Jedi's Journal

A bizzare and outrageous Texas Supreme Court decision on religion.
I'm all for protecting religious freedom. I'm down with the First Amendment, I'm an ACLU member, I'm against entangling religion with the government or entangling religion with government, and all that.

That said, I do not, in any way, believe that religious institutions should be granted blanket immunity from tort law (or for that matter, criminal law) in the name of freedom of religion. Under certain circumstances, I am willing to make allowances-seems to me that the question of peyote use in Native American spiritual ceremonies is a example of a decent policy-based argument for an exemption. I agree with the US Supreme Court that the First Amendment doesn't require such an exemption-as much as I'd like to go the other way on this, the lack of a decent limiting principle prevents me from being able to find such a First Amendment exemption.

Getting back to the impetus for my post, the Texas Supreme Court overturned a lower court's decision to allow a teenager to sue her old church that injured her during a forced exorcism when she 17. She was pinned to floor, received carpet burns, and a jury found that the church and its members abused and falsely imprisoned her, awarding her $300,000. The 2nd Court of Appeals reduced the verdict to $188,000.

The Texas Supreme Court, however, overturned the judgment, finding that holding the church liable "would have an unconstitutional 'chilling effect' by compelling the church to abandon core principles of its religious beliefs."

WTF? This was an intentional tort. The statute and common law isn't oriented at religion, it is a neutral principle that you can't abuse or falsely imprison someone! That it was a church and its members that did it shouldn't provide immunity. Moreover, re-read the Court's language. Do you see any limiting principle? I certainly don't. Should a cult escape civil and criminal liability for human sacrifices? Afterall, it's apparently unconstitutional to force religious-oriented institutions to abandon core principles of their religious beliefs.....

Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court Wallace B. Jefferson wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by his colleagues Justice Green and Justice Johnson. All three are Republicans. To quote the opening paragraph of C.J. Jefferson's dissent,

" 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."

Um, yeah. Methinks he has it right.

Current Mood: outraged

Advertisement