Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
In Texas, no one can hear you scream.
This is my first original post, so I hope I get the damned thing right.
Did you know that the Texas Supreme Court takes separation of Church and State very seriously? They do, really. In fact, they take SoCS so seriously that they ruled that they couldn't let a church be punished for abusing a girl because "the case unconstitutionally entangled the court in religious matters."
In a 6-3 decision, the justices found that a lower court erred when it said the Pleasant Glade Assembly of God's First Amendment rights regarding freedom of religion did not prevent the church from being held liable for mental distress triggered by a "hyper-spiritualistic environment."
So the Church's freedom of religion does mean that they can get away with abusing a girl (they call it "exorcism"), cutting and bruising her, and scaring the hell out of her (no pun intended). Ruling otherwise infringes not only on their rights, but "entangles the court in religious matters."
Well, excuse the hell out of me, but the court is "entangled" regardless of the decision they make, so that's a ridiculous reason to overrule the lower court. The trick, then, is to rule in favor of an individual, especially a young girl, who was unwillingly involved in the Church's woo woo rituals. I suppose she's lucky it's not a snake-handling church, at least.
The 2002 trial rightly found the church had abused and falsely imprisoned the girl, then 17. The church's attorneys argued, in essence, that the church had a legitimate reason to abuse and falsely imprison her because she didn't like the missionary work her parents forced her to be involved in. She was just acting out, you see, seeking attention.
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."
Well, we can't have churches abandoning core principles of their beliefs, now, can we? Not when those core beliefs include abusing and falsely imprisoning young girls who "act out."
At least Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, in writing a dissenting opinion, seems to be a voice of reason. "The First Amendment guards religious liberty; it does not sanction intentional abuse in religion's name." Unfortunately, in this country, the "voice of reason" is too often the minority when it comes to religion.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Maybe not unintended after all?
It just occurred to me: what if this court knows exactly what it's doing, and used the "separation of church and state" defense precisely for the "unintended" consequences? Then they can later say "See, the problem is this whole 'separation' thing. If we do away with that, then we can address the problem legally and everyone will be happy."
If I were a conservative judge and wanted to tear down the wall of separation, I'd use it in a way that made it unappealing to the masses.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
A question...
If it is legal for members of the church to restrain a person against his/her will, is it still legal for that person to use necessary violence to free themselves?
Here in California, some people have gone to prison for shooting an intruder inside their own home, but I still have the right to use necessary force to free myself from kidnappers. If this case ever goes to the supreme court and the decision is upheld, how many unfortunate youngsters
will be subjected to such experiences, or worse?
A scary answer...
How many kids have already experienced this abuse, and worse, at the hands of this church in the name of exorcism? Children, especially teens, become moody and difficult in the best of families. And they aren't as dumb as they act, so they often see what BS their parents are involved in and naturally are going to question just how smart it is.
According to the Texas Supreme Court, the church has every right to "beat the devil" out of these kids, as long as it's done in a way that is consistent with the church's long-standing traditions. Hey, the Bible says to stone willful, disobedient children, so a little rough-housing (you know, kidnapping, bruising, rug rash) is really not that bad, in context.
I don't know if I've ever heard of a case where a court ruled that a person under the age of majority could be legally so treated against their will by any group, or that their actions are constitutionally protected. Talk about a "chilling effect"!
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Doing Ann Putnam Proud
Among all the elements of this bizarre bit of judicial legerdemain is how the whole thing started. A youth at the church claimed to have seen a demon. Have we really gone all the way back to the 17th century in this country?
During the notorious Salem Witch Trials, Ann Putnam leapt up and said:
How is what happened in this Texan church any different, really?
And by the Texas Supreme Court's ruling that churches have the right to hold someone against their will based upon such an accusation, are we all that far away from seeing spectral evidence once again allowed in courts of law?
I mean, before those damned liberal activist judges in the 18th century made it inadmissible, testimony consisting of "I saw a hobgoblin in the corner of the room" was enough to get a man hung. Once that was gone, this country went right off the rails. Look how bad things have gotten since then. How many school shootings were there in the 17th century? Not one!
We must get back to the values of our founders. The Texas Supreme Court took an important step forward into the past today.
Going all the way?
Okay, this has to go to the US Supreme Court now, right?
Right? Please somebody tell me it's gotta go all the way.
If not, next thing you know they'll be using a new variant of The Texas Murder Defense ("Yer Honor, he needed killin'") and it'll go something like:
"Yer Honor, she needed th' devil taken outta her." -- "Well, o' course she did. Case dismissed."
How do you suppose...
How do you suppose Texas would deal with pedophile priests?
"It's just a special sacrament your honor."
"Right, case dismissed."
So if a church . . .
. . . had it as part of their core belief that all girls had to be 'deflowered' by the priest in front of the congregation at the age of 15, that would be OK?
Yeah, I'm sure it would.
'Straw man' argument? I don't see how. Breaking the law in terms of assault and unlawful restraint is, simply, breaking the law. Why it would be considered otherwise is beyond me. If these idiots cannot see that the same would be true in the scenario I mentioned, then that just means that they've not thought it through.
Oh, PZ has a good post on this, too.
Good job, Rob!
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Thanks, Jim
Hey, I kind of like this. I might have to try my hand at this blogging thing more often. I mean, doesn't everyone want to know my opinion on things?
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
The first hit . . .
. . . is always free. :)
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Post new comment