The link is at the top of the page to the pdf.

No one said attempts at forcible conversion have to be physically violent. What if they didn’t leave any marks? Then it’s all perfectly ok, right? After all, we’re still holding the churches to a higher standard than we’re holding the government.

Well, I don’t think this is entirely correct. The decision did specify that deference should be given to the adherents of churches when it comes to proximal emotional distress. A cited case was a woman who sued the Jehovah’s Witnesses for “shunning” her; the court found them to not be liable for the emotional distress and loss of standing in the community. It does not sound from their reasoning that a forced conversion, violent or otherwise, would be acceptable. And I have a hard time imagining a situation in which a church (not individual Christians) could forcibly compel a Muslim to convert.

Of course what disturbs me is if there really is systemic bias against other religions in court decisions. I don’t think the remedy is necessarily less deference to religion but a more even-handed application of that deference. The government has an interest in promoting religious freedom and should be very wary of stepping into legitimizing or discrediting those belief systems, no matter how wacky they may seem.

Sorry about the multiple posts, everyone, but I wanted to add one last thing: Michael, you are absolutely right about this. Unfortunately, I can’t find a link to anything but the media coverage. Do you have a link to the decision itself? (Not that I’ll be able to interpret the legalese, but one should at least try.)

No one said attempts at forcible conversion have to be physically violent. What if they didn’t leave any marks? Then it’s all perfectly ok, right? After all, we’re still holding the churches to a higher standard than we’re holding the government.

Actually, it’s legal in Texas to shoot any person of any ethnicity if they are on your property without your permission (with some exception that I never quite understood involving beach access). The assumption is that you are protecting your home. Undoutedly, this is selectively enforced with minorities being the majority of the victims, but legally you have just as much right to shoot Bush if he wanders onto your propery without permission as you do a homeless, gay, black hispanic, atheist woman who does the same.

Sorry for the rant, but it’s summer and I’m living in my parents’ house and I get so fucking sick of the right-wing crap.

I wish I could say I’m suprised at this, but from the state that thinks shooting minorities is okay, kills more people in their court system than any other state, & was the defendant in Lawrence v. Texas it really doesn’t suprise me that you can perform exorcisms to your hearts content.

Perhaps it would help people if they read the decision before jumping to wild conclusions. Religious organizations are not immune from liability for physical damage. In fact, in this particular case the church conceded liability for the bruises and carpet burns; at issue was the emotional damage to the girl surrounding the entire notion of demon possession. The court details all the many ways in established case law where churches would be liable. No sexual abuse by clergy, no kidnapping of Muslims could be considered acceptable, even after this particular ruling.

I would also like to point out another problem with relying on news reports rather than primary texts: neither the court, nor the church, nor the plaintiffs described the exorcism as violent. The girls injuries were consistent with a person being restrained during a seizure, not a violent attack as some have assumed.

The court appears to have made its decision on the chilling effect that would be caused by deeming the doctrine of demon possession and the practice of laying of hands, which regularly occurs with no physical injuries, liable for tort due to emotional distress; the girl claimed also to be distressed not just by the laying of hands to her but by the general teaching of demon possession. Perhaps this girls PTSD was particularly severe; perhaps these particular pastors were jackasses. But this ruling does not say that no church can be held liable for what it does in the name of religion. It is particular to the emotional distress caused to its members by its doctrines.

My first thought was “children, particularly teenagers, who are so unfortunate as to have parents who belong to some especially deluded religion” but then I realized that I have no idea what the limits of this ruling are. Have Christian churches just been given legal permission to, say, kidnap Islamic people off the street and forcibly convert them? If no church can be held liable for what it does in the name of its religion, then why should its right to abuse be limited to its own members?

But its not new in history.
Look at the Inquisition.