[Lubaolong]

How does freedom of speech permit false imprisonment and abuse of a minor? I can tie down your daughter and torment her if I say it's part of my religion? Sweet.

A divided Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of a former Colleyville church Friday, saying church members who were involved in a traumatic exorcism that ultimately injured a young woman are protected by the First Amendment.

In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that the Pleasant Glade Assembly of God staff’s efforts to cast out demons from Laura Schubert presents an ecclesiastical dispute over religious conduct that would unconstitutionally entangle the court in church doctrine.

Schubert described a wild night in 1996 that involved casting out demons from the church and two attempts to exorcise demons from her. The incident left Schubert physically bruised and so emotionally scarred she later tried to commit suicide. She was 17 at the time.

Justice David Medina, writing for the majority, said that while Schubert’s argument regarding physical injuries might be tried without mentioning religion, her case was mostly about her emotional or psychological injuries from a religious activity that was sanctioned by the church.

For the court to impose any legal liability for engaging in a religious activity "to which the church members adhere would have an unconstitutional 'chilling effect’ by compelling the church to abandon core principles of its religious beliefs," Medina wrote.

"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," Medina wrote.

He went on to say that when claims involve "only intangible, emotional damages allegedly caused by sincerely held religious belief, courts must carefully scrutinize the circumstances so as not to become entangled in a religious dispute."

Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, in a stinging dissenting opinion, wrote that the majority opinion is at times "imprecise and overbroad" and imposes an "erroneous standard" that would allow a church to simply claim a "religious motive" to avoid being sued.

He wrote that this "sweeping immunity" is inconsistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and that the First Amendment "guards religious liberty; it does not sanction intentional abuse in religion’s name."

"This overly broad holding not only conflicts with well-settled legal and constitutional principles, it will also prove to be dangerous in practice," Jefferson wrote.

"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," he wrote.

Since the incident, Pleasant Glade has merged with another Colleyville church.

The Schuberts moved to Georgia and were not available for comment Friday. William Wuester, their attorney, also was unavailable for comment.

David Pruessner, the attorney for the church, said he was delighted to win a case that has been a part of his life for more than a decade.

While he may not agree with what the church did, that doesn’t mean it can be sued, he said.

"I personally don’t agree and would not let one of my daughters face that kind of emotional pressure," Pruessner said. "But you can’t sue a church because you find things they do emotionally disturbing."

Laying on hands

Schubert’s account of what happened over several days at the Pleasant Glade church in June 1996 is harrowing.

Schubert and her brother were involved with church activities while their parents were out of town.

On Friday evening, during preparations for a youth group garage sale, the atmosphere became "spiritually charged" when another youth said he saw a demon.

Under direction of the youth minister, the youth frantically anointed everything in the church with holy oil until, at 4:30 a.m. Saturday, the minister told the exhausted youth that they had finally been successful.

At the Sunday evening worship services, Schubert collapsed. Church members "laid hands" on her and forcibly held her arms crossed over her chest, despite her demands to be set free.

She reportedly cried, yelled, kicked, sweated and hallucinated while also making guttural noises.

She was released after she calmed down and replied with requests to say the name Jesus.

The following Wednesday, during a weekly youth service, Schubert reportedly began to act in the same manner. She curled into a fetal position and asked to be left alone. Church members thought she was in distress and held her down in a "spread eagle" position with youth members holding down her arms and legs.

During the incident, she suffered carpet burns, a scrape on her back and bruises on her wrists.

Her father, Tom Schubert, himself an Assembly of God pastor and missionary, questioned what happened at the church.

His daughter experienced angry outbursts, weight loss and self-mutilation and eventually dropped out of high school her senior year. She was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.

'Freedom to believe’

The family eventually sued the church, saying that their daughter had been abused and falsely imprisoned, but the 2002 trial never touched on the religious aspects of the case. The church’s attorneys told a Tarrant County jury that Schubert’s psychological problems were caused by traumatic events she witnessed while her parents were serving as missionaries in Africa.

A jury found the church and its members liable and awarded Schubert $300,000 for mental anguish, but the 2nd Court of Appeals in Fort Worth cut $122,000 from the verdict for loss of future income.

In the church’s appeal to the state Supreme Court, it raised the question of whether the Fort Worth appeals court erred when it said Pleasant Glades’ First Amendment rights regarding freedom of religion do not prevent the church from being held liable for mental distress triggered by a "hyper spiritualistic environment."

Justice Medina said that the court does not mean to imply that "under the cloak of religion, persons may, with impunity," commit intentional wrong, such as sexual assault or a minister having an affair with someone in marriage counseling, and get away with it.

"Freedom to believe may be absolute, but freedom of conduct is not, and 'conduct even under a religious guise remains subject to regulation for public safety,’ " Medina wrote.

Pruessner, the church’s attorney, agreed, saying that church members were simply trying to help Schubert and that there wasn’t any evil intent.

"This was clearly a religious controversy, and I don’t see how anyone can argue that they were seizing on religion as a get-out-of-jail-free card," Pruessner said. "I disagree vehemently with the spiritual beliefs of the church and how they handled it; it doesn’t mean they are legally liable."

Joining Medina in the majority opinion were Justices Nathan Hecht, Harriet O’Neill, Dale Wainwright, Scott Brister and Don Willett.

Dissenting along with Jefferson were Justices Paul Green and Phil Johnson.

Texas Supreme Court rules church can't be sued in exorcism | Local News | Star-Telegram.com

[Darksky]

Good Decision...Bible says you cannot sue God, 6:13 book of bulsit.

[boxer steve]

And you people say christians dont know how to party

Really though that is a legal nightmare. Lots of different avenues to go down.

[CenterMass]

Too bad becauset unless you use the Roman Ritual of Exorcism?


It Won't Work

Probably why the "Assembly of God" tried twice and caused bruises.

But good call by the judges.

And LOL Darksky.

[GermanBJJ]

It seems like a nuanced ruling and the court clearly stated that a false imprisonment and abuse case can be tried just not some claim of mental anguish caused by weird religious beliefs.

In other words, if I kidnap you, beat you and try to convert you to Islam, you can sue me for the kidnapping and beating but the court would be hesitant to let you get mental anguish damages for me pushing my religious beliefs on you.

[mr_pringles]

Originally Posted by GermanBJJ

It seems like a nuanced ruling and the court clearly stated that a false imprisonment and abuse case can be tried just not some claim of mental anguish caused by weird religious beliefs.

In other words, if I kidnap you, beat you and try to convert you to Islam, you can sue me for the kidnapping and beating but the court would be hesitant to let you get mental anguish damages for me pushing my religious beliefs on you.

if the girl now has post traumatic stress disorder from the event, which is recognized as a real and tangible ailment in the courts, then how is this any different from a beating?

[GermanBJJ]

Originally Posted by mr_pringles

if the girl now has post traumatic stress disorder from the event, which is recognized as a real and tangible ailment in the courts, then how is this any different from a beating?

I would have to read the petition and I am just guessing here but what may have happened is that she claimed the PTSD was a result of the religious beliefs forced on her and not the result of the physical actions against her. In other words, if you beat me severely and I develop PTSD and accompanying tangible harm, I can get damages. However, if I beat you and then say, "My god hates your guts" during the beating, you can get PTSD damages from the beating but you can't get damages for PTSD because my religious beliefs offended your beliefs and caused PTSD. This is my guess and I am too lazy to research the filings.

[jb41339]

Originally Posted by mr_pringles

if the girl now has post traumatic stress disorder from the event, which is recognized as a real and tangible ailment in the courts, then how is this any different from a beating?

It's Texas, where they're thankful for beatings in the name of Jesus.

[AznTrojan]

how is this not assault on a minor?

[canadapride]

What else do you expect from Texas? Texas is almost as big of a failure as Florida.