Laura Schubert, 17, was having difficulties coping with events she witnessed while her parents were missionaries in Africa. Instead of offering counseling and psychological treatment, Laura was made the victim of an "Exorcism". This caused both physical and emotional damage to Laura, including her attempt at suicide. According to a 6-3 decision of the SCOT, that kind of unnecessary and horrific torture is a legitimate, and therefore, protected behavior under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. In writing the majority opinion, Justice David Median threw out a previous financial award granted to Laura against the Pleasant Glade Assembly of God.
Justice David Medina wrote that finding the church liable "would have an unconstitutional 'chilling effect' by compelling the church to abandon core principles of its religious beliefs."
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.
So, if your idea of a rootin' tootin' good 'ole time is to pin a 17 year old girl to the floor and yell at her till the devil comes out, 'best head on down to good 'ole Texas, they're waiting with open arms. And leg restraints.
while Schubert's case is sad, i really don't think it would be a good idea to give the government a say in how people are allowed to worship. this is a bit of a fuzzy area, since it potentially involves harm inflicted in the name of a religion--but psychology is pretty fuzzy to begin with. there's hardly any guarantee that 'proper' therapy would have helped her, which means there's no real way to differentiate between damage dealt to her by her experiences in Africa and damage dealt to her by the exorcism.
motorfirebox said:
while Schubert's case is sad, i really don't think it would be a good idea to give the government a say in how people are allowed to worship. this is a bit of a fuzzy area, since it potentially involves harm inflicted in the name of a religion--but psychology is pretty fuzzy to begin with. there's hardly any guarantee that 'proper' therapy would have helped her, which means there's no real way to differentiate between damage dealt to her by her experiences in Africa and damage dealt to her by the exorcism.
What the fuck is fuzzy about it? Laura Schubert wasn't worshiping. If I form a church and our first commandment is "Thou shalt beat hobos with thine baseball bats", does that mean I'm allowed to go beat up hobos with a baseball bat?
no, because the hobos suffer clearly-identifiable harm that can be traced directly to the actions of you and your church. psychological damage is much harder to ascertain and trace, because the same circumstances affect different people in wildly different ways. there are general trends that one can use to guesstimate, but tiny variables can effect huge differences in the actual psychological impact of an event. moreover, psychological damage is inherently easy to fake.
basically, it's impossible to say for certain whether or not the exorcism had any damaging effect on the victim. it's entirely possible that she would have attempted suicide even if her church hadn't performed an exorcism on her; it's entirely possible that she would have attempted suicide even if she'd been placed in the care of a competent secular therapist.
motorfirebox said:
no, because the hobos suffer clearly-identifiable harm that can be traced directly to the actions of you and your church. psychological damage is much harder to ascertain and trace, because the same circumstances affect different people in wildly different ways. there are general trends that one can use to guesstimate, but tiny variables can effect huge differences in the actual psychological impact of an event. moreover, psychological damage is inherently easy to fake.
basically, it's impossible to say for certain whether or not the exorcism had any damaging effect on the victim. it's entirely possible that she would have attempted suicide even if her church hadn't performed an exorcism on her; it's entirely possible that she would have attempted suicide even if she'd been placed in the care of a competent secular therapist.
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.
yes. they held her down while she was foaming at the mouth and hallucinating, after collapsing unconscious on the floor. this restraint resulted in minor physical injuries. if someone is acting like that, i don't think holding them down is a particularly unreasonable action to take in the heat of the moment, regardless of whether there is an 'exorcism' being performed or not.
sunday and wednesday are the relevant days; you can do a text search to quickly find the sections i was referring to. rereading, i find myself mistaken--it doesn't say she was unconscious at any point, merely that she collapsed.
sunday and wednesday are the relevant days; you can do a text search to quickly find the sections i was referring to. rereading, i find myself mistaken--it doesn't say she was unconscious at any point, merely that she collapsed.
In that case, although temporary restraint may have been the proper course of action, someone should have IMMEDIATELY called 911 and gotten her proper medical attention. Instead of taking this reasonable course of action, they chose to do an "exorcism". That equates to child abuse in my book. It would be the same if my child were suffering and instead of seeking medical attention, I tried to "reason" the illness away. People can worship how they want, until that worship causes damage to others. The right to worship does not give the right to torture. Their definitely needs to be a line drawn when it comes to how you can worship. Human sacrifice is no longer allowed, is it? Rastafarians aren't allowed to smoke pot, even though it is central to their religion. Hell, Native Americans are still fighting for their rights to use Peyote and other traditional drugs, whose ritual use predates Christianity by thousands of years. Belief in the supernatural is not a free license to do whatever you want. The First Amendment is not an absolute right, even free speech has restrictions. You can't say you're going to kill the president, or yell fire in a crowded theater, and you can't torture children in the name of spiritualism.
basically, it's impossible to say for certain whether or not the exorcism had any damaging effect on the victim.
It is, however, extremely likely that it was an extremely traumatizing event that did absolutely no good.
Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
In that case, although temporary restraint may have been the proper course of action, someone should have IMMEDIATELY called 911 and gotten her proper medical attention. Instead of taking this reasonable course of action, they chose to do an "exorcism". That equates to child abuse in my book.
yes, well, it's easy to be a monday morning quarterback. medically, nothing bad happened; ergo, no crime.
Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
People can worship how they want, until that worship causes damage to others. The right to worship does not give the right to torture. Their definitely needs to be a line drawn when it comes to how you can worship.
that's great. prove that this was torture. show a causal relationship between the exorcism and anything bad happening to this girl.
Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
It is, however, extremely likely that it was an extremely traumatizing event that did absolutely no good.
i agree. however, in this country, we don't pass judicial judgement based on what is extremely likely.
have any of you given a single thought to what it would mean for freedom of religion if they'd ruled the other way?
yes, well, it's easy to be a monday morning quarterback. medically, nothing bad happened; ergo, no crime.
She became suicidal after the exorcism. I would call that something "bad" happening.
have any of you given a single thought to what it would mean for freedom of religion if they'd ruled the other way?
Yeah, I have. I couldn't care less if they shut down every church in the country, if prevents this kind of sickening behavior. They receive too much special treatment as it is. Why have only a small handful of priests been prosecuted for child rape, while the bishops and cardinals who condoned and concealed these heinous crimes go unpunished? Because they are given special status because of their religious affiliation. It's disgusting.
I could beat the shit out of somebody with a rubber hose, or do many other types of gruesome tortures, that leave no physical marks or permanent injuries, but the psychological effects would be devastating. It does not matter weather or not harm could be proven to be directly linked to the abuse she suffered, she should have never been forced to endure that kind of trauma in the first place.
motorfirebox said:
have any of you given a single thought to what it would mean for freedom of religion if they'd ruled the other way?
You clearly have, so why don't you tell us?
the thing about this case that's really important to note is, it's not about the physical assault that occurred. it's about the emotional stress that was allegedly caused by a religious ritual.
the assault, weird as it sounds, was nothing. what some people may not be aware of is that at churches like the one in question, such 'assaults' are part of the worship service. the only difference between what happened on the sunday and wednesday in question, here, and what happens at every other sunday and wednesday service, is that the recipient of the exorcism didn't get up and say "praise jesus" when it was over. part of worshipping at this church is being 'saved' from 'demonic attacks' by having one's fellow worshipers manhandle you. by attending a church on a regular basis, you are legally giving that church the okay to perform their normal religious rituals on you. exorcism, for this church, is a normal part of their worship.
so what you have, here, is someone claiming mental anguish caused by a normal facet of worship. can you see how that might be abused?
Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
She became suicidal after the exorcism. I would call that something "bad" happening.
well, good lord, man, if you're sitting on proof that the exorcism--rather than any other event in or aspect of her life--caused her to attempt suicide, step forward.
Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
Yeah, I have. I couldn't care less if they shut down every church in the country, if prevents this kind of sickening behavior.
the problem with zealots is that they tend to only allow themselves to see one side of the story.
I may have misunderstood but isn't all torture in the name of god ok?
It helped with the colonization of this country as well as the crusades in other countless lands....Just saying
Not to mention Jesus was always pretty wrathful
Sodom and Gomorrah, killing the first born, ext.ext.
motorfirebox said:
have any of you given a single thought to what it would mean for freedom of religion if they'd ruled the other way?
You clearly have, so why don't you tell us?
the thing about this case that's really important to note is, it's not about the physical assault that occurred. it's about the emotional stress that was allegedly caused by a religious ritual.
the assault, weird as it sounds, was nothing. what some people may not be aware of is that at churches like the one in question, such 'assaults' are part of the worship service. the only difference between what happened on the sunday and wednesday in question, here, and what happens at every other sunday and wednesday service, is that the recipient of the exorcism didn't get up and say "praise jesus" when it was over. part of worshipping at this church is being 'saved' from 'demonic attacks' by having one's fellow worshipers manhandle you. by attending a church on a regular basis, you are legally giving that church the okay to perform their normal religious rituals on you. exorcism, for this church, is a normal part of their worship.
so what you have, here, is someone claiming mental anguish caused by a normal facet of worship. can you see how that might be abused?
Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
She became suicidal after the exorcism. I would call that something "bad" happening.
well, good lord, man, if you're sitting on proof that the exorcism--rather than any other event in or aspect of her life--caused her to attempt suicide, step forward.
Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
Yeah, I have. I couldn't care less if they shut down every church in the country, if prevents this kind of sickening behavior.
the problem with zealots is that they tend to only allow themselves to see one side of the story.
I spent my entire childhood until I was 18 listening to the other side of the story. I've heard enough. If believing in the truth, logic and reason over lies, superstition and myth makes me a zealot, then I will wear that label proudly.
that's certainly your choice. but it's a choice that will frequently lead you to conclusions which are factually, ethically, and morally wrong. same as if you were prejudicing your judgment based on, say, skin color.
I just wanted to state after my last comment. I have no issue with any religion nor its followers. I have a major problem with some of the shit that gets carried out in the name of "god(s)" though...
motorfirebox said:
that's certainly your choice. but it's a choice that will frequently lead you to conclusions which are factually, ethically, and morally wrong. same as if you were prejudicing your judgment based on, say, skin color.
Not so. Skin colour is not chosen. Religion is.
Consider how you might give up being black. Or how you might be converted away from being black.
motorfirebox said:
that's certainly your choice. but it's a choice that will frequently lead you to conclusions which are factually, ethically, and morally wrong. same as if you were prejudicing your judgment based on, say, skin color.
That is 100% completely, totally wrong. Comparing someones skin color, which is determined solely by genetics, which are completely out of the individuals control, and their religious preference, which is completely within the individuals control as being equally deserving of neutral application is completely disingenuous to me. I find the notion of being expected to "respect" which I equate with "endorse" and not "tolerate" someones personal spiritual beliefs as an infringement on my rights and beliefs, but that's OK, because I'm a godless atheist, a blasphemer, right?. I don't care who you're favorite sky deity is, or your preference of ritual, as long as it doesn't cause harm to others, and stays out of my laws. So far, people are being harmed, and there are still laws (right here where I live) that are 100% religious in nature, so I must fight for what I believe is right against that which I believe is ultimately a harmful enterprise. The slightest bit of proof for any supernatural claims would do a whole lot to change my mind, but so far, I find nothing substantive or repeatable. Reproduce "Ectoplasm" in a pitri dish or something, then we'll talk about "respect".
Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
Comparing someones skin color, which is determined solely by genetics, which are completely out of the individuals control, and their religious preference, which is completely within the individuals control as being equally deserving of neutral application is completely disingenuous to me.
well, again, you're entitled to your opinion, but it remains that if you color your judgments based on your personal prejudices, rather than examining the facts as dispassionately as possible, you're going to find yourself in the wrong fairly often. personally, i would go so far as to say that if you don't expend every effort to prove that which you're arguing against, you're doing yourself a disservice, but that could simply be zealotry on my part for expanding one's view of the world.
Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
kin color is no indication of anything about a person's personality or temperament, while religion is.
hahahaha! you know even less about religion than i thought, if you really believe that.
Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
Comparing someones skin color, which is determined solely by genetics, which are completely out of the individuals control, and their religious preference, which is completely within the individuals control as being equally deserving of neutral application is completely disingenuous to me.
well, again, you're entitled to your opinion, but it remains that if you color your judgments based on your personal prejudices, rather than examining the facts as dispassionately as possible, you're going to find yourself in the wrong fairly often. personally, i would go so far as to say that if you don't expend every effort to prove that which you're arguing against, you're doing yourself a disservice, but that could simply be zealotry on my part for expanding one's view of the world.
Shiny_Metal_Ass said:
kin color is no indication of anything about a person's personality or temperament, while religion is.
hahahaha! you know even less about religion than i thought, if you really believe that.
OK, religion should be an indicator of a person's temperament, but due to rampant hypocrisy, it's difficult to tell. But, at least, that remains a choice, while skin color still is not.
Varuka_Salt
I'm lost
October 2006
JUN 28, 2008 05:35 PM