Don’t let us interrupt you
I keep saying the Free Exercise clause is like an unexploded bomb.
Laura Schubert Pearson’s lawsuit accusing members of the Pleasant Glade Assembly of God Church of subjecting her to a two-day exorcism ordeal in 1996 that left her so distressed she attempted suicide was dismissed by the Texas Supreme Court last month. The judges overturned a lower court’s decision awarding her damages and ruled that because Mrs Schubert Pearson’s claims of injury amounted to a religious dispute over church doctrine it would be “unconstitutional” for the court to get involved.
Interesting. So if you’re tortured within the walls of a church it’s all copacetic because that there’s your free exercise of religion? And that’s the case even if you’re not even an adult at the time? Well, splendid.
So ‘Rev’ Anthony Hopkins (no not the Welsh actor) should just say he was exorcising demons and that’s how his wife ended up dead in the freezer after she discovered he’d been raping some of their children: that way he’ll be able to leave prison and go back to part-time preaching. Amen.
I’ve read that article about five times and I still can’t work out how it is not a criminal matter to manhandle anyone, let alone a teenage girl. For any reason, anywhere.
Well you see it’s a doctrinal matter.
But to put it in sane terms, the free exercise clause is not usually supposed to make criminal violence okay. This ruling seems crazy as well as frightening. Yet another reason to stay the fuck out of Texas.
I don’t think the free exercise clause is the problem–because if it were reasonably and fairly applied, then we’d have to protect Laura Pearson’s free exercise rights as well.
The problem is that the free exercise rights of middle-aged white men are held sacred, whereas the rights of their property, i.e. wives and children, are dispensable.
Yes, I know there is craziness and such. But if abduction and pinning down a struggling victim is not a matter for the courts, then we’re in whole other world. Where are the limits?
This whole exorcism trend needs to be jumped on from a great height. Why isn’t that bloody obvious to … sorry, sorry.
Going into rant mode.
Well if the Telegraph and other accounts have it right, it was a free exercise decision, because there is no other reason to consider it ‘unconstitutional’ for the court to get involved. But that’s the thing about the free exercise clause, of course: de facto it does tend to privilege the rights of (at least) men at the expense of women and children because nearly all clergy are men, especially in the kind of churches that go in for ‘exorcism.’ This is why I no longer accept the idea that any religious institutions should be able to use the free exercise clause to defend an all-male clergy. Well hell, it’s also why I think the free exercise clause is a monstrosity.
The lower court did not obviously consider it ‘unconstitutional’ as it awarded Laura Schubert Pearson damages.
Why was ‘government interference’ not then, applicable? I wonder.
Setting a precedent, I suppose, would be the last thing the courts would want; as I am sure the knock-on effect, would be devastating.
Rocking the ‘free exercise of religion’ boat! Would be equivalent to more than a boat disaster!
It rather reminds me of the Christian Brother superiors in Ireland, who, in the past, considered relationships with women to be unlawful, but, with the same token, they classed inappropriate sexual relationships with children, in their care in industrial schools, to be acceptable. Feigning ignorance of its (abhorrent) wrongdoing was its defence.
Children everywhere in the world, should by grown-ups, be cherished.
Societies, everywhere in the world should protect and acknowledge them, when abuse subsequently visits their innocent doors
If they ever catch Osama Bin Laden maybe he should use the same argument.
“The justice added that the court does not mean to imply that anyone may commit an intentional wrong, such as sexual assault, and get away with it.”
Note that justice mentions, specifically “sexual assault”, only!
Again, I am reminded (somewhat) of both the Irish Commission to Inquire into Institutional Child Abuse and the Residential Institutions Redress Board.
With deference to the above, at first the Irish government wanted only ever to concede to purported ‘sexual abuse’ of children who were placed in the past in its care. Nevertheless, afterwards when it was put to it forward (by those, who were themselves, placed in industrial schools, like Goldenbridge and Artane) the fact that lifelong psychosocial sequelae problems; from physical, emotional, and mental abuse in the institutions – did cause to children reprehensible, irreparable and diabolical damage, did the government then only decide to include them in CICA/RIRB.
Big battles, thus, were by Abuse groups fought with the government for their inclusion. So fair play to them indeed!
I think, in the long run, it will be highly unlikely that Laura Shubert Pearson will win her case – as one has only to look at what she is up against, that being, the might of the Church. Its memembers are everywhere, and especially so in the higher echelons of the justice system.
When all is said and done – at least
she did not have to contend with having the Rev’s hands on her torso.
Well, there is no ‘the Church’ in the US. There are myriad churches, but no The Church. The establishment clause rules that out, while the free exercise clause creates unfortunate special exemptions for religion.
Oops, OB, I should have borne that in mind. Ireland, as you know, is very much a monotheistic and monocultural country. Sure, did not the big fella, Ian Paisley, himself, once make this very fact cognizant to the people of Eire.
Yep, this weeny Island of ours is even smaller than some of the smaller states of America, – where, as you point out, religions of every conceivable description thrive.
Yes I do know – and, indeed, Irish industrial schools are a very good example of why states should not entangle themselves with religion.
Of course, majoritarianism means that some religions here have very great influence in spite of nonestablishment.
I read that the Jehovah’s Witnesses. organisation – for over forty years, has been involved in many major cases involving the ‘free exercise clause’ before the Supreme Courts, and, by them, won a majority of them, indeed.
Are there similar Laura Schubert-Pearson cases out there, I wonder?
Free exercise jurisprudence is a huge (and very vexed) subject. That’s partly what Nussbaum’s freedom of conscience book is about.
Vexed and complex to say the least!
All religious institutions should be, by their specific governments “regulated” at all times?
Industrial schools, which were mainly run by religious in Ireland, had “regulatory” systems in place. Sadly, though, these systems, by the government, were not adhered to properly; hence our being able to take the Irish government (as well as the religious) to task.
We nailed it on the Regulatory cross and bled it dry!
Thanks’ OB, I shall google Martha Nussbaum and have a glimpse of her freedom of conscience book.
Anthony Hopkins is one of the veteran actors in Hollywood that should be given a lifetime acheivement award.-;`