Texas Supreme Court: Beat a Teen for Jesus

[marmar]

from AlterNet's PEEK:



Texas Supreme Court: Beat a Teen for Jesus

Posted by Amanda Marcotte, Pandagon at 6:16 AM on June 30, 2008.

Violent exorcism A-OK in the Lone Star State, high court rules.



From PZ, a story that’s horrifying both on its own and for its implications for the rights of all people, but especially women, whose bodies that the churches claim spiritual ownership over in the name of god. A bit of background: A number of fundamentalist churches believe that sin is caused by literal demons that are invisible but that cling to your body, and need to be expunged by regular exorcisms that are satisfying dramatic to suit their own beliefs that they’re waging war. Unsurprisingly, this tradition drifts over to sadism towards the sinners themselves, especially if the sinners are the young women that absorb so much of fundamentalism’s fascinated hostility. Which has, in one case at least, caused what sounds like a version of post-traumatic stress disorder.

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. She also said the incident led her to mutilate herself and attempt suicide. She eventually sought psychiatric help.

But leave it to the Texas Supreme Court to decide that physical assault, kidnapping, and generally traumatizing young women is a-okay if you say Jesus told you to do it.

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.”

This sort of logic chills me. I quickly can see the implications for women’s rights outside of just the basic right not to be assaulted during a bout of make-believe over demons that people have convinced themselves is real. Most of these churches are anti-choice---what if they argue that their religious freedom gives them the right to kidnap and contain women that they suspect of being sexual active or of seeking abortion or contraception? Is there a time limit on how long a church can restrain a woman because they believe their god gives them ownership over her body?

I joked the other day about Romanian churches that think they have some legal rights over the bodies of random girls and women in Romania. Maybe they should set up shop in Texas, where the reactionary court will give them license to abuse citizens.


http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/89885/

[yardwork]

1. The Inquisition. She was put to the question.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. "Jesus wept" :^(

[Echo In Light]

3. ...

[AndyTiedye]

4. This is Scary. The Talibornagains Really Have Taken Over

[Cerridwen]

5. I predict this ruling will be used to

clear the flds "church."

Link to the article at msnbc Court: Exorcism is protected by law

A truly disturbing quote from the article:

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."

It appears that abuse of most any kind will be protected as "religious freedom;" unless it involves chickens or peyote. Interesting priority of "religious practices."

Another disturbing quote I found at this link; one of the lawyers for the "church:"

"The key point of this ruling is that we don't have a right to have our standards of reasonableness foisted upon some other religion," Dallas attorney David Pruessner said. "None of our religious beliefs can be examined when they are emotionally disturbing to other people."

Emphasis added in above quote. "None of our religious beliefs can be examined..." None?! I can now sacrifice my doggie or kittie in the name of "religion?" What about...oh hell, you get the idea.

I agree with the dissenting view quoted:

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.

Where do we draw the line as to what is and is not a "religious practice?" Apparently it depends on the old chicken and the peyote debate. *sigh*

Let this thought sink in for a bit: it's the 21st Century and "exorcism is protected by law."

edited to add 2nd quote above.

[johnaries]

6. Fundies can beat and torture women, but

Rastafarians can't smoke pot? :shrug:

[newmajority]

7. regular exorcisms? As in more than once?

If you're possessed by demons, and one exorcism doesn't get rid of them, why would you think multiple exorcisms would do so?

When Jesus cast the demons out of somebody, they went into a herd of pigs and jumped off a cliff, creating the first ever recorded case of deviled ham. Problem solved. If this church can't get the same results, they must be doing something wrong.

The winner of that battle? - Satan :evilgrin:

[Posteritatis]

8. Well, if the victim's name is legion and there's no pigs, they clearly need about 5000 exorcisms!

(4200 if it's a manipular possession. Your mileage may vary.)