though they should have). But the logic of the ruling does make it likely they will rule that way if FLDS case does get that far.

I haven't heard of any FLDS criminal indictments in Texas, only the child custody case.

Do you have a link?

The FLDS children were all removed (not just the adolescent girls) because CPS thought their religious doctrine trained the boys to become abusers. If the First Amendment protects a church's right to physically restrain and harm a minor, how could it not protect mere indoctrination?

 

[Paulos23]

Let me look...dang, your right. There was a Grand Jury but no criminal charges where filed. I thought there was.

That is just criminal....

Your right Liz, this ruling will be used to protect religious indoctrination, or the court will have to rule in favor of it to uphold this ruling as well.

Which leads to the question, will that lead to religious groups being allowed to grab someone off the street to 'indoctrinate' them?

 

[Crazy Liz]

Let me look...dang, your right. There was a Grand Jury but no criminal charges where filed. I thought there was.

That is just criminal....

Your right Liz, this ruling will be used to protect religious indoctrination, or the court will have to rule in favor of it to uphold this ruling as well.

Which leads to the question, will that lead to religious groups being allowed to grab someone off the street to 'indoctrinate' them?

I hope not.

In both these cases it was minor children of church members, not people grabbed off the streets.

What happened in this case went far beyond indoctrination.

 

[NPH]

Based upon the decision in this case, it is hard for me to imagine the Court doing anything else, if/when the FLDS case reaches the TX High Court.

Liz, would this ruling force the state of Texas to recognize and extend legal benefits to polyamorous marriages? Or at the very least decriminalize them?

It just seems to me that this tells churches like the FLDS that the state has to accept whatever they hold as religious doctrine. Shoot, it seems like anything that called itself a 'church' or 'religion' could get away with most anything short of sexual abuse.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Liz, would this ruling force the state of Texas to recognize and extend legal benefits to polyamorous marriages? Or at the very least decriminalize them?

It just seems to me that this tells churches like the FLDS that the state has to accept whatever they hold as religious doctrine. Shoot, it seems like anything that called itself a 'church' or 'religion' could get away with most anything short of sexual abuse.

That's a very good question.

If I were taking bets, I would bet the TX Supreme Court justices are secretly hoping this decision is reversed by the SCOTUS, to let them off the hook as far as trying to reconcile this decision with what they'd like to do in the FLDS cases.

 

[ReverendDG]

Yes! I completely agree with this entire post.

This ruling sets a dangerous precedent (even if it is only limited to Texas): It says that a church can do quite literally anything it wants to a person under the protection of the First Amendment. I certainly believe that individual rights trump any privileges permitted to churches--and this young woman's rights we most definitely violated by the church during this incident.

if this becomes common outside texas, though it just scares me that any state finds what they did ok, i can see all kinds of cults that do things to people claiming its legally part of their religion.
if anyone has read anything about scientology, they do things like this, and worse.
they also claimed they have the right to ruin dissenters lives, as part of their religion. no one believes the CoS has a right to do this, but this thing in texas could make it easier to get people to believe the CoS has this right.

or heck any cultist group or religion
that scares me

 

[Maren]

Liz, would this ruling force the state of Texas to recognize and extend legal benefits to polyamorous marriages? Or at the very least decriminalize them?

It just seems to me that this tells churches like the FLDS that the state has to accept whatever they hold as religious doctrine. Shoot, it seems like anything that called itself a 'church' or 'religion' could get away with most anything short of sexual abuse.

The Texas Court is fairly safe on this one. While it is an old precedent, the 1879 ruling Reynolds v. United States by the US Supreme Court holds that the government can enforce bans on polygamy. Since this is the legal precedent for the United States, it gives the Texas courts an easy way out.

Further, the precedent of Reynolds v United States was upheld by the Supreme Court a few years ago when they refused to hear an appeal of the conviction of a polygamist in State of Utah v Holm.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Since the FLDS don't practice more than one LEGAL marriage at a time, the state's polygamy laws don't apply to them.

And religious teaching regarding polygamy was not in issue in the Reynolds case.

 

[Maren]

Since the FLDS don't practice more than one LEGAL marriage at a time, the state's polygamy laws don't apply to them.

And religious teaching regarding polygamy was not in issue in the Reynolds case.

While State of Utah v. Holm is not a precedent for Texas, since it was a Utah Supreme Court decision, it would likely still be cited because Holm was also FLDS and only legally married to one of his wives.

 

[NPH]

The Texas Court is fairly safe on this one. While it is an old precedent, the 1879 ruling Reynolds v. United States by the US Supreme Court holds that the government can enforce bans on polygamy. Since this is the legal precedent for the United States, it gives the Texas courts an easy way out.

Further, the precedent of Reynolds v United States was upheld by the Supreme Court a few years ago when they refused to hear an appeal of the conviction of a polygamist in State of Utah v Holm.

But isn't that irrelevant? From what you say, all that decision does is give the states the authority to enforce bans on polygamy. It doesn't enforce a ban on polygamy itself.

But if the Texas SC has now said that the state cannot ban religious practices short of sexual abuse then it has basically ruled the ban illegal in Texas, hasn't it? Even if Texas is a state with a DOMA (I assume it is) then the two amendments (DOMA and US First) are in conflict with each other if the TSC ruling should be interpreted that polygamy should be legal while the DOMA says that it is not, and wouldn't the Texas DOMA then have less legal weight because it conflicts with the US First Freedom of Religion as the TSC has interpreted it?

If a challenge were brought to the TSC regarding polygamy how could they even rationalize that effectively physically and emotionally tormenting an unwilling participant is more desirable or legal than three people in a polygamous marriage? I wouldn't want to be the one to have to make that justification lol.

IMO, this is what happens when religion is given a too-favored status based on the first amendment. We end up with freedom for religion but no freedom from it

 

[Merlin]

that scares me

It's not good to live in such fear!

 

[mpok1519]

Wow, this is...weird....Y'think a community as a whole would be less concerned about demons and more focused on the children's psychological health....oye....

If you're a satanist, you cant sacrafice cute furry gerbils and be protected by the 1st.
If you're an exorcist, you cannot harm someone, and be protected by the 1st.

"No matter what god(s) you serve, your god must also follow the law too, and you can worship your god all you want." I would believe in so many words or less would be a good interpretation of the 1st Amdt.

The real big picture here is we as people don't look out for each other as much as we should; demons, real or metaphorical, can be conquered by correctly applied love; these church officials and parents didn't notice the problems this girl had, but probably supported her with prayer and counseling; yet, perhaps, she might have needed counseling from a professional.

She probably just needed to hang out with a different crowd...she might've needed a new scene. Perhaps she truely is schizophrenic, or has a touch of psychosis; and I'm not a doctor or anything, but prayer needs a little more help when dealing with these severe mental conditions.

But more likely, she probably just wanted attention; kids can sometimes have a difficult time separating reality from fantasy....