– even the acts of religious stupidity sanctioned by their Supreme Court.
In a decision regarding a girl who was traumatized by a church exorcism to the point of self-mutilation and post-traumatic stress disorder Justice David Medina writing for the majority said
“Religious practices that might offend the rights or sensibilities of a non-believer outside the church are entitled to greater latitude when applied to an adherent within the church,”
Does the man not understand what he said? He said that if you’re a member of a church you have less right to the safety and security of your person at the hands of your minister and your congregation than you do were you not a member of that church - in other words, once you voluntarily walk through the church door you give up certain rights and should not have the expectation that there is necessarily a legal remedy for mistreatment or abuse you may suffer at the hands of your minister or congregation.
You’d think that would be emptying Texas churches but I bet it won’t.
– and now that we’ve dealt with that aspect of the story lets move on to the bull shi*te religious belief aspect.
One would think that (supposedly) civilized, reasonable, and (at least semi-) intelligent people should be quite aware that unless the girls head had started rotating on her shoulders and she turned a deep shade of demonic purple while self levitating to within inches of the church ceiling, glaring at the congregation with glowing red eyes, and casting ancient curses in some archaic language not yet deciphered by linguists, she probably was not possessed by a demon - but not, apparently in Texas.
In Texas a teenage girl can collapse in church and the believers came to the conclusion that she is possessed by demons, legally determine it necessary to forcibly confine her, lay their hands on her (oh…. there’s always that laying on of hands isn’t there?), and send others of the flock running around the building madly anointing everything with holy oil.
– and this behaviour will be supported by the highest court in the state.
It’s a decision I can see the other religious zealots faiths that practice, say, forced female genital mutilation religious female circumcision clapping their hands with glee over…. after all, it’s within the church.
As I read this post and the linked article, I engaged in an interesting exercise. I replaced instances of ‘religion’ or ‘religious’, and ‘church’, with ‘politics’ or ‘political elite’, and ‘Homeland Security’ (or the Executive or Oval Office). Here’s a sample:
“Justice David Medina, writing for the majority, said that while Schubert’s argument regarding physical injuries might be tried without mentioning POLITICS, her case was mostly about her emotional or psychological injuries from a POLITICAL activity that was sanctioned by HOMELAND SECURITY.
For the court to impose any legal liability for engaging in a POLITICAL activity “to which HOMELAND SECURITY (or political elite) adhere would have an unconstitutional ‘chilling effect’ by compelling HOMELAND SECURITY (or political elite, or the Executive Office - i.e., President) to abandon core principles of its POLITICAL beliefs,” Medina wrote.
“POLITICAL practices that might offend the rights or sensibilities of a non-believer outside HOMELAND SECURITY (or the Oval Office) are entitled to greater latitude when applied to an adherent within the church (of the POLITICAL ELITE),” Medina wrote.
He went on to say that when claims involve “only intangible, emotional damages allegedly caused by sincerely held POLITICAL belief, courts must carefully scrutinize the circumstances so as not to become entangled in a POLITICAL dispute.”
In other words, I think it no stretch to say that the courts in the U.S. - which are increasingly controlled by the political elite (and Canadian courts are immune given recent changes made by Steve Harper) - are no more willing to intercede to protect citizens from their own government than they are to ‘encroach’ into religious affairs.