…and this is a 
Texas court approves traumatic exorcisms
Category: Religion
Posted on: June 28, 2008 10:29 AM, by PZ Myers
Well now…if you've had a hankerin' to torture, abuse, and do who knows what else to people at your whim, here's what you do: move on down to Texas and set up a religion. The Texas Supreme Court just ruled on a case in which a young woman was subjected to extreme distress and restraint during a church-run exorcism (isn't that insane enough right there? An exorcism in 21st century America?), and they threw the previous judgment against the church out. Why? Because holding a church liable for psychological damage "would have an unconstitutional 'chilling effect' by compelling the church to abandon core principles of its religious beliefs."
Damn right it would. Holding religion accountable for the stupidity perpetuated by it certainly should send a shiver down the spines of hordes of witch-doctors and mullahs and priests and other such folk with a vested interest in superstition.
The court ruling basically says that because this church carries out this practice all the time, and because adherents of the religion accept it, it's OK to pin people to the floor and scream at them for a few hours.
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 opinion, said the church's exorcism sessions were a matter of church doctrine and were thus subject to certain — though not absolute — First Amendment religious protections.
"The laying of hands" and the presence of demons are part of the church's belief system and accepted as such by its adherents," the ruling said in part. "These practices are not normally dangerous or unusual and apparently arise in the church with some regularity. They are thus to be expected and are accepted by those in the church."
Hello, world. In the United States, it is not considered unusual to accuse teenagers of being possessed by demons, and we subject them to frightening magic rituals to cast out such satanic forces with some regularity. Do not be alarmed. We also have nuclear weapons and sophisticated delivery systems. But I repeat…do not be at all alarmed.
One of the lawyers for the church noticed a key point of this ruling — it's too bad he thinks it is a good thing.
"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."
No religious beliefs are to be examined critically, no matter how disturbing they may be. That's the way things work down in Texas, I guess. Oh, but he hastily adds…
Pruessner said no one should think Friday's ruling would give protection to a church leader accused of abusing a child.
Except that that is exactly what happened in this case: the victim of this church-endorsed abuse was 17 at the time, and the church has now gotten off scot-free, held not culpable for their insanity, and told that they can keep on doing it with the protection of the law…and they've been informed that any weird religious belief is "normal".
I would suggest a well-known compromise, one that has been violated by the Texas court decision. You are free to believe whatever wacky nonsense you want — you can believe moody teenagers are possessed by demons, and you can believe that cutting out the hearts of virgins will guarantee that the sun will rise tomorrow, and you can even believe that barbecued babies are especially delicious — but you are not free to act on those beliefs in a way that infringes the rights of other people. The Texas court, in its zeal to protect religious beliefs, has gone too far and has endorsed the right of a church to do harm in the name of their god.
Politics
Comments
and you can even believe that barbecued babies are especially delicious
Depends on the sauce.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 28, 2008 10:33 AM
Sectarian splitter!
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 28, 2008 10:36 AM
Scientologists will be pleased with this ruling.
Posted by: paul01 | June 28, 2008 10:37 AM
Didn't Texas just also make it de facto legal to be a child molester as long as it's in a religious context?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 28, 2008 10:41 AM
Sigh. Well, what more should we expect from those who brought us GWB? :rolleyes:
Sorry, free-thinking Texans. I don't mean to lump you in with the bad. I feel for you. I escaped Ohio which had a similar flood of idiocy that tried to drown the free-thinkers.
~Dan
http://jazzsick.wordpress.com/
Posted by: Dan | June 28, 2008 10:43 AM
Interesting. So kids are able to give consent to engage in S&M but not sex or drinking?
Oh, what was I thinking? This is Texas.
Posted by: Sili | June 28, 2008 10:46 AM
@Dan: GWB is from Connecticut.
The law of unintended consequences is going to bite them back, hard. What about those religions that use drugs? What about those that use sacrifice?
Posted by: Rob | June 28, 2008 10:47 AM
Easy guys,if the german Catholics can do it in the 21st century.....
Im kinda hoping we get to see some juicy exorcisms here in Australia soon,what with the World Youth shebang and all,maybe to drive the devil out of some of them blond horny surfer dudes....
Posted by: clinteas | June 28, 2008 10:47 AM
Kidnapping and torture are fine, so long as a religion is doing the felony? I beg to differ.
Posted by: KillerChihuahua | June 28, 2008 10:47 AM
I wonder how much this was affected by/will affect the LDS case in texas for child brides?
Posted by: bug_girl | June 28, 2008 10:47 AM
and you can even believe that barbecued babies are especially delicious
Depends on the sauce.
Sorry MAJeff, down here in Texas we just mesquite smoke the s**t out of everything.
{sigh} I so want out of this state....
Posted by: Todd | June 28, 2008 11:08 AM
Holy freaking crap! This has to be one of the most insane rulings yet by the Texas court. It's hard to read and actually believe the decision made by the obviously religious demented justices. "Are part of the church's belief systems and accepted as such by it's adherents." So the slimy freaking priests believe it is their belief to molest children "because these practices are not normally dangerous or unusual and apparently arise in the church with some regularity". Not normally dangerous because the shit priests don't kill their victims? Good grief, is Texas sinking into religious madness. As long as you have a state with a majority population afflicted with religion, you are going to have these rulings as a matter of course. The ruling is not surprising as Texas is next door to that other religious basket case, Louisiana. The historical idea and factual observations that the South is a different frame of mind is borne out in so many of these reports emanating from this religious and intellectual backwater.
Posted by: Holbach | June 28, 2008 11:10 AM
Thats what you get with these morally lost people, a human being doesn't have any intrinsic rights to them, it's all spooky mystery stuff that some god gives you and might take away whenever he or she pleases.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | June 28, 2008 11:12 AM
I try not to show my religious preferences--hatred thereof--in the classes I teach but when the Supreme Court makes rulings like this and religious belief just keeps regressing to hyper-medieval lunacy I can't help but be more combative against the religious "meme".
Posted by: Prof MTH | June 28, 2008 11:14 AM
Clarifications:
1. I realize it was the Texas State Supreme Court.
2. I meant to say "more openly combative".
Posted by: Prof MTH | June 28, 2008 11:17 AM
//because these practices are not normally dangerous or unusual and apparently arise in the church with some regularity//
Thats a nice way of justifying about every atrocity on earth isnt it,from the Holocaust to burning witches to the organised pedophilia in the catholic church...it arises with some regularity,therefore its all good....
Posted by: clinteas | June 28, 2008 11:17 AM
I am glad there are Americans like PZ around (as well as all you regular commentors from the US who also seem sane) otherwise I would have long written the US off as one of those countries run by religious fuckwits, you know, like Iran, or Zimbabwe. When I see the US constitution used to support the right of the people to possess firearms but not to the right to not be bankrupted should you fall ill and need to pay for your healthcare I really do wonder about the moral values of many Americans.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 28, 2008 11:19 AM
Savages. Unbelievable. Un-freaking-believable. Where do they draw the line? Murder?
Rob: GWB was born in Connecticut. He's from Texas. He grew up there. He was 5 years old when his father moved the family from New Haven to Midland. There's not much Connecticut in Dubya. As Nicholas Kristof wrote in the New York Times:
Posted by: Kseniya | June 28, 2008 11:19 AM
This amazes me. The fact that we believe the first amendment insulates every behavior connected to believe.
On this ridiculous ruling, courts could justify the release of everyone from the torturers at the inquisition to the Muslims that choose to kill non-believers.
It does not matter who you are or what you believe, at no point in time are you allowed to force any part of that belief on others.
Posted by: JStein | June 28, 2008 11:21 AM
Man, we are just so fucking fucked in so many different ways it's hard to know where the fuck to start. And as reality imposes more and more constraints upon us, these sick-fuck religious wackaloon scumbags retreat further and further into their world of deranged delusion.
Posted by: PhysioProf | June 28, 2008 11:22 AM
I actually always think of the nuclear weapons when I read a story like this. And then I feel all scared and sad, and need to eat a cookie.
That doesn't make the crazy people go away, but it makes me feel a little better.
Posted by: Ted D | June 28, 2008 11:24 AM
Don't pin W on CT. The guy lived in Texas from a very early age and doesn't even mention his place of birth on the White House website.
Posted by: RickD | June 28, 2008 11:26 AM
Just pointing out that age of consent in Texas is 17...
Posted by: Randomfactor | June 28, 2008 11:41 AM
"Hello, world. In the United States, it is not considered unusual to accuse teenagers of being possessed by demons, and we subject them to frightening magic rituals to cast out such satanic forces with some regularity. Do not be alarmed. We also have nuclear weapons and sophisticated delivery systems. But I repeat...do not be at all alarmed."
Mommy!
Posted by: Dennis | June 28, 2008 11:50 AM
Were it not for the sad and unfortunate fact that many, many people will suffer as a result of this perhaps well-intentioned but certainly misguided decision, I should rub my paws together and cackle with mingled glee and anticipatory schadenfreude at the thought of watching the law of unintended consequences landing on Texas with both feet and doing the Charleston.
It is possible, I suppose, to read this decision another way: the court may be saying to the faithful 'be aware of which churches you join and what beliefs you accept, for we will not protect you from the consequences of error'.
(pause)
Nawwwwwww. They just gave the xian wackaloon front a pass to do that which would get the rest of us thrown in prison.
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: The MadPanda | June 28, 2008 11:51 AM
Yep, and I can sure as fuck guess that, given that this was an exorcism, she very probably didn't consent.
Posted by: SharpTak | June 28, 2008 11:52 AM
So how long until some wacknut Muslim cleric sanctions an honor killing in Texas? Good bets the law gets overturned that week, whenever it is.
Posted by: Dustin | June 28, 2008 11:54 AM
And then I feel all scared and sad, and need to eat a cookie.
I just received a funny email from a friend yesterday about the "new stress diet." It points out: "Remember: The opposite of 'stressed' is 'desserts'." :)
Posted by: SC | June 28, 2008 11:55 AM
Posted by: Kel | June 28, 2008 11:57 AM
Your country sucks.
Posted by: Nick | June 28, 2008 12:00 PM
She almost certainly did not consent--and I deplore this decision. But was she a "child" as PZ suggests?
Posted by: Randomfactor | June 28, 2008 12:01 PM
Fucking Texas. Fucking stupid-ass, medieval Texas. Texas just sanctioned the use of a medieval (in every sense of the word) "treatment" for mental illness. Stupid fucks.
C'mon, J, where are you? Defend it by comparing it to something worse in the Muslim world. C'mon. Do it. DO IT.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 28, 2008 12:02 PM
Kseniya @ # 18: Kristof: Bush: I went to San Jacinto Junior High.
For just one year - the only year young Dubious spent in a public school.
He didn't really get into Texasism until he lost his bid for Congress to someone who out-Texased him.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 28, 2008 12:03 PM
Even if the woman did consent that does not make what happened to her legal. Consent requires that person must be mentally compentant to provide consent, and to have been fully informed of what will happen and the risks involved. It is for this reason that patients undergoing medical procedures are reqeuired to sign consent forms, unless they are either a minor, mentally incapable or are unable to provide consent due to the nature of a life threatening condition. Since the contention of the church is that woman was possessed they cannot rely on her consent, as by their criteria they have conceded she was not in a position to provide it.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 28, 2008 12:04 PM
"Just pointing out that age of consent in Texas is 17..."
But that 17-year-old gets abstinence-only sex "education" in Texas public school classes. Of course, the fundiots don't teach the "strengths and weaknesses" of abstinence, like they clamor for regarding evolution, where they read "weaknesses" to be the creationist tripe from Behe, Wells, and the like.
Still, it is always fun to hear them reject a main tenet of their religion by claiming that abstinence is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy.
Posted by: Ediacaran | June 28, 2008 12:05 PM
The story I read here http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/06/28/0628exorcism.html states:
"Schubert testified that she was pinned to the floor for three hours while she screamed, flailed and begged to be freed.
Even so, three days later she returned to the Colleyville church, where the experience was repeated."
To some degree doesn't this sound like consensual behavior?
Posted by: Soybomb | June 28, 2008 12:08 PM
"To some degree doesn't this sound like consensual behavior? "
It could. It could also indicate she was being subjected to a high degree of coercion. Since it is not disputed the woman had emotional issues, the latter is not at all improbable. And if during the process she had asked to be released, and those carrying out the excorcism failed to do so, how is that not assault ? Does no not mean no during an exorcism ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 28, 2008 12:11 PM
Ianal - but wouldn't it be practically obligatory for the next Texas lawyers who defend a church-based abuse/molestation case to cite this ruling in defense of their clients?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 28, 2008 12:14 PM
Re: #37
Of course it should have stopped, it was wrong, and the entire thing, from start to court decision, aspires to dumb. I just have a little less sympathy for someone that touches the burner and complains they got burned on Friday when they just did the same thing on Tuesday. Perhaps I just don't have enough appreciation or knowledge of her mental condition at the start of this ordeal though.
Posted by: Soybomb | June 28, 2008 12:17 PM
At least the dissenters had some sense. From the dissent of Chief Justice Jefferson:
No shit. Allowing the "God told me to" defense is dangerous precisely because you can't ever determine whether it's true or not, and it's difficult to even determine whether it's sincerely believed or not. (It's also a variation of the Nuremberg Defense even if it *is* true, but that's more of a moral argument than a legal one.)
Since the majority's holding was based on the federal Free Exercise Clause, it's possible that the victim could appeal to the US Supreme Court, arguing that the Texas Supreme Court misunderstood the Free Exercise Clause and applied it too broadly to shelter intentional torts. There's a lot of US SC precedent for that argument, I think, some of which was pointed out in the dissents.
Posted by: chris | June 28, 2008 12:17 PM
It is clear that the girl did not consent, and neither did the demon. That being said, it is wise to attribute foul motives to any religious person who has a desire to "lay hands" on a teen.
I wonder how quickly Texas authorities would crack down on a peyote-using church or Santeria practitioners, 'cos not all religions are created equal.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | June 28, 2008 12:18 PM
Can someone explain why criminal charges were not brought. And is it appealable further (e.g. to the US Supreme Court.)
The only legal figleaf that I can see that could possibly cover this decision is that she implicitly consented by being a member of the church. (She did not consent, nor did her parents consent on her behalf.) This argument would seem to entitle churches to perform capital punishment on their member.
But, apparently belief in demon possession and exorcism is not universal among that church, so even an implicit consent argument would seem to be invalidated by contrary facts.
Posted by: alias Ernest Major | June 28, 2008 12:19 PM
If I'm reading the article correctly, this ruling was based on an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and rulings made by the U.S. Supreme Court, right? In that case, could this case be appealed to the Federal Courts, who will then inform the Texas Supreme Court that, no, this is not what Federal precedents say at all?
Posted by: Warren | June 28, 2008 12:21 PM
I have one question: did the demon consent to this treatment? Don't demons have rights too?
Posted by: Claymore | June 28, 2008 12:23 PM
"Of course it should have stopped, it was wrong, and the entire thing, from start to court decision, aspires to dumb. I just have a little less sympathy for someone that touches the burner and complains they got burned on Friday when they just did the same thing on Tuesday. Perhaps I just don't have enough appreciation or knowledge of her mental condition at the start of this ordeal though."
I am not that familiar with her mental state either. However we are aware how those who carried out the exorcism viewed her mental condition, and there is not way they can have considered her in a position to consent to anything. If you really do think a person is possesed by a demon you cannot also claimed they are mentally capable of consent.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 28, 2008 12:25 PM
Please stop using the term woman. It implies this was a decision made by an autonomous adult. While the age for sexual consent may be 17 in Texas, she was still a minor at the time.
Posted by: kerlyssa | June 28, 2008 12:26 PM
"...in other news, the Westboro Baptist Church relocates it's HQ to Texas."
Can you imagine if they had the consent of the law to do what *they* believe in? I sincerely hope they don't try to ride the wave of this ruling in any way. If I recall correctly, Fred Phelps used to be a lawyer, and unfortunately for everyone concerned, he wasn't actually a bad one. Then again, he seems to have gone a bit senile recently.
Anyway, this ruling is.... well it's pretty silly. Exactly what religious beliefs are covered under this? Is it basically anything that you can back up with other people saying they believe it too?
Posted by: Meeee | June 28, 2008 12:27 PM
It says she returned, not that she went willingly. The girl was 17, probably still living with her parents. You mean you've never heard of a parent forcing their kid to do something or participate in a program they didn't want to? Happens all the time, except in this case the "program" included mental torture, assault, and being held against her will.
Kind of reminds me of these camps, now that I think about it.
Posted by: SharpTak | June 28, 2008 12:27 PM
What I find particularly was the vote itself....6 - 3 ??!!!?
It was not even close!!!
Posted by: Costanza | June 28, 2008 12:29 PM
In my church we sacrifice a young virgin. Since it is an age-old rite and perfectly excepted by our constituency we are glad to hear that our rights are protected by the law. We also like to have sex with young children. Texas is AWESOME!
Posted by: Awesome | June 28, 2008 12:29 PM
Whether the victim of this retarded ruling was 17 or 71, she was still a victim. Whether she was a voluntary member of that moronic cult or not, she was still a victim. Who cares if a person may or may not know what they are getting into when they join? It's illegal to abuse your spouse or lover, regardless of the voluntary nature of the relationship. Treatment that traumatizes a person emotionally or physically should be illegal no matter what the context. This ruling is just a "slippery slope" down which shit will slide until it hits bottom - murder. We all know fundies lack even a vestigial form of logic, and this just proves it yet again.
Posted by: dorris | June 28, 2008 12:30 PM
Let's see if I can argue for the Court's decision here:
The claim of damages was not all that related to the physical restraint; the claim of damages was instead related to mental disturbances that seem to relate to a whole package of religious beliefs and religious participation. She was a willing participant in this religion, freely spending a large amount of time in the church, freely participating in its activities, and remaining in the church and returning to it after the first of the pin-down episodes.
Given that she was 17, isn't this old enough for her to consent to participating in a religion and religious beliefs? If she then has a mental breakdown over believing demons, etc, isn't that her fault for believing in them? Or are you going to say that no 17-yr-old has a right to involve themselves in such beliefs, even with parental assent -- that would surely be a denial of religious freedom.
Part of what she was suing for was that she would "require extensive time to recover trust in authorities, spiritual leaders, and her life-long religious faith". Do you really think people should get damages for losing their religious faith?
If this were a fairly simple matter of physical assault and false imprisonment, and appropriate damages for that, then the court should indeed find against the church -- but the case was more about her spiritual beliefs, and a mental crisis they led to, and her consensusal participation in the church was far more responsible for those than the pin-down episodes.
Posted by: Coel | June 28, 2008 12:31 PM
Hi Warren (#43): it's Texas Supreme Court, so the next course of appeal is the U.S. Supreme Court. Having lost in the state courts on a constitutional claim, you can't then try the federal courts again; you've got to pick one. But, the Supreme Court is always there as a last resort.
Also, the real problem with the opinion is that the writing justice characterizes the complaint as a sectarian dispute, and it's downhill from there. More here: http://acandidworld.wordpress.com/2008/06/28/texas-supreme-court-religion-is-not-a-complete-defense-to-child-abuse/
Posted by: Ames | June 28, 2008 12:39 PM
"Please stop using the term woman. It implies this was a decision made by an autonomous adult. While the age for sexual consent may be 17 in Texas, she was still a minor at the time."
Sorry, but no. She is a woman using any reasonable meaning of the word.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 28, 2008 12:39 PM
a human being doesn't have any intrinsic rights to them
Wow. "Intrisic rights?" Sounds pretty metaphysical.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 28, 2008 12:40 PM
The Court today essentially bars all recovery for mental anguish damages stemming from allegedly religiously motivated, intentional invasions of bodily integrity committed against members of a religious group.
Rack me up an altarboy! I feel the lord 'a'callin!!!!
Posted by: Torquemada | June 28, 2008 12:44 PM
#54
Reasonable meaning? Like, say, an adult female? She is not considered an adult under our legal system. She can't vote,her parents are still her legal guardians, she's still of high school age, etc. Call her a girl or a teenager. or a minor. All of these terms are more correct than woman, which would only be correct in a strict medical sense(as a sexually mature human female)
Posted by: Kerlyssa | June 28, 2008 12:44 PM
Well that is pretty sickening. I expect the Law of Unintended Consequences will be visiting Tejas pretty friggin' soon.
In the meantime, I look forward to a mass migration of Rastafarians to Tejas.
I'm dubious about the provenance for this quote (I thought it was TJefferson), but it is apropos:
"Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose." - Oliver Wendell Holmes
Posted by: True Bob | June 28, 2008 12:46 PM
There surely is a duty on any religious or spiritual adviser leader to know the difference between a person who simply undergoing a crisis in their belief and a person who is suffering from deeper pyschological issues ? In the case of the latter should there also not be a duty of such people to ensure anyone presenting with pyschological issues be directed to more appropriate forms of help, such as a mental health team ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 28, 2008 12:46 PM
Hmm...Even assuming that it was consentual from her side... Doesn't it make temple prostitution legal in Texas? At least, it clearly IS consentual. I think i have an idea...
Posted by: sergev | June 28, 2008 12:49 PM
Coel: All that is needed to separate out the mental suffering due to the physical assault and false imprisonment is that the jury, assuming the matter of religion had even been before the trial court - it wasn't!) be told to award damages for the mental suffering they find a person would suffer if religion were not a part of it. As the dissent notes, the church itself forced the trial court to entirely exclude any consideration of relious motivations or beliefs.
The dissent answers your questions. Comparing the opinion and the dissent, it seems clear the court simply didn't want to find against the church.
Judges of the Supreme Court of Texas are elected. Sheesh.
Posted by: Mike from Ottawa | June 28, 2008 12:49 PM
Stare decisis. They are laying groundwork for future cases. Can you imagine the FLDS lawsuits by the lost boys or the child brides?
Posted by: Mold | June 28, 2008 12:49 PM
Matt, that would hold true maybe if said religio believed in the benefits of modern mental health practitioners (extend this to regular medical care soon, too). Tom Cruise and company won't be looking for a shrink to help their minions get "clear".
Posted by: True Bob | June 28, 2008 12:52 PM
Kerlyssa,
Yes reasonable meaning.
In many juridisctions she would be an adult. She would in the UK for an example, alebeit not yet with the full rights of an adult. The legal age of consent argument is thus a load of rubbish. She is a woman, as I said, by any reasonable meaning of the word. If you want to use an unreasonable one do so. Just do not complain when others do not go along with you.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 28, 2008 12:53 PM
What a can of worms that opens up! I guess genital mutilation is OK, too, and executing witches? After all, they are religious traditions, too. How about the Inquisition?
Posted by: Monado | June 28, 2008 12:54 PM
So, I checked the dictionaries to see if this was a translation issue, but it doesn't look like it to me.
Whats metaphysical about assigning intrinsical value to human life? Is this going to lead into some fallacy about what atheists are and aren't supposed to think?
Posted by: Dutch Delight | June 28, 2008 12:55 PM
Way to make my good mood evaporate! I'm going to go play with the cats.
Posted by: Monado | June 28, 2008 12:57 PM
#61 "All that is needed to separate out the mental suffering due to the physical assault and false imprisonment is that the jury,[...] be told to award damages for the mental suffering they find a person would suffer if religion were not a part of it."
I agree. If that had been done I'd defend the award of damages. However, it was not done, and (even according to the dissent) the damages pertained to wider issues than the false-imprisonment episodes.
Anyhow, focussing on the false imprisonment, while leaving the religious issues out of it, is a very different take on the affair than PZ's post.
Posted by: Coel | June 28, 2008 12:57 PM
"Matt, that would hold true maybe if said religio believed in the benefits of modern mental health practitioners (extend this to regular medical care soon, too). Tom Cruise and company won't be looking for a shrink to help their minions get "clear"."
Bob,
This would be were the reasonable test would come in. In many issues like this the issue is not what the person under investigation thinks, but what a reasonable person would think. It is a test that comes from English common law, and is used in the US as the US also uses English common law.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 28, 2008 12:57 PM
At the very least I'm using safewords for all my future exorcism related activities now.
Posted by: Soybomb | June 28, 2008 12:58 PM
She is a woman using any reasonable meaning of the word.
Not so:
1) She is not legally an adult.
2) It has become clear brain development, in particular the prefrontal lobes, which are vital to the "executive functions" - good judgement, in other words - are not fully developed until the early 20s.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 28, 2008 1:00 PM
You can't have it both ways Matt.
In the UK 18 (not 17) is the age one reaches adulthood and until then your parents have a lot of control. I can imagine the control in Texas in a fundamentalist family is beyond your comprehension, it's certainly beyond mine.
Posted by: Kitty | June 28, 2008 1:03 PM
Whats metaphysical about assigning intrinsical value to human life?
I'd say that the preponderance of evidence is that there is none. If you base your notion of intrinsic value on past human behaviors, a human life is pretty damn disposable (unless you happen to be the person on the receiving end of the bullet, sword, spear, arrow...) If you base it on something else then what is it? We were emphatically not endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. Not when you consider how often and trivially they are alienated.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 28, 2008 1:06 PM
Nick,
She may not legally be an adult, but she is also no longer legally a child, in Texas or in many other jurisdictions. For example in the UK she could legally consent to sex or medical treatment but could not marry or join the forces without parental consent.
With regards brain development, you are correct. However that does not stop us from considering people younger than their early twenties adults. We allow them to vote, to marry, to join the armed forces for example. We do not depend on the results of a brain scan to allow them to do any of those things, and those are all things we consider to be reserved to adults.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 28, 2008 1:06 PM
MadPanda says,
That sounds like a good basis for a warning sticker on churches!
Posted by: Monado | June 28, 2008 1:07 PM
J: Ignore me. I lost my head there for a sec. Sorry.
Posted by: Kseniya | June 28, 2008 1:10 PM
If that Mormon polygamy cult's lawyers don't bring up this ruling, then they've got some rather incompetent lawyers ...
Good Thor, what a mind-numbingly stupid ruling.
Posted by: Paper Hand | June 28, 2008 1:11 PM
"In the UK 18 (not 17) is the age one reaches adulthood and until then your parents have a lot of control. I can imagine the control in Texas in a fundamentalist family is beyond your comprehension, it's certainly beyond mine."
They cannot prevent you consenting once you are 16, nor can they prevent you consenting, or declining, medical treatment. However even reaching 18 in the UK does not confer full rights on you. You cannot stand for parliament, or drive an HGV until you are 21. You also cannot have it both ways.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 28, 2008 1:11 PM
So if a church wants to smoke the weed as part of their religious ceremonies, the Texas Supreme Court will protect that activity lest the prohibition have chilling effect on the practice of relgion.
Oh wait, they're right-wing hypocrites!
Posted by: chadavalon | June 28, 2008 1:11 PM
From the ruling:
Q to expert: "when you say Laura has been traumatized, you're talking about, in part,the experience about being told about demons, demons in her presence, demons around her,they need to get rid of demons, chase them away, beat on the walls of the church, anointthings with oil, that whole Friday night length of activity, you believe that's part of Laura Schubert being traumatized?"
"A. Yes, I do."
Note that this Friday night activity was entirely consensual, and was two days before the first false-imprisonment episode. So, she was traumatized (at least partly) by consensual religious activity such as believing in demons, etc.
Even the dissent -- quite rightly -- does not think she should get damages for that.
From Jefferson's dissent: "Thus, because one of Schubert's experts, Dr. Helge, testified as to the whole of Schubert's mental anguish, the jury may have awarded damages stemming in part from the religious nature of the events in question. This is prohibited by the First Amendment."
Yes, there could be a case for damages (as the dissent explains): "A jury could then be instructed to award damages only for the mental anguish the plaintiff would have suffered had the tort [the false imprisonment] been committed by a secular actor in a secular setting."
Posted by: Coel | June 28, 2008 1:13 PM
"Call her a girl or a teenager. or a minor. All of these terms are more correct than woman, which would only be correct in a strict medical sense(as a sexually mature human female)"
None of those terms is more correct.
She may not have full adult rights, but she has more than is allowed a girl. The term teenager covers to wide an age range to be useful, since it covers those considered minors (13) to those considered adults (18, 20). The term minor is also unhelpful as it fails to discriminate between those given some rights of an adult, but not all, and those given none.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 28, 2008 1:16 PM
This one has a poll!
Do you believe in exorcisms?
Yes?
No?
http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/728136.html
Posted by: Funkstronaut | June 28, 2008 1:16 PM
Monado, what an excellent suggestion! "Warning: Contents Prone To Unpredictable And Irrational Behavior" No, wait, that's Congress...
Matt Penfold: with regrets, you are in error...and your error, understandable and laudable as it is, lies in expecting the word 'reasonable' to apply here. US Law is not always reasonable and realistic in regards to whether or not a 17 year old is a child or an adult. It is also not uniform from state to state, and thus what is legal in one state will get you thrown into prison in another.
Personally, I'm inclined to agree with you, but they don't ask my opinion before they pass laws of this nature.
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: The MadPanda | June 28, 2008 1:18 PM
I concede that to you Matt but I find it hard to believe that if this was a 17 year old male you would be equally determined to label him a man.
IMHO I think you are labouring the point.
Posted by: Kitty | June 28, 2008 1:19 PM
I don't see how religious motive excuse an individual's actions.
It the actions would be considered illegal or harmful in the absence of religious context, they should be considered harmful in that context as well.
The law should be agnostic regarding religion. To do otherwise, entangles government with religion.
Posted by: Ben Abbott | June 28, 2008 1:19 PM
Interestingly, there is very little in either the ruling or the dissent that hinges on her being a minor of age 17. Both the ruling and dissent treat her as capable of consent, and there is nothing in them what would be different had she been 19 not 17.
Posted by: Coel | June 28, 2008 1:24 PM
Kitty,
I think there is a lack of a word to describe those who we have decided are allowed some but not all of the rights of an adult. We normally start allowing adult rights between the ages of 14 and 21, depending of the jurisdiction and circumstances. We have no word that covers that age range. The best I can come up with is young adult/man/woman.
And actually, I would consider a 17 year old man a man, albeit one without the full rights of an adult and allowances need to be made for that.
Incidently, as I understand minors in the US can be tried as adults. If that is the case, can a minor argue they are actually an adult if they charged with underage sex or drinking ? And if not, why not ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 28, 2008 1:25 PM
How is this a big deal?
I don't consider under-age girls as people, so the court was right, once again.
~R. Kelly