In Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Shubert, the Texas State Supreme Court ruled that the Free Exercise Clause of the first amendment prevents courts from adjudicating issues of religious doctrine. The case is beyond incredibly complex but it seems that members of a youth group performed an exorcism on one of the youths, physically restraining and touching (groping) her in the process, or, in religious speak, "'laid hands' on her and prayed." (Why not call her a witch and burn her?)
After she was physically restrained and assaulted, suffering some physical distress and a lot of emotional distress, Shubert sued for damages. At trial, the lower court agreed with Shubert, ruling that she had been improperly physically restrained and assaulted and awarded her damages for those transgressions. However, the Texas State Supreme Court claimed that the emotional distress liabilities would place the Court in a position to take sides in determining what is valid religious doctrine (as, according to the decision, "The “laying of hands” and the presence of demons are part of the church’s belief system and accepted as such by its adherents") and courts cannot do this. Fair enough, except the courts did something similar in U.S. v. Reynolds. But I digress....
It appears that a free exercise claim trumps a false imprisonment claim in this case. This bothers me as it allows a group's free exercise to diminish the safety of another. It also means that the beliefs in the church are orthodox and must be accepted by all until the person actually leaves the church, which since this case involves a minor, it is not likely to occur. If these practices were done to someone outside of the church, it would be assault; inside the church, free exercise. "She's a witch...." "She turned me into a Next. I got better."
Yet, can't I belong to a church and not agree to every position by the church? My disbelief in some principles does not mean that others need to disagree as well or that the entire religion is incoherent. I understand that each religion, no matter how irrational (fill in your own words here) some of the beliefs may be, must have protection to develop their belief system up until a point. And one point, for me, is physical coercion like the physical coercion that occurred in this case. Besides, why the beliefs of demons and devils may be religious, not all of th physical and emotional pain is, allowing for some remedy.
Here are the facts of the case from the decision. It is long though one of the most interesting summaries I have ever read. If you want to read the decisions, go here.
On Friday evening, before her parents left town, Laura [Schubert, a 17-year-old congregant,] attended a youth group activity at Pleasant Glade in preparation for a garage sale the next day. The atmosphere during this event became spiritually charged after one of the youth announced he had seen a demon near the sanctuary. The youth minister, Rod Linzay, thereupon called the group together to hear the story, and after hearing it, agreed that demons were indeed present. Linzay instructed the youth to anoint everything in the church with holy oil and led a spirited effort throughout the night to cast out the demons. Finally, on Saturday morning at about 4:30 a.m., Linzay gathered the exhausted youth together to announce that he had seen a cloud of the presence of God fill the church and that God had revealed a vision to him. Although exhausted, the young people assisted with the garage sale later that morning.
At the Sunday morning worship service the next day, several young people gave testimonials about the spiritual events of the preceding day. At the conclusion of the service, the youth, including Laura and her brother, prayed at the altar. During these prayers, Laura’s brother became “slain in the spirit,” collapsing to the floor where church members continued to pray into the early afternoon.
Later that afternoon, Laura returned to church for another youth activity and the Sunday evening worship service. During the evening service, Laura collapsed. After her collapse, several church members took Laura to a classroom where they “laid hands” on her and prayed. According to Laura, church members forcibly held her arms crossed over her chest, despite her demands to be freed. According to those present, Laura clenched her fists, gritted her teeth, foamed at the mouth, made guttural noises, cried, yelled, kicked, sweated, and hallucinated. The parties sharply dispute whether these actions were the cause or the result of her physical restraint.
Church members, moreover, disagreed about whether Laura’s actions were a ploy for attention or the result of spiritual activity. Laura stated during the episode that Satan or demons were trying to get her. After the episode, Laura also allegedly began telling other church members about a “vision.” Yet, her collapse and subsequent reaction to being restrained may also have been the result of fatigue and hypoglycemia. Laura had not eaten anything substantive that day and had missed sleep because of the spiritual activities that weekend. Whatever the cause, Laura was eventually released after she calmed down and complied with requests to say the name “Jesus.”
On Monday and Tuesday, Laura continued to participate in church-related activities without any problems, raising money for Vacation Bible School and preparing for youth drama productions. Her parents returned from their trip on Tuesday afternoon.
On Wednesday evening, Laura attended the weekly youth service presided by Rod Linzay. According to Linzay, Laura began to act in a manner similar to the Sunday evening episode. Laura testified that she curled up into a fetal position because she wanted to be left alone. Church members, however, took her unusual posture as a sign of distress. At some point, Laura collapsed and writhed on the floor. Again, there is conflicting evidence about whether Laura’s actions were the cause or result of being physically restrained by church members and about the duration and force of the restraint. According to Laura, the youth, under the direction of Linzay and his wife, Holly, held her down. Laura testified, moreover, that she was held in a “spread eagle” position with several youth members holding down her arms and legs. The church’s senior pastor, Lloyd McCutchen, was summoned to the youth hall where he played a tape of pacifying music, placed his hand on Laura’s forehead, and prayed. During the incident, Laura suffered carpet burns, a scrape on her back, and bruises on her wrists and shoulders. Laura’s parents were subsequently called to the church. After collecting their daughter, the Schuberts took her out for a meal and then home. Laura did not mention her scrapes and bruises to her parents that night.
6 comments:
Free exorcise! Ha, ha!
Seriously, though, what does this judgment mean in terms of the TX polygamy case(s). If the court has ruled that any religion can treat its members however they want as long as they are members, then should the same standard apply? This is really weird and convoluted and would only happen in Texas!
Not so, that it would only happen in Texas. Snake handlers, exorcisers, tongue talkers abound through the nation. So do wacko justices.
Not to say this ruling maks the justices wacko, necessarily. Reading the summary solon provided, it looks like the plaintiff with full complicity played along, testifyinf, collapsing, getting jiggy with it, feeling the "spirit" of it.
Consider. You, a young dedicated zealot, collapse among other youthful zealots at a revival. They do what you they are supposed to do, they swarm upon you and do their thang.
Once the doing of the thang hath commenced, you realize it sucks, and you scream and kick and try any number of approaches to let your intelocutors know you want out of the thang.
But, what of The Rhetorical Situation? In such a frenzy here protestations were likely interpreted as the presence of a demon in her. At the least, everyone seems to have been pretty worked up, and Harrogate bets it was pretty damned loud in there.
Not a Situation that lends itself to saying "seriously, guys, let me up."
Harrogate is surprised and provoked by this post and wants to know more about it. But at present, he instinctively leans to the Supremes' ruling.
Should we title this response: "No means no, except when it means yes, " or, "physical coercion leads to false information."
We have multiple distinctions in this case:the difference between belief and action; the rights of a group and the rights of others; the rights of belief and the right to physical safety. There are numerous analogies and metaphors to view the situation. However,
It appears, regardless of the religious foreplay, the teenager in question attempted to use a "safe-word." Unfortunately, there was not consensus before hand.
In similar situations, regardless of the mob-mentality, the use of physical coercion after a person protested would result in some for of remedy under our tort law. That this occurs in a "religious" setting should hardly matter.
Of course, maybe discovering its own sense of guilt from the Texas LDS case, the Court protected "religious" groups. I doubt this severely for numerous reasons as I do not think most states would treat LDS favorably.
The coercion, a forced exorcism, is too much. Shouldn't the kids who provided the exorcism prove that Satan or a similar demon was present in the girl? If not, what is to stop me, when us members of the situation gather for a drink, to call for an exorcism of paperweight writer (other than the sheer force that paperweight writer would exert upon me)?
megs,
Harrogate confesses to not having gone through the avilable material very carefully at this point.
Was there an agreed-upon safeword? This seems doubtful on the surface, since S&M games are considered transgressive by the participants (lo, that is the fun). But why would these people have a safeword for religious practices they hardly deemed transgressive or dangerous?
The paperweight example, while amusing, seems somewhat to strain the bounds of credibility, as we are not a group that would take too kindly to that type of talk, to begin with. Exorcisms, shmexorcisms, we would yell, and promptly call for another pitcher while launching verbal tirades against the religious right.
And, after further review, that was not Megs.... as she signed in but not out of my computer....
The safe word is an extreme, only exploiting further the connection between sex and religion
But let go of me means let go of me....
Ah. Harrogate suspected it might be you. Our writing styles have become somewhat manifest, by now.
In Harrogate's world and in your world and in almost everyone else's world, let go of me does mean let go of me.
And so too, perhaps, should it be interpreted as such in the eyes of the Court.
Harrogate is only trying to wrap his head around this weird case. Weird on many levels, this is only one thread.
But part of that wrapping process is to wonder, whether if she really were possessed by a demon, if the demon wouldn't manipulate her vocal chords to scream out, let me go. And if that were the case, when a demon says let me go, does it mean one ought to let go?
shanti shanti shanti
Post a Comment