sorry, that was in response to Shiny_Metal_Ass, not you, Ascanius. i agree with your point, which is one reason i support the decision of the Texas Supreme Court.
motorfirebox said:
sorry, that was in response to Shiny_Metal_Ass, not you, Ascanius. i agree with your point, which is one reason i support the decision of the Texas Supreme Court.
because a denomination is not, as far as i know, a legal entity. the law doesn't recognize denominations, only religious practices. at this particular church, exorcism was apparently a practice. if that practice is out of step with the main body of the AOG, that's an issue for the AOG to handle--not a legal matter.
i'm well aware of what denomination means. having attended several different churches of nominally the same denomination, i'm also aware that practices vary between specific churches of the same denomination. moreover, the AOG is a fairly loose organization; it specifically refers to itself as a 'cooperative fellowship' rather than a denomination.
i wasn't interpreting your statement as a personal challenge. that's simply the truth as i know it: the law, to the best of my knowledge, does not care what religious relationship any church has to any other church. business relationships between churches fall under the purview of the law, but relationships based on doctrine are not recognized.
freedom of religion does not mean freedom of major denominations. minor doctrinal branches derive the same protection under the Constitution as the denominations from which they spring. the only question, in the eyes of the law, is whether a given act is legal, which means finding out whether it is normal for the congregation in which it occurs.
Speaking of religious abuse and spiritual mental torture, anyone see the documentary Jesus Camp? Telling kids that Harry Potter would have been stoned in bible times, talk about PTSD.
Also
Anyone hear of the recent case here in Oregon? Faith Healer parents being charged with the death of their 15 month old daughter because they refused to have her lung infection treated. So sad. That's one kid that won't get the chance to sue for damages.
I agree that consenting adults should practice whatever kind of invisible unicorn worship they want but for the love of leprechauns why can't they just leave their kids out of it?
lithocarpus said:
The court is essentially saying that the physical restraint and assault on Laura is shielded from legal action because the evidence of harm to her does rise to a level that would fall under legal jurisdiction and further that the right of the church to practice it's beliefs as it sees fit, overrides Laura's rights.
i don't think that's quite accurate. think the majority opinion is that Laura (or her parents on her behalf, depending on how minor consent is handled) gave up her rights by voluntarily attending a church at which exorcisms like the one performed on her are practiced. essentially, the legal precedent that has been established is "in for a penny, in for a pound".
lithocarpus said:
So at what point would individual harm merit review by the court? Where are they drawing that line?
as i understand it, the line is drawn at tangible harm. i believe the intent is to specifically disallow injuries that are wholly psychological as a basis for damages.
lithocarpus said:
However, if the court was not looking at the practices of this church in the context of the larger doctrine of the AoG, then how did they decide that these assaults constituted "normal" church practice?
by simply investigating the activities of that specific congregation, i'd imagine. Schubert never claimed, so far as i'm aware, that the exorcism performed on her was in any way out of the ordinary. she only claimed that she didn't want to participate in it.
motorfirebox
Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004
JUL 01, 2008 08:30 PM