« How to Read Like a Heathen | Main | Hagee and the Politics of Pandering »

June 29, 2008

Comments

Joe

I disagree. If the courts became entangled in religious affairs, specifically defining what is a religion and what is not, or if demons or satan are real. Then government has defined religion. The minute the courts become excessively entangled, we lose our freedom of religion and it is one step closer to our government establishing a religion.

Sadly, it is people's right to do such things as they see the Lord leads them. Whether we see it as wrong or not. It becomes our jobs as ministers and believers to help these people not the courts.

Joe

Now, in regards to your argument with "When parents withhold blood transfusions. When grown men impregnate 14 year old girls. When churches attempt to cast out mythological creatures and cause harm to their parishioners" The second of the three will always be upheld as statutory rape because it is a child who is endangered. The rest are the rights of American citizens.

Joe

I want to clarify my post and my argument. I am a baptist and full on supporter of separation of church and state. The Houston Chronicle's comments are true to a degree. The court did decide make an error but what the Chronicle doesn't understand, is that the court will side with a minor.

The argument therefore has nothing to do with religious freedom. Instead it has to do with minors who are physically abused by the church. The Chronicle's wrong but your post opens up the argument of if the Courts have a right to become excessively entangled in religion, then who's religion becomes the standard for definition.

Billy

I think "thou shalt use proper grammar and punctuation" is unconstitutional.

Kevin Powell

When I hear about people being injured or killed through an exorcism, I always wonder what on earth they were doing to cause such harm? When Jesus cast out demons he simply said a prayer and/or laid hands on people. There's no biblical suggestion that violence was involved.

kgp

Fremen66

I'm of the opinion that if the person knew what was involved in an exorcism and is stupid enough to go ahead with it anyways, then they don't have a case. However, if they were put through one against their will then it's another matter.

Next thing you know people will be signing release forms for exorcisms. :P

Leighton

The justice system has already decided that demons and Satan are either not real or irrelevant. Commit a violent crime with the excuse that the devil made you do it, and jury willing, you're either institutionalized if they believe you, or sent to prison if they don't. Consulting priests and exorcists isn't an option the state can pursue, nor is there so much as a mild burden of proof on the prosecution to establish that your crime wasn't really motivated by Dark Forces. It's just assumed. Trying to use possession as an excuse for breach of contract is similarly ineffectual.

But our society has the same sort of tolerance for sects abusing their own that countries do for intra-country genocide. It reminds me of this Eddie Izzard sketch. "Go on, kill your own people. We've been trying to do it for years."

The comments to this entry are closed.