Family resolves to take fight over exorcism to the supreme court

[Socio]

Family resolves to take fight over exorcism to the supreme court

FORT WORTH, Texas ? Laura Schubert Pearson was an impressionable 17-year-old when friends in her church youth group thought demons possessed her.

Repeatedly, over two days, the youth pastor, his wife and others held the girl down on the floor of the Pleasant Glade Assembly of God Church in Colleyville, Texas, even as Pearson screamed, fought and begged to be released.

They cast it as wrestling with the devil.

But she said it was ?like being pummeled by this very large group. These were our friends, people we hung out with.?

The 1996 episode left her physically and emotionally scarred, and ?this stuff is still hard to talk about,? Pearson told the Star-Telegram after the Texas Supreme Court dismissed her lawsuit against the church June 27. The majority said the courts can?t get involved in a religious debate over church doctrine.

So if the "courts can?t get involved in a religious debate over church doctrine" and church members can beat the crap out of someone suspected of being possessed by the devil I guess it is going to be ok to stone them to death too!

 

[Rainsford]

Well it's Texas, what do you expect? The majority on the court said what they did because they couldn't outright support the idea of exorcism, but I bet they were all thinking it.

 

[GenHoth]

They can't get involved with the church, but they should be involved with assault.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Socio
Family resolves to take fight over exorcism to the supreme court

FORT WORTH, Texas ? Laura Schubert Pearson was an impressionable 17-year-old when friends in her church youth group thought demons possessed her.

Repeatedly, over two days, the youth pastor, his wife and others held the girl down on the floor of the Pleasant Glade Assembly of God Church in Colleyville, Texas, even as Pearson screamed, fought and begged to be released.

They cast it as wrestling with the devil.

But she said it was ?like being pummeled by this very large group. These were our friends, people we hung out with.?

The 1996 episode left her physically and emotionally scarred, and ?this stuff is still hard to talk about,? Pearson told the Star-Telegram after the Texas Supreme Court dismissed her lawsuit against the church June 27. The majority said the courts can?t get involved in a religious debate over church doctrine.

So if the "courts can?t get involved in a religious debate over church doctrine" and church members can beat the crap out of someone suspected of being possessed by the devil I guess it is going to be ok to stone them to death too!

Holding one against one's will is called kidnapping and is a federal offense. Doesn't matter if it's in church. To say this is lack of judgment is an understatement.

 

[Harabec]

WTF.

 

[hellokeith]

Basically the legal problem with her original suit was that she claimed post traumatic stress disorder as a result of the discussion (i.e. words spoken during the exorcism) of demons.

Q. Okay. Do you believe that those traumatized Laura?

A. I believe that experience traumatized her.

Q. Okay. So, this -- when you say Laura has been traumatized, you?re
talking about, in part, the experience about being told about demons,
demons in her presence, demons around her, they need to get rid of
demons, chase them away, beat on the walls of the church, anoint things
with oil, that whole Friday night length of activity, you believe that?s part
of Laura Schubert being traumatized?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Okay. Have you been asked to separate out -- in order to render your
opinion today, have you been asked to separate out what type of trauma
Laura suffered from being told about demons as opposed to just physical
activities, being held down on the floor, that sort of thing? Have you
been asked to make that separation?

A. No.

There were some other errors made in her original suit and trials (2002, 2005), but the big thing is that a person cannot claim mental distress due to religious teachings/services. Had she sued for physical and mental anguish due to the physical restraint only, she likely would have won the $200k in 2005 or the original $500k in 2002. I don't know if this mistake was her being greedy (embellish for the sake of more $) or an error on the part of her legal representation.

Of the account I have read, she does deserve some monetary reparation for the physical restraint, but that will have to be a new lawsuit.

Edit: Just realized the news story circulating all over today came from the Fort Worth Star Telegram, or as we like to call it the startle-e-gram. It's very sensationalistic and of course did not provide all the facts and history of the case.

 

[lupi]

What he said ^^.

I would rank this very similar to the one where walmart was going to take the monetary settlement away from one of its previous employees, story sounded juicy till you started looking at the actual legal fillings and issues being discussed vice what some editor massages it into.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Huh...I guess the Catholic Church can get those billions back that they are having to pay out to the children that they abused too. After all, the current Pope (then Cardinal) came up with a plan to hide all of the abuse and circumvent the laws so that surely must have been Church doctrine at the time.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Perry404
Holding one against one's will is called kidnapping and is a federal offense. Doesn't matter if it's in church.

Nope. Though the definition varies by jurisdiction, kidnapping generally requires moving a person to another location; temporarily holding someone down against their will is not kidnapping. At best you've got a case of unlawful restraint, and maybe 3rd degree assault. Civilly she could have tried to sue for unlawful arrest or assault. But she didn't.

And kidnapping is only a federal offense in a few circumstances involving federal officers, foreign nationals, or most often, when the victim is transported across state lines, which wasn't the case here.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Socio
So if the "courts can?t get involved in a religious debate over church doctrine" and church members can beat the crap out of someone suspected of being possessed by the devil I guess it is going to be ok to stone them to death too!

It's Texas, just be glad they didn't shoot her because they were unsuccessful in getting the devil out.

 

[Oceandevi]

This kind of evangelical "demon" hogwash is pretty common. Pigs in the parlor and all that.
They were doing her a favor by cleansing her soul from satan's influence.

Duh

 

[PrinceofWands]

I had to really think about this for a while. I've decided that I'm ok with it, as long as it works both ways. What I mean is, if a church did that to me, and I managed to fight my way free killing 7 people in the process, I wouldn't want to be chargeable for anything any more than the church was in this case. I'm perfectly fine taking care of things myself, so long as it's all fair.

If, however, the church can do that to me, but I can't do that to the church, then I would like every person involved in letting them off to be hung in the public square immediately.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Huh...I guess the Catholic Church can get those billions back that they are having to pay out to the children that they abused too. After all, the current Pope (then Cardinal) came up with a plan to hide all of the abuse and circumvent the laws so that surely must have been Church doctrine at the time.

no. the texas supreme court even distinguishes the two.

 

[Wreckem]

Her lawyer screwed things up by bringing a suit in the wrong way. He technically fucked up. Law is all about technicalities and it works both ways.

The Texas Supreme Court acted in the right way. Instead of paying her lawyer to appeal, she should have filed a malpractice claim against her lawyer.