[hyteckit]

First you have a Christian teacher burning a cross on a student's arm. Now you have a girl being cut and bruised by the church.

Lawsuit and award tossed out by the Texas Supreme Court because exorcism is a protected practice even if it involves physically injuring a minor, and imprisoning the girl against her will.

Texas high court rules exorcism protected by law - Yahoo! News

The crazy religious stuff has gotta stop.

[red rocket]

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."

Huh? There’s something in the US constitution about ‘chilling effects’? What the **** does that even mean?

[Chuckit]

They've got it backwards. Laws against harming people don't go out the door because it was during an exorcism — you just can't make a law targeted at exorcism. If it goes to the real Supreme Court, this won't even be a close vote.

[Captain Obvious]

Not a criminal case.
A quick glance makes it sound like what happened in the original trial was that she was awarded damages over claimed PTSD based on the jury's opinion that she was exposed to intentional infliction of trauma. They concluded that the experience she was subjected to lead to all the problems she encountered thereafter and therefore deserved financial compensation.
The fact that the details over how she came to experience the traumatic event were withheld from the jury is a problem in so much that the church's claim that this is a common practice and ritual done to/by congregation members was relevant to the case. What in essence was being asked of the jury was for them to make a judgement if this church's religious practices were psychologically damaging.

You need to tune out the noise and tabloid journalism from that article to see what was really at issue in the case. I am positive the OP is incapable of doing that. The physical injuries sustained by the girl at that time were not central to the claims. And what the court ruled on was quite limited in scope. It may be overturned down the road but not for the reasons that elicited the illogical outrage that is the source of this thread.

If what is being implied in here was really the issue then opponents would have people being able to sue for involuntarily being subjected to a bris.

[Captain Obvious]

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.u...jun/050916.pdf


Careful hyteckit, the court's majority opinion gives more detail than you were exposed to in your in depth yahoo report and it uses big boy words too.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Not a criminal case.
A quick glance makes it sound like what happened in the original trial was that she was awarded damages over claimed PTSD based on the jury's opinion that she was exposed to intentional infliction of trauma. They concluded that the experience she was subjected to lead to all the problems she encountered thereafter and therefore deserved financial compensation.
The fact that the details over how she came to experience the traumatic event were withheld from the jury is a problem in so much that the church's claim that this is a common practice and ritual done to/by congregation members was relevant to the case. What in essence was being asked of the jury was for them to make a judgement if this church's religious practices were psychologically damaging.

You need to tune out the noise and tabloid journalism from that article to see what was really at issue in the case. I am positive the OP is incapable of doing that. The physical injuries sustained by the girl at that time were not central to the claims. And what the court ruled on was quite limited in scope. It may be overturned down the road but not for the reasons that elicited the illogical outrage that is the source of this thread.

If what is being implied in here was really the issue then opponents would have people being able to sue for involuntarily being subjected to a bris.

I guess you are incapable of comprehending what I wrote in the OP and needed to go on the defensive. The crazy religious stuff has gotta stop.

Did you even read what you posted? Basically, the Ninth Circuit court said all religious organization is protected against intangible or emotional harms in most, if not all, circumstances, and that “[i]mposing tort liability for shunning on the Church would in the long run have the same effect as prohibiting the practice and would compel the Church to abandon part of its religious teachings”

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.u...jun/050916.pdf

I. $300,000 was awarded for physical and emotional injuries due to 'secular activities' such as assault and false imprisonment.

Thereafter, Laura and her parents sued Pleasant Glade, the senior pastor, the youth minister, and other members of the church, alleging negligence, gross negligence, professional negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, assault, battery, loss of consortium, and child abuse.

In the mandamus proceeding that followed, the court of appeals granted the church’s request for relief, agreeing that the Schuberts’ “religious” claims were barred by the First Amendment because they “involve a searching inquiry into Assembly of God beliefs and the validity of such beliefs....

The church did not ask for mandamus protection from Laura’s claims of false imprisonment and assault, and those claims were not included in the court’s definition of religious claims. Following the mandamus proceeding, the trial court signed a protective order, prohibiting the Schuberts from inquiring into or debating the religious teachings, practices, or beliefs of the Pentecostal or Assembly of God churches. Laura’s remaining claims proceeded to trial, where a jury found that Laura had been assaulted and falsely imprisoned by the senior pastor, the youth minister, and several church members. The jury apportioned liability among these defendants, attributing fifty percent to the senior pastor, twenty-five percent to the youth minister, and the remainder to the other defendants. Finally, the jury awarded Laura damages of $300,000 for her pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity, and medical expenses.


II. In the court of appeals, Pleasant Glade only sought mandamus relief for Laura’s emotional injuries. Pleasant Glade argues on appeal that the First Amendment protects it from liability for Laura’s emotional injuries connected with its religious practices.

From this, it would appear that Pleasant Glade viewed Laura’s claims of emotional damages as religious in nature; whereas any claim for physical injury, the church deemed secular. Based on this characterization, Pleasant Glade only sought mandamus relief for Laura’s emotional injuries.

The court of appeals, however, observed that “[h]aving obtained, in the prior mandamus proceeding, the dismissal of all but Laura’s assault and false imprisonment claims, which they swore under oath should ‘go forward’ because they were purely secular and entitled to no First Amendment protections, [Pleasant Glade] cannot now ‘play fast and loose’ with the judicial system by taking the opposite position in this appeal to suit their own purposes.”....

Pleasant Glade’s mandamus petition, however, merely distinguished Laura’s bodily injury claims from her emotional damage claims. That distinction is consistent with its present appellate contention that the award of damages for Laura’s emotional injury is barred by the First Amendment. It is not apparent, therefore, how Pleasant Glade’s previous concession that Laura’s purely physical injuries were secular, rather than religious in nature, is inconsistent with the church’s present position. Pleasant Glade argues on appeal that the First Amendment protects it from liability for Laura’s emotional injuries connected with its religious practices, and the court of appeals agreed in its mandamus opinion that the conduct alleged in the Schuberts’ petition was “inexorably intertwined with Pleasant Glade’s religious beliefs” and thus protected under the First Amendment.


III. The Ninth Circuit court believe all religious organization are protected against intangible or emotional harms in most, if not all, circumstances. The whole case was toss out because they weren't able to determine whether the emotional injuries was cause by Laura’s physical restraint and the psychological trauma resulting from the discussion of demons at the church.

In particular, the Ninth Circuit held that “intangible or emotional harms cannot ordinarily serve as a basis for maintaining a tort cause of action against a church for its practice – or against its members.” Id. Therefore, “[a] religious organization has a defense of constitutional privilege to claims that it has caused intangible harms – in most, if not all, circumstances.”

Laura asserted, however, that the events at the church caused her both physical and emotional injury, and the church concedes that the First Amendment does not protect it from Laura’s claim of physical injury. But Laura’s case was not about her physical injuries. Although she suffered scrapes and bruises during these events, her proof at trial related solely to her subsequent emotional or psychological injuries.....

Laura did not assert that the church-related events had caused her any physical impairment or disfigurement. She did not complain of physical injury that night, and her scrapes and bruises went unnoticed until the next morning when she showed them to her parents. Her medical proof at trial was also not about physical injury but about her psychological evaluations and treatment. Under this record, any claim of physical pain appears inseparable from that of her emotional injuries...

However, even Laura’s psychological expert, Dr. Arthur Swen Helge, admitted that he could not separate the damages resulting from Laura’s physical restraint and the psychological trauma resulting from the discussion of demons at the church. Because of Dr. Helge’s inability to separate these damages, the church repeatedly objected that the witness not be allowed to testify.

[hyteckit]

Basically, the Texas Supreme Court says you can't sue the Church for tort liability for engaging in religious activity.

So, unless your child suffers "physical impairment or disfigurement" during exorcism, you can't sue the Church for tort liability even if your child suffers emotionally from it, cause it's protected by the First Amendment. The Church is allow to abuse your child and imprison them as long as it a religious practice, against your knowledge and wishes as a parent.

Tip: Make sure the church you attend doesn't do crazy exorcism stuff. You might find yourself or your child getting pinned down, assaulted, and imprisoned.


These crazy religious stuff has gotta stop. Now I understand why these crazy religious people burn crosses on children's arms, assaults children, and imprisons them. Cause they are protected by the law, according to the Texas Supreme Court.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Basically, the Texas Supreme Court says you can't sue the Church for tort liability for engaging in religious activity.

So, unless your child suffers "physical impairment or disfigurement" during exorcism, you can't sue the Church for tort liability even if your child suffers emotionally from it, cause it's protected by the First Amendment. The Church is allow to abuse your child and imprison them as long as it a religious practice, against your knowledge and wishes as a parent.

Tip: Make sure the church you attend doesn't do crazy exorcism stuff. You might find yourself or your child getting pinned down, assaulted, and imprisoned.


These crazy religious stuff has gotta stop. Now I understand why these crazy religious people burn crosses on children's arms, assaults children, and imprisons them. Cause they are protected by the law, according to the Texas Supreme Court.

Wait just a minute.

Presumably, if the Church has a child in a religious practice, the Church has this child with the permission and approval of the parent.

Responsibility for the child begins and ends with the parent.

Physical harm is quantifiable. Emotional harm is much less so.

When a child in school is harmed by a teacher, the parent has delegated power to the school, but not responsibility.

You need to be very very careful, as the court was, in determining what you wish to punish or outlaw. You can punish physical harm that has resulted, but if you create prior restraint that prevents people from practicing their religious beliefs, you've begun to outlaw what people can and cannot believe.

Do you really want to have a government that dictates what thoughtcrimes will be?

I sincerely hope you do not.

[RAILhead]

Of course he does.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Wait just a minute.

Presumably, if the Church has a child in a religious practice, the Church has this child with the permission and approval of the parent.

Responsibility for the child begins and ends with the parent.

Sorry, but neighter the Church or Parent can physically abuse nor falsely imprison a child against a child's will. The child is not property. The parent can't abuse the child and falsely imprison the child against their will just because it's their religious belief. The parent and the Church cannot toss a child into a dark room without food and water for 12 hours just because it's their religious belief. How does a parent grant such permissions they don't have to the Church? There are laws against child abuse.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Physical harm is quantifiable. Emotional harm is much less so.

When a child in school is harmed by a teacher, the parent has delegated power to the school, but not responsibility.

You need to be very very careful, as the court was, in determining what you wish to punish or outlaw. You can punish physical harm that has resulted, but if you create prior restraint that prevents people from practicing their religious beliefs, you've begun to outlaw what people can and cannot believe.

Do you really want to have a government that dictates what thoughtcrimes will be?

I sincerely hope you do not.

If the child was physically harmed in school by a teacher on purpose, then the teacher/school is responsible for the physical and possibly emotional harm.
If the child was emotionally harmed in school by a teacher who showed pornographic or graphical movies without the parent's prior consent, then the teacher/school is responsible for the emotional harm.
Just because the parent has handed their child to the Church doesn't meant the Church is free from responsibility. Just because the parent has handed their child to the school doesn't mean the school is free from responsibility.

So you think if a 17 girl is raped at Church as part of a religious punishment without the girl's or parent's permission, the Church is free from all tort liability just because it's part of their religious practice, as long as the girl doesn't suffer 'physical impairment or disfigurement'? Sure the person's involve in the rape would get prison time, but they are free from any tort liability even if the girl suffers emotional damages and wants to commit suicide as a result.

So, you think it's okay for a polygamist sect to enslaved children and abuse them because it's their religious belief and they where given permission by the parents? Remember the recent incident where a Polygamist compound was raided?


Oh right, cause we have laws against polygamy which violates what some people can and cannot believe. People with polygamist believe have their First Amendment violated by laws about polygamy, child abuse, and falsely imprisoning a child against her will.


Seriously, this whole crazy religious practices have got to stop.

[hyteckit]

My parents are not religious. However, when I was a young child, my parents granted permission to a missionary to take me to Sunday school and church. Imaging if the church try to perform exorcism on me by holding me down against my will for an hour and then keep me falsely imprison for 12 hours without food or water. According to the Texas Supreme Court, my parents nor I would be able to sue the church for tort liability even if I suffer emotional damages that prevented me from functioning normally in society and prevented me from holding a job. They are somehow protected from tort liability and emotional harm just because it's part of their religious practices.

This decision makes me sick and you guys defending it makes me sick.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Wait just a minute.

Presumably, if the Church has a child in a religious practice, the Church has this child with the permission and approval of the parent.

Responsibility for the child begins and ends with the parent.

Physical harm is quantifiable. Emotional harm is much less so.

When a child in school is harmed by a teacher, the parent has delegated power to the school, but not responsibility.

Do you really think this "power without responsibility" idea is remotely realistic? By that logic, withholding your child from school would be not only reasonable but the only correct choice. Because if a teacher doesn't like your child, she can just beat the kid within an inch of his life with impunity, and you would go to jail for the crime. That's an insane legal system.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You need to be very very careful, as the court was, in determining what you wish to punish or outlaw. You can punish physical harm that has resulted, but if you create prior restraint that prevents people from practicing their religious beliefs, you've begun to outlaw what people can and cannot believe.

Do you really want to have a government that dictates what thoughtcrimes will be?

I sincerely hope you do not.

Wait, what? Not allowing people to harm others as a part of their religious practice is creating thoughtcrimes? Am I misunderstanding you?

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I guess you are incapable of comprehending what I wrote in the OP and needed to go on the defensive. The crazy religious stuff has gotta stop.

Did you even read what you posted?

Oh, I understand what I wrote. And I understand you are incapable of separating the case law from your personal hang-ups. That's sad. Seriously, how many times did you subconsciously include the words physical harm, rape, and abuse in your posts? Hyteckit, if I hold up a doll can you show us where the bad man touched you?
And I didn't go on the defensive as much as I was clarifying the issues that were actually central to the story rather than the ones you want people to believe are.

lol
Let me say that again, LOL.
Your summaries of the passages are not only incorrect but they like to take liberties into what the issues presented before the court were.

I. $300,000 was awarded for physical and emotional injuries due to 'secular activities' such as assault and false imprisonment.

Damages were NOT in fact awarded because of physical injuries.
And not "such as" its more like "only in the scope of"
Of the 7 original claims assault and false imprisonment were the only ones that weren't thrown out by the lower court.

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.............
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

The original jury was not allowed to hear that part of the story which has a bearing in consideration of determining if she was assaulted and kept under false imprisonment. In any case the bigger question before the court is if the religious practice that lead to her being restrained can and should be interpreted by the jury under those claims without giving deference to the constitutional protections of all religions.

II. In the court of appeals, Pleasant Glade only sought mandamus relief for Laura’s emotional injuries. Pleasant Glade argues on appeal that the First Amendment protects it from liability for Laura’s emotional injuries connected with its religious practices.

That's because the jury only awarded damages for the emotional harm. There'd be no point about seeking relief for physical harm when the jury was told it did not factor in to their consideration.

III. The Ninth Circuit court believe all religious organization are protected against intangible or emotional harms in most, if not all, circumstances. The whole case was toss out because they weren't able to determine whether the emotional injuries was cause by Laura’s physical restraint and the psychological trauma resulting from the discussion of demons at the church.

This is the funniest of them all because clearly you don't know what tort law is. Its like the passage you cited didn't really register or more likely you didn't understand the implications of the statements the court made. I know, I know.... its the big words.
Intention of harm or damage is very important here. The fact that the first court threw out her claim of negligence had a very direct impact on the jury's ability to award damages based on her claim of emotional harm under a tort.
The lower court's ruling was overturned in part because the higher court did not want to establish a claim for financial compensation for intangible injuries under these circumstances. Say it with me, toooooooort laaaaaaaw.

In particular, the Ninth Circuit held that “intangible or emotional harms cannot ordinarily serve as a basis for maintaining a tort cause of action

I am not saying that I agree with the practices of the church. I am telling you that your screwed up childhood is clouding the issues in the news story for you. Get help dude. The case isn't about what you think it was.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Oh, I understand what I wrote. And I understand you are incapable of separating the case law from your personal hang-ups. That's sad. Seriously, how many times did you subconsciously include the words physical harm, rape, and abuse in your posts? Hyteckit, if I hold up a doll can you show us where the bad man touched you?
And I didn't go on the defensive as much as I was clarifying the issues that were actually central to the story rather than the ones you want people to believe are.

lol
Let me say that again, LOL.
Your summaries of the passages are not only incorrect but they like to take liberties into what the issues presented before the court were.



Damages were NOT in fact awarded because of physical injuries.
And not "such as" its more like "only in the scope of"
Of the 7 original claims assault and false imprisonment were the only ones that weren't thrown out by the lower court.

The award was for emotional distress from both physical harm and false imprisonment, because the other claims were somehow protected under the First Amendment and must be tossed out.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

That's because the jury only awarded damages for the emotional harm. There'd be no point about seeking relief for physical harm when the jury was told it did not factor in to their consideration.



This is the funniest of them all because clearly you don't know what tort law is. Its like the passage you cited didn't really register or more likely you didn't understand the implications of the statements the court made. I know, I know.... its the big words.
Intention of harm or damage is very important here. The fact that the first court threw out her claim of negligence had a very direct impact on the jury's ability to award damages based on her claim of emotional harm under a tort.
The lower court's ruling was overturned in part because the higher court did not want to establish a claim for financial compensation for intangible injuries under these circumstances. Say it with me, toooooooort laaaaaaaw.

In particular, the Ninth Circuit held that “intangible or emotional harms cannot ordinarily serve as a basis for maintaining a tort cause of action

I am not saying that I agree with the practices of the church. I am telling you that your screwed up childhood is clouding the issues in the news story for you. Get help dude. The case isn't about what you think it was.

Wow, captain obvious. You captain obvious don't know what you are talking about. Your quotes are inaccurate and take liberties as to what the Ninth Circuit rules. Here the actual quote from the article.

The Ninth Circuit held that “intangible or emotional harms cannot ordinarily serve as a basis for maintaining a tort cause of action against a church for its practice – or against its members.

Don't take the liberty to chop off a sentence in order the change the meaning in order to serve your purpose. They basically said the Church is free from emotional harm in tort liability cases for its practice. By chopping off the sentence, you make it seem that emotion harms can't serve as the basis in any tort liability case, which isn't true. Tort law allows you to sue for intangible injuries.

Tort - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tort law may also be used to compensate for injuries to a number of other individual interests that are not recognized in property or contract law, and are intangible. This includes an interest in freedom from emotional distress, privacy interests, and reputation. These are protected by a number of torts such as infliction, privacy torts, and defamation. Defamation and privacy torts may, for example, allow a celebrity to sue a newspaper for publishing an untrue and harmful statement about him. Other protected interests include freedom of movement, protected by the intentional tort of false imprisonment.

I guess you don't know 'big words'.

The case was toss out because the Ninth Court couldn't determine whether the emotion distress was cause by 'secular activities' alone. Somehow you can only sue for emotional distress cause by secular activities, but not religious activities. That's a freaking outrage.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The award was for emotional distress from both physical harm and false imprisonment, because the other claims were somehow protected under the First Amendment.

Laura asserted, however, that the events at the church caused her both physical and emotional injury, and the church concedes that the First Amendment does not protect it from Laura’s claim of physical injury. But Laura’s case was not about her physical injuries. Although she suffered scrapes and bruises during these events, her proof at trial related solely to her subsequent emotional or psychological injuries.....

The irony is that you were the one that included that in this thread.

Don't take the liberty to chop off a sentence in order the change the meaning in order to serve your purpose. They basically said the Church is free from emotional harm in tort liability cases for its practice. By chopping off the sentence, you make it seem that emotion harms can't serve as the basis in any tort liability case, which isn't true. Tort law allows you to sue for intangible injuries.

Actually I can take that liberty as it was not relevant to the statement I made.

And yes under a tort you can sue for intangible injuries but then you have to prove intent to harm. In fact I said that right up there. Without that you need to prove negligence. And what did I say happened to her claim of negligence? It was thrown out.

Furthermore there was evidence that the individual suffered emotional distress prior to the incident which could account for part if not all her psychological dysfunction.

Wikipedia.... lol.
Way to bring out the big guns.
Listen, If you want to cry and whine about something that isn't there because someone somewhere scarred you in your youth then by all means project onto this and every other case you think is relevant. But in the legal scope of this case, its not some big scary over reaching decision that gives free reign to every cult in the country.


The Supreme Court said churches couldn't inflict intentional harm on their subjects and claim protections under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

"We do not mean to imply that 'under the cloak of religion, persons may, with impunity,' commit intentional torts upon their religious adherents," the high court said.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Laura asserted, however, that the events at the church caused her both physical and emotional injury, and the church concedes that the First Amendment does not protect it from Laura’s claim of physical injury. But Laura’s case was not about her physical injuries. Although she suffered scrapes and bruises during these events, her proof at trial related solely to her subsequent emotional or psychological injuries.....

The irony is that you were the one that included that in this thread.




Actually I can take that liberty as it was not relevant to the statement I made.

And yes under a tort you can sue for intangible injuries but then you have to prove intent to harm. In fact I said that right up there. Without that you need to prove negligence. And what did I say happened to her claim of negligence? It was thrown out.

Furthermore there was evidence that the individual suffered emotional distress prior to the incident which could account for part if not all her psychological dysfunction.

Wikipedia.... lol.
Way to bring out the big guns.
Listen, If you want to cry and whine about something that isn't there because someone somewhere scarred you in your youth then by all means project onto this and every other case you think is relevant. But in the legal scope of this case, its not some big scary over reaching decision that gives free reign to every cult in the country.


The Supreme Court said churches couldn't inflict intentional harm on their subjects and claim protections under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

"We do not mean to imply that 'under the cloak of religion, persons may, with impunity,' commit intentional torts upon their religious adherents," the high court said.

The courts threw out claims of negligence, gross negligence, professional negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress resulting from the religious activity, because it was somehow protected by the first Amendment. Wasn't that my f*ing disagreement with the ruling all along? Then the Ninth Court threw out the case because they couldn't separate out the emotional harm cause by 'secular activities' and emotional harm cause by religious activities.

Wikipedia. LOL. Wikipedia is right on tort laws, and you are f*cking wrong. LOL. Whose the moron now?

Seriously, just admit you don't know when sh*t stinks.

Basically if gives the church the power to strip your daughter naked, parade them, and humiliate them as long as it's a religious practice.
It gives the church the power to perform exorcism on your child without consent, hold them against their will, and falsely imprison them.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The courts threw out claims of negligence, gross negligence, professional negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress resulting from the religious activity, because it was somehow protected by the first Amendment. Wasn't that my f*ing disagreement with the ruling all along?

Actually, no. That was not at all your point. Didn't you know that?

Your thread and your "arguments" were based on the ruling of theTexas Supreme Court. The other claims were done away with in the lower court. Those claims didn't actually factor in the appeal. What was appealed was the rulings made from the two standing claims.

So to answer your question, look in the mirror. Because this:

Basically if gives the church the power to strip your daughter naked, parade them, and humiliate them as long as it's a religious practice.

Is just the ranting of a person with deep seeded issues over the subject.
Its a cry to be heard.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Actually, no. That was not at all your point. Didn't you know that?

Your thread and your "arguments" were based on the ruling of theTexas Supreme Court. The other claims were done away with in the lower court. Those claims didn't actually factor in the appeal. What was appealed was the rulings made from the two standing claims.

So to answer your question, look in the mirror. Because this:



Is just the ranting of a person with deep seeded issues over the subject.
Its a cry to be heard.

My disagreements is with the Texas courts ruling that exorcism is protected by law even involving physical injury. The case was toss out because they couldn't separate out the emotional harm cause by 'secular activities' and emotion harm cause by religious activities. That's ridiculous.

Sorry, but the church I've attended don't do crazy sh*t like exorcism, burning crosses on people's body, parading your child naked, or use rape as a punishment. Maybe your church does and that's you are so desensitize to it, and think it's okay for the church to perform exorcism on a child and falsely imprison without the parent's consent and against the child's will. Maybe you need to look in the mirror and see who you really are.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

So to answer your question, look in the mirror. Because this:

Basically if gives the church the power to strip your daughter naked, parade them, and humiliate them as long as it's a religious practice.

Is just the ranting of a person with deep seeded issues over the subject.
Its a cry to be heard.

Why? You don't think there are religious practices where they parade your daughter naked as a punishment?

If you had a daughter and you gave her permission to go with a Muslim friend to a Islam church, is the Islam church allowed to strip her and force her to parade naked without fear of getting sue for tort liability?

Khaleej Times Online - Pakistani woman paraded naked in revenge

[vmarks]

Clarification: I have never suggested that school employees or churches should be free from responsibility just because ultimate responsibility lies with the parent.

Obviously, you pursue the person who directly harmed your child, and the law correctly in my opinion punishes that person.

Clarification: the reason why people are even arguing about this topic at all is not because anyone supports a Church or school employee harming a child. It's because it is not a far leap to a ruling creating prior restraint (chilling effect) which effectively creates a thoughtcrime - rendering it illegal to practice religion. I do not want someone who says "we need to stop all the religious stuff" deciding what I or anyone else can believe. I especially don't want it dictated by a branch of government.

The court had a difficult job. It's important to understand what was thrown out, and what the ruling was on, precisely.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

My disagreements is with the Texas courts ruling that exorcism is protected by law even involving physical injury. The case was toss out because they couldn't separate out the emotional harm cause by 'secular activities' and emotion harm cause by religious activities. That's ridiculous.

Sorry, but the church I've attended don't do crazy sh*t like exorcism, burning crosses on people's body, parading your child naked, or use rape as a punishment. Maybe your church does and that's you are so desensitize to it, and think it's okay for the church to perform exorcism on a child and falsely imprison without the parent's consent and against the child's will. Maybe you need to look in the mirror and see who you really are.

Would you please separate out the details of this case from the details of other events and stuff you've heard about?

This case involved an exorcism.

A school teacher in a completely different state burned an X or cross on a child.

I've read a lot about Islam, and I've never heard about this parading females naked business you're asserting.

I've also not heard of rape as punishment - I've heard of rape as a part of so-called honor-crimes (although those are more commonly involving murder - a rape as a part of honor-crime seems to be about using someone as a whore because the rapists perceive the woman to be acting as a whore in their eyes.) They get away with it in Islamic societies because the testimony of a woman is valued half-as much as that of a man, so she needs to have witnesses to counteract the lesser value of her word. Here in America, this sort of thing is prosecuted as it should be for any crime of rape, equally under the law.

Please keep these things separate. This case didn't have all the acts you're bringing up.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Clarification: I have never suggested that school employees or churches should be free from responsibility just because ultimate responsibility lies with the parent.

Obviously, you pursue the person who directly harmed your child, and the law correctly in my opinion punishes that person.

Clarification: the reason why people are even arguing about this topic at all is not because anyone supports a Church or school employee harming a child. It's because it is not a far leap to a ruling creating prior restraint (chilling effect) which effectively creates a thoughtcrime - rendering it illegal to practice religion. I do not want someone who says "we need to stop all the religious stuff" deciding what I or anyone else can believe. I especially don't want it dictated by a branch of government.

The court had a difficult job. It's important to understand what was thrown out, and what the ruling was on, precisely.

The chilling effect from the Texas Supreme Court is that any religious activity is protected against tort liability even if it resulted in emotion distress to a child who is subjected to the religious activity against his/her will. You must prove that emotional distress was causes by 'secular activities' alone. The Ninth Circuit court believe all religious organization are protected against intangible or emotional harms in most, if not all, circumstances.

So you agree with the The Ninth Circuit court that all religious organization are protected against intangible or emotional harms in most, if not all, circumstances?

So if I can proof that parading a naked girl is part of my religious activities, I'm free from all tort liability lawsuits against me?


Punishing physical acts is not policing thought crime. Policing thought crime means you are being arrested and/or punished for thinking about committing a crime. Thinking about raping someone is not illegal. Thinking about molesting a child is not illegal. Committing the act is.

I don't know how you equate performing a exorcism to a thought crime. Physically harming a child is not a thought crime just because it's part of the religious practice. Forcefully holding a child and feeding the child with thoughts, ideas, and images is not a thought crime. You are coming a physical act, not just thinking about committing it. I can't just falsely imprison a child and brainwash them by feeding them thoughts, ideas, and images just because it's part of my religious activity. That's not a thought crime.

What if your religion believes and practices polygamy or gay marriages? Should laws against polygamy and gay marriages be struck down because it violates the freedom of religion? If you belief says it's okay to physically or mentally abuse a child, it doesn't mean the law has to protect it.

[vmarks]

I'm absolutely not in favor of child imprisonment or molestation.

Please do me a favor and stop saying that it's so, when it just plain isn't.



Let's take a less extreme example.

There are a number of religious ceremonies or rituals which involve wine. In some instances a drop of wine might pass the lips of a child. What do you want to do about this? It's technically illegal, at the same time, if we're honest with each other there's no real harm done. Religion could be loosely defined as a set of beliefs and rituals. If you outlaw the ritual, are you infringing on the free exercise of religion, and criminalizing a person's beliefs?

Once you start doing that, how far do you want to go?

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Clarification: the reason why people are even arguing about this topic at all is not because anyone supports a Church or school employee harming a child. It's because it is not a far leap to a ruling creating prior restraint (chilling effect) which effectively creates a thoughtcrime - rendering it illegal to practice religion.

[…]

There are a number of religious ceremonies or rituals which involve wine. In some instances a drop of wine might pass the lips of a child. What do you want to do about this? It's technically illegal, at the same time, if we're honest with each other there's no real harm done. Religion could be loosely defined as a set of beliefs and rituals. If you outlaw the ritual, are you infringing on the free exercise of religion, and criminalizing a person's beliefs?

Exorcism is hardly on the same level as transsubstantiation, is it?

Even the Catholic Church seems to have largely abandoned the former; if you allow this kind of insanity, you may as well have witch trials.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I'm absolutely not in favor of child imprisonment or molestation.

Please do me a favor and stop saying that it's so, when it just plain isn't.



Let's take a less extreme example.

There are a number of religious ceremonies or rituals which involve wine. In some instances a drop of wine might pass the lips of a child. What do you want to do about this? It's technically illegal, at the same time, if we're honest with each other there's no real harm done. Religion could be loosely defined as a set of beliefs and rituals. If you outlaw the ritual, are you infringing on the free exercise of religion, and criminalizing a person's beliefs?

Once you start doing that, how far do you want to go?

Once you start allowing exorcism, holding down a child against her will, and falsely imprison a child, how far do you want to push the limits of the freedom of religion? Parading a child naked as part of religious activities?

Key word "when no real harm is done". In this case, real harm was done, both physically and emotionally.

FOXNews.com - Texas Court: 1st Amendment Protects Church's Exorcisms - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

I agree with Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson:

But Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, in a dissenting opinion, stated that the "sweeping immunity" is inconsistent with U.S. States Supreme Court precedent and extends far beyond the Constitution's protections for religious conduct, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported in its online edition Friday.

"The First Amendment guards religious liberty; it does not sanction intentional abuse in religion's name," Jefferson wrote.


The Church should not be protected against tort liability for abusing a child and falsely imprison them.

That's just outrageous.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Exorcism is hardly on the same level as transsubstantiation, is it?

Even the Catholic Church seems to have largely abandoned the former; if you allow this kind of insanity, you may as well have witch trials.

C'mon, exorcism is a well established and proven curing method : like homeopathy, magnet therapy. As long as there are fools, there will be crooks.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Let's take a less extreme example.

It's often in the extreme cases where the more interesting implications are easy to see. Even a police state can be made to look good if we "take a less extreme example."

Originally Posted by vmarks 

There are a number of religious ceremonies or rituals which involve wine. In some instances a drop of wine might pass the lips of a child. What do you want to do about this? It's technically illegal, at the same time, if we're honest with each other there's no real harm done. Religion could be loosely defined as a set of beliefs and rituals. If you outlaw the ritual, are you infringing on the free exercise of religion, and criminalizing a person's beliefs?

You're once again taking the position of "If you outlaw a ritual, you're infringing on free exercise," and we have shown where that line of reasoning goes. The Constitution forbids making laws specifically about religion, but it does not give a religion the right in its rituals to break laws that serve a general purpose. This is why child molesters don't just go form their own church and get immunity from the government infringing on their practice — no such immunity exists, even if you call what you're doing a "ritual."

In the specific case of the wine, even individuals are generally given a pass on that one, so it would be discrimination to go after a church for that.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Once you start doing that, how far do you want to go?

That's my question to you: Once we start giving religion a special right to break the law, how far do you want to go?

[hyteckit]

The Texas Supreme Court ruling is equivalent to granting someone the permission to yell 'Fire' in a crowded movie theater and not liable for any injuries because it's protect under the First Amendment.

It's equivalent to granting someone the permission to say or write defamatory statements/comment that aren't true and not be liable for any emotional and intangible harm because it's protected under the First Amendment.

Freedom of Speech doesn't not protect you from tort liability.
Neither should Freedom of Religion protect you from tort liability.

I'm going to help this case get to the US Supreme Court. This is just outrageous!

[Randman]

What ever happened to separation of church and state? Oh wait, this is Texas.

[Captain Obvious]

I love how blinding emotional irrationality cancels out all ability in some individuals to separate out the fact that there are standing legal principles at the center of the case that cover it like an umbrella.
No, all they hear is hot button words and they start to cream all over themselves at the internal outrage they feel allowing it to fill the abscesses in their intellect with hyperbole and unrelated nonsense in hopes of stringing together a plausible argument against a perceived wrong they feel came to pass.

Its like Cody all over again. How amusing.
It even culminated in use of the slippery slope argument!

A 6-3 decision is quite decisive. If anyone thinks the Roberts Court is going to take this up then you've clearly been lobotomized at some point. In fact the lack of coverage of this case on the Sunday talk shows should give you a hint of how non-controversial the ruling really was. To the learned it never amounted to anything groundbreaking.
The bottom line is that the headlines of the relatively few articles (by google standards) about this case are meant to incite the stupid and tabloid crowd. Even the braintrust that is Digg did not bite at this. Froth at the mouth all you want but it isn't going to make the ruling any more important.

Come back in 5 days and show me how many more additional news sources with in-house legal experts who do nothing but comb for precedent setting stories to write about even looked twice at this. You won't find **** but bloggers with mediocre educations who still think its worth their time.

[Chuckit]

Reading the actual decision, that doesn't appear to be exactly what they're saying here. The opinion basically seems to be, "If she could show that there was a physical attack that caused significant emotional or psychological damage, that would be a completely valid claim — but we can't punish the church just for telling her about demons and her believing it."

Choice quotes: "We do not mean to imply that 'under the cloak of religion, persons may, with impunity,' commit intentional torts upon their religious adherents."
"[T]he adherent’s claim … involves only intangible, emotional damages allegedly caused by a sincerely held religious belief."

There are some parts of the decision that are still kind of iffy to me, but the crux of the court's decision isn't exactly what it's made out to be.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

There are some parts of the decision that are still kind of iffy to me, but the crux of the court's decision isn't exactly what it's made out to be.

That is what I said from the get-go.
The yahoo story and the couple other ones that can be found are based off an AP blurb. They are very misleading as to what was at issue and how the ruling came to pass.

If anyone takes the time to read the summaries of the first case and then the appeal you get a whole different perspective of the implications.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Reading the actual decision, that doesn't appear to be exactly what they're saying here. The opinion basically seems to be, "If she could show that there was a physical attack that caused significant emotional or psychological damage, that would be a completely valid claim — but we can't punish the church just for telling her about demons and her believing it."

Choice quotes: "We do not mean to imply that 'under the cloak of religion, persons may, with impunity,' commit intentional torts upon their religious adherents."
"[T]he adherent’s claim … involves only intangible, emotional damages allegedly caused by a sincerely held religious belief."

There are some parts of the decision that are still kind of iffy to me, but the crux of the court's decision isn't exactly what it's made out to be.

I guess you missed this part:


In particular, the Ninth Circuit held that “intangible or emotional harms cannot ordinarily serve as a basis for maintaining a tort cause of action against a church for its practice – or against its members.” Id. Therefore, “[a] religious organization has a defense of constitutional privilege to claims that it has caused intangible harms – in most, if not all, circumstances.”

and this part:

"imposing tort liability for shunning on the Church would in the long run have the same effect as prohibiting the practice and would compel the Church to abandon part of its religious teachings”


Freedom of Speech is not a defense to claims of intangible harms cause from its practice.

Neither should Freedom of Religion be a defense to claims of intangible harms cause from its practice.

Neither should be shielded from tort liability.

[hyteckit]

Here are the opinions of the 3 judges who dissent.

Wallace B. Jefferson
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

---------------
After today, a tortfeasor need merely allege a religious motive to deprive a Texas court of jurisdiction to compensate his fellow congregant for emotional damages. This sweeping immunity is inconsistent with United States Supreme Court precedent and extends far beyond the protections our Constitution affords religious conduct. The First Amendment guards religious liberty; it does not sanction intentional abuse in religion’s name. Because the Court’s holding precludes recovery of emotional damages—even for assault and other serious torts—where the defendant alleges that the underlying assault was religious in nature, I respectfully dissent.
-------------------

I agree. Freedom of Religion does not provide religious organizations with sweeping immunity to emotional damages.

----------------------------
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. This overly broad holding not only conflicts with well-settled legal and constitutional principles, it will also prove to be dangerous in practice. Texas courts have been and will continue to be confronted with cases in which a congregant suffers physical or psychological injury as a result of violent or unlawful, but religiously sanctioned, acts. In these cases, the Court’s holding today will force the lower courts to deny the plaintiff recovery of emotional damages if the defendant alleges that some portion thereof stemmed from the religious content of the experience—unless the trial court is able to anticipate that the case will fall under the Court’s rather vague exception.
------------------

I agree that "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." That's outrageous what The Texas Supreme Court has done.

Freedom of Religion should not shield you from tort liability. It sick that The Texas Supreme Court conclude that the Freedom of Religion "bars all recover for mental anguish damages stemming from allegedly religiously motivated, intentional invasions of bodily integrity committed against members of a religious group", by members of the religious group.

PAUL W. GREEN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

Phil Johnson
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

The Court says that intangible, psychological injury, without more, “cannot ordinarily serve as a basis for a tort claim against a church or its members for its religious practices.” I agree. But rather than preclude recovery for physical injuries and pain such as are involved in this case in which there are also claims for subsequently-occurring emotional injuries that relate to both the physical restraint and religious practices, I would preclude damages for those emotional injuries for which there is any evidence of causation by religious beliefs or teachings. This would prevent the “entanglement” with First Amendment issues with which the Court is properly concerned.

Phil Johnson is right. You can't sue the church for emotional injuries cause by religious beliefs or teachings. However, you should be able to sue the church for emotional injuries cause by physical restraint and religious practices... like exorcism.


This needs to be taken to the US Supreme Court. I don't care what religion you are. Your crazy religious practices should not be immune to tort liabilities.

[hyteckit]

CASE UPDATE

Case may go to the Supreme Court.

Down with crazy religious nutjob cures

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/6183532.html.

http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/21...-exorcism-case

[TheWOAT]

Ya gotta admit it, an exorcism is alot cooler than a personality test.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

Ya gotta admit it, an exorcism is alot cooler than a personality test.

No doubt. I've sat in on a few, they're never dull.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No doubt. I've sat in on a few, they're never dull.

Does it involve stripping a young girl naked?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Does it involve stripping a young girl naked?

I wouldn't want to get you hot-and-bothered by giving details.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Does it involve stripping a young girl naked?

not always

[Shaddim]

Umm, that isn't an exorcism. It's not even close.