Comments on: Texas Supreme Court: Religion is a Complete Defense to Child Abuse

By: Democracy in America: Religion, Free Exercise, and the Second Certainty of Life « Submitted to a Candid World

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:52:40 +0000

[...] religion has never been an excuse for special treatment in otherwise neutral policy arenas like crime, tax or, say, academic [...]

By: Democracy in America: Religion, Free Exercise, and the the Second Certainty of Life

Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:06:44 +0000

[...] religion has never been an excuse for special treatment in otherwise neutral policy arenas like crime, tax or, say, academic [...]

By: Ames

Ames — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 23:52:06 +0000

To be fair, I don’t know one. I definitely JUST revisited this post in light of a Pharyngula post. There might be some, but this isn’t one of them…. if only I could think of a hypothetical….

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:50:08 +0000

“I don’t think that religion should shield the conduct, in this case.”

Ames, that you specified “this case” to me implies you think there’s some case in which religion should shield conduct. When/why would that be?

By: Ames

Ames — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:25:09 +0000

I’ll agree to that last point :-). And you’re right – I bet they did think they were doing a good thing – but I think this squarely presented the issue of where good intentions meets bizarre religion with untoward results. If religion weren’t involved, we’d have a case of abuse, and I don’t think that religion should shield the conduct, in this case.

By: digitaldame

digitaldame — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:42:18 +0000

As much as I hate to swim upstream, I think Medina has a point, up to a point. Without knowing anything further about this, one would assume the plaintiff was a voluntary/willing member of this ‘church’, knowing its beliefs and rituals, and had probably stood quietly by and watched this ‘ritual’ practiced on other members of the congregation, without crying foul as those persons protested (since they were allegedly possessed, of course they would fight it as this plaintiff did, no?) I have no idea what their criteria is for deciding someone needs an exorcism, but apparently the other congregants felt this plaintiff met them, however absurd it may seem to us outsiders. Since the claim was that they intentionally tried to inflict emotional distress, I can see why Medina decided against it. These folks, in their own bizarre fashion, probably felt they were doing a good thing.

I think the plaintiff needed a better lawyer.

By: Dana Hunter

Dana Hunter — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 04:29:46 +0000

I never have been able to wrap my mind around this: why are things that would be considered illegal if done in a strictly secular circumstance, and illegal if done by a cult, considered legal in the context of church? What is the actual difference between a cult and a religion anyway? Why does society have so much respect for such harmful things?

Argh.

Bonne chance with your application to clerk, btw. They’d be lucky to have you! Take that further: they obviously need you.

By: Ames

Ames — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:17:21 +0000

One would think. The claim was for intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:13:07 +0000

Why was this a civil matter to begin with? Wouldn’t non-consensual exorcism entail acts that fall within the purview of Texas’s assault and unlawful restraint statutes?