It is one thing for the Texas Supreme Court to be wary when it comes to religious issues. It is altogether another for the court to deny a claim of serious misconduct because it doesn’t wish to be entangled in a religious controversy.

 

A divided court last week overturned a judgment against members of Pleasant Glade Assembly of God Church in Colleyville. A former member, Laura Schubert, said when she was 17 she was held down against her will for hours by a pastor, youth minister and members who thought she’d been possessed by a demon.

 

 

Schubert said she was bruised, injured and suffered mental trauma from the 1996 assault and restraint. A jury agreed and awarded her $188,000. But in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court threw out that judgment, saying it violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protection of religious freedom.

 

 

In a sharp dissent, Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson said the ruling gives sweeping immunity to those who contend their actions are based in religious practice. Jefferson is right when he wrote that it was an erroneous ruling that will prove dangerous in the future.

 

 

“The First Amendment guards religious liberty,” Jefferson wrote. “It does not sanction intentional abuse in religion’s name.”

 

 

The teenager was twice held against her will in the church near Fort Worth. She did not consent to being roughed up and held down for two hours. That was abuse, and it should not be excused because it occurred under the color of religion.

 

 

In the majority opinion written by Justice David Medina, the court acknowledged that religious practice which threatens public health, safety or welfare cannot be tolerated. Most people would, like the chief justice, consider being held down against their will for two hours quite dangerous to their health, safety and welfare.

 

 

Abuse, assault and false imprisonment cannot be excused as the free expression of religion. Religious practice must conform to the law of the land, not exist outside it. If not constrained by law, religion could claim any exemption from rape to human sacrifice.

 

 

By voiding the judgment against Pleasant Glade, the Supreme Court majority made it more difficult to find the line between acceptable and unacceptable religious practice. If physically restraining someone against her will for hours isn’t cause for legal action, what is?

 

 

Jefferson said as much in his dissent. If the church’s conduct didn’t seriously threaten the teen’s welfare, he wrote, “it is difficult to determine what would meet the court’s standard.”

 

 

As Jefferson noted, the court effectively barred recovery for mental anguish damages when the actions are religiously motivated. That gives too much immunity to religious organizations and establishes a bad precedent.

 

 

The decision in Pleasant Glade church sanctions outrageous mental and physical abuse as long as it’s done in the name of religion, and that’s unfortunate.