Exorcism in the News | The Blogora

Submitted by Jim Aune on June 29, 2008 - 12:24pm

Last week the Texas Supreme Court ruled against a young woman who had sought damages from an Assemblies of God church for an exorcism done when she was 17, largely on free-exercise grounds. The case is
PLEASANT GLADE ASSEMBLY OF GOD, REVEREND LLOYD A. MCCUTCHEN, ROD LINZAY, HOLLY LINZAY, SANDRA SMITH, BECKY BICKEL, AND PAUL PATTERSON v. LAURA SCHUBERT. Opinions are here. Meanwhile, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, mentioned often as a great young hope of the Republican Party and as possible VP nominee for McCain, is in the news both for signing a Creationist education bill and for a 1994 New Oxford Review article (formerly Anglican, militantly traditionalist Roman Catholic journal now) about his own participation in an exorcism. I have pretty strong opinions on the Establishment Clause, but I remain endlessly befuddled on the scope of the Free Exercise Clause. The FLDS business in Texas (like the Branch Davidians before it) illustrates the high stakes. Any thoughts? Adria? What's the wisdom in Austin?

Jim Aune's blog
Login or register to post comments

ugh

Submitted by johnm on June 29, 2008 - 3:59pm.

I read about this the day the ruling came out and my first thought was something along the lines of "so, basically, torture's legal so long as it happens in the context of a religious ceremony or ritual?"

This is especially infuriating considering that the girl subject to the exorcism was subject to it because of her parents, and because she was a minor had no ability to intervene and say "no."