27

According to this article exorcism still receives legal protection in US:

The Texas Supreme Court on Friday threw out a jury award over injuries a 17-year-old girl suffered in an exorcism conducted by members of her old church, ruling that the case unconstitutionally entangled the court in religious matters.

This also seems to happen in UK, according to The Guardian:

Exorcisms are a booming industry in the UK, partly driven by immigrant communities and Pentecostal churches, according to a report from a Christian thinktank.

However, the vast majority of people being exorcised have mental health problems that require psychiatric assistance, says the report, published on Wednesday by Theos.

This seems rather strange in highly developed countries where psychiatry might be more appropriate in such cases.

Question: Why is exorcism still allowed (legal) in highly developed countries?

As a side note, Vatican seems to be an important advocate for performing exorcism.

Alexei
  • 52,716
  • 43
  • 186
  • 345
  • 12
    There is a difference between exorcism as practiced in pentecostal churches and, exorcisms practiced by a tribal witch doctor. Pentecostals typically go in for lots of (loud) prayer and may run afoul of local noise bylaws, but typically that's it. Tribal witch doctors can ask for all kinds of oddthings - bathe in the entrails of a goat at midnight, flagellation, cutting, etc. – pojo-guy Jul 20 '18 at 12:15
  • 13
    The Vatican project that you point to is primarily an exercise to ensure that when exorcism is done, it is only done by those who have received appropriate training, so that it is not used as a substitute for psychiatric treatment, and is not done in a way that harms the subject. – Michael Kay Jul 20 '18 at 13:52
  • 3
    Re "require psychiatric assistance", I wonder if anyone has done a comparative study on the success rates of exorcism vs (Freudian) psychotherapy? – jamesqf Jul 20 '18 at 16:03
  • 11
    I'm not sure I understand the question; "receives legal protection" is substantially different from "is legal", because the legality of exorcisms in general should not in itself protect practitioners from facing legal consequences for harming minors while performing an exorcism. Conversely, the fact that sometimes an exorcism is practiced in a harmful way doesn't seem to be an argument for banning all exorcisms, and the existence of an arguably superior alternative (psychiatry) is also not typically considered a valid reason to ban something. – Kyle Strand Jul 20 '18 at 16:18
  • 8
    ....So are you really wondering why exorcisms in general haven't been banned in most developed countries, or are you just wondering why (at least in the case you sited) the Texas Supreme Court is permitting people to harm minors with impunity simply because the harm occurred as part of an exorcism? – Kyle Strand Jul 20 '18 at 16:18
  • @pojo-guy is right, most Christian exorcisms (and related faith-healing) are primarily prayer-oriented rather than substance-oriented. Some groups might use holy water or communion wine, but those are relatively innocuous substances. – Robert Columbia Jul 20 '18 at 17:47
  • @KyleStrand - my question is a general one (so, first option), but I think your second one is even better (the particular case of Texas Supreme Court). – Alexei Jul 20 '18 at 18:03
  • 6
    There are much worse scams that are not banned, like homeopathy or anti vaccination. Why do you cherry pick exorcisms? – Danubian Sailor Jul 20 '18 at 18:59
  • 1
    @DanubianSailor - actually, vaccination was covered by this question. Also, AFAIK homeopathy is mostly harmless (placebo effect at best), although it might delay a more appropriate treatment. – Alexei Jul 20 '18 at 19:08
  • As the failure of the trial court and intermediate appellate court in the Texas case and the dissent of 3 of 9 justices in this very conservative court attest to, the notion the churches are privileged from criminal actions when an exorcism of a minor injures her physically is not a consensus viewpoint in American law. – ohwilleke Jul 20 '18 at 22:43
  • Is there a level of development at which point cultures stop considering the possibility of something they do not know? From all I have seen, a key point in maturity is realizing that your model of the world just might be wrong. Then you get to grapple with that. – Cort Ammon Jul 21 '18 at 06:19
  • 1
    " where psychiatry can deal with such cases"

    Source needed. Esp. a source that supports the suggestion that psychiatry is always successful and never harmful.

     – NPSF3000 Jul 22 '18 at 05:24
  • 1
    @NPSF3000 - it was not my intention to convey the message that "that psychiatry is always successful and never harmful". I have changed the sentence to avoid confusion. Thanks. – Alexei Jul 22 '18 at 06:00
  • 1
    I think that significant parts of my answer at Why is imposing vaccination / immunization so hard to achieve? would also be applicable to this question, or most "why is stupid thing X still allowed?" and Why don't we force people to do sane thing Y?" type of questions. –  Jul 23 '18 at 00:01
  • I honestly don't know why it is allowed. I'm an atheist, and I'm pretty sure most people know that atheists don't perform exorcisms. Maybe it's because they think it's freedom of religion? – Acid Kritana Jun 25 '20 at 22:55

7 Answers7

30

My answer addresses the UK only.

To answer the legality question, religious belief is covered by Article 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

1) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

However the second part of article 9 restricts manifestation of religious practice if it harms others:

Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Emphasis is mine.

On the basis of part 2 of article 9, there may be a case raised that if an exorcism infringed public safety or put a person's health at risk, then that would be illegal.

  • 10
    Worth noting that while the law can step in to prevent religious practices from causing harm, in the case of exorcisms the practice itself doesn't directly cause harm. I suppose one could argue that someone might deny or avoid mental health treatment on the grounds that the exorcism should be sufficient, and thereby the religious practice is causing harm by restricting access to medical treatment, but then you'd have to demonstrate legally that exorcism is ineffective, and trying to prove in a court of law that a religious practice is useless is a can of worms that nobody wants to open. – anaximander Jul 20 '18 at 10:53
  • 9
    @anaximander You do not need to prove anything about exorcisms; the point is about duty of care. If I see somebody who could be in need of mental care and I do not direct him to a doctor, I am not liable if there is no law forcing me to do so. If I exorcise that person, I still do not have any obligation to send that person to see a psychiatrist. Add that (except when legally uncapacitated) people can reject being given medical treatment. The only complicated point would be that of parents not providing medical help to their children; and even then it is complicated (e.g. Jehova's Witnesses) – SJuan76 Jul 20 '18 at 13:44
  • 2
    @anaximander - Though the OP quotes the Texas case involving "injuries to a 17-year-old girl suffered in an exorcism", from the article, "Laura Schubert testified that she was cut and bruised ... pinned to the floor for hours and received carpet burns during the exorcism". – Nigel Touch Jul 20 '18 at 13:51
  • 3
    @NigelTouch It seems there was quite a bit of disagreement over the facts of the case. From the ruling, it does not sound like the descriptions of the ruling here are quite accurate. In particular, it is not true that the court held the church was not liable for physical injury as a result of the incident because of their First Amendment rights. Rather, she was not suing over physical, but emotional injury claims. Also, it sounds like the church claims that she was restrained because she had begun convulsing. – reirab Jul 20 '18 at 16:57
  • 1
    Addressing the UK, you might mention that in relation to the OP's "in highly developed countries where psychiatry can deal with such cases", freely-available psychiatry services are underfunded in the sense that they cannot meet the needs of all those needing such a service. – Andrew Morton Jul 20 '18 at 21:25
  • For the US, disallowing them would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment (rev. 1992) : "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." – Mazura Jul 21 '18 at 20:53
17

  There is a fine line between religious freedom and preventing harm to a person

There are certain number of religious practices that are allowed although they actually do injure person being subjected to ritual. Most known is certainly circumcision, which does leave permanent physical and psychological scars. Yet, because of tradition and political pressure, they are still allowed.

Exorcism, at least that performed by mainstream churches like Roman Catholics or Pentecostals usually does not injure subject of ritual directly, but could cause indirect mental harm and possibly self-injury.

Main thing to consider is does ritual happens voluntarily on part of the subject, although as we could see on example of circumcision, sometimes law allows rituals that happen involuntarily when it comes to underage persons or persons deemed legally incompetent.

Outright ban on exorcism would open can of worms, because if state interferes with one practice it would certainly have to interfere with others.

rs.29
  • 3,395
  • 6
  • 14
  • +1. but I can see lots of memes using the "ritual happens voluntarily on part of the subject" and images of a pissed possessing spirit issuing a church in court – jean Jul 20 '18 at 13:00
  • I think you might be overly generous in the assessment that politics has ever been subject to 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander'. Different religions and their practices are already treated differently legally, at least in the states. – Jack Of All Trades 234 Jul 20 '18 at 13:30
  • 1
    @JackOfAllTrades234 You can't post something like that without examples or further explanation. – Jacob Hacker Jul 20 '18 at 17:51
  • 1
    @jean: I'd love to see it. I don't think the spirit has a ghost of a chance (pun not intended). – Joshua Jul 21 '18 at 00:14
  • 2
    I can't think of any permanent psychological scars "The Little Snip" had on me. Heck, for the first 15+ years I didn't know what an uncircumcised penis looked like. And while the "permanent physical .. scars" might still be there, they sure never interfered with functionality. – RonJohn Jul 22 '18 at 07:21
  • 1
    @RonJohn You cannot think, but subconsciousness is deep and dark chasm : "Although some believe that babies “won’t remember” the pain, we now know that the body “remembers” as evidenced by studies which demonstrate that circumcised infants are more sensitive to pain later in life (Taddio et al., 1997)" – rs.29 Jul 22 '18 at 20:08
  • 3
    @rs.29 http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/responses.html "neonatal circumcision ... (leaves) circumcised boys with symptoms similar to post-traumatic stress disorder." I don't have anything near PTSD. "All newborn babies encounter painful experiences before birth, during delivery, and during the first week of life. Painful events such as intramuscular vitamin K administration and the Guthrie test are routinely done without analgesia during the first week of life. ... infants requiring intensive care may receive a multitude of small yet painful stimuli." – RonJohn Jul 23 '18 at 03:27
  • 3
    @RonJohn Neither you or I are qualified to determine do you specifically have PTSD or any other ill effects from circumcision. But numerous studies have been made and results are quite clear - it is a harmful practice. It may be hard for you to cope with something that was done to you while you were helpless infant, in that case seek professional help. – rs.29 Jul 24 '18 at 02:37
12

This is a collision between the right to religious expression and government's obligation to protect people from bodily harm. It's why, for example, human sacrifice is not legal even if full consent is given by a person to be sacrificed.

When multiple rights contradict each other, the judicial decisions should err on the side of the least harm. If overwhelmingly most exorcisms do not result in bodily harm, then an occasional one that does cannot be treated as anything different from an injury at an amusement park. Which is to say, it's not a reason to ban amusement parks, but it does give the injured person a reason to sue for relief of damages.

grovkin
  • 6,958
  • 3
  • 22
  • 54
  • 5
    +1 for a reasonable answer which perfectly explains the issue, without committing the mistake almost every other "answer" does (which concentrate on "proving" that exorcism is real or a scam, and ranting about those who hold the opposite view than theirs) – vsz Jul 21 '18 at 14:28
  • A key difference is that the injury at the amusement park that at most amounts to a claim of damages is unintentional. If you get intentionally hurt in an amusement park (or even through gross negligence), it then can become a criminal matter (apart from the damages you could ask for). If someone poisons you or beats you to "exorcise" you, then again it is a criminal case, not only a civil one. – SJuan76 Aug 30 '18 at 10:34
  • Also the negatives have to be weighed against the positive of having expelled the devil. – John Jan 03 '20 at 09:28
5

It could be a fun task to define what a "high developed country" should mean, obviously this definition should involve the social sphere and not the G.D.P.

As long as the "possessed" person can't be be judged psichiatric and/or as long as he's capable of discernment, I somehow apreciate that he can apply for whatever rite he wants. Please note that I'm writing from Italy, but I would be pleased to get rid of Vatican City and its influence.

Every self health and safety consideration shouldn't mean anything for a grown person capable of discernment, otherwise also extreme sports should be banned because of the same reason.

The real issue is to have enough social assistance to be sure that ANY PERSON that otherwise IS psichiatric or not capable of discenrment will be protected against every menace, physical or "spiritual". It's relevant that some cults usually perform brain wash, therefore an exorcism will be more likely accepted by the possessed person and -especially- his family, but this should lead to a legal accusation against the brain washig cult, not against the exorcism itself.

Sadly we aren't not even close to this situation, and -personally- I would choose to somehow limit freedom of belief, and declare exorcism not legal anymore, because I think that this won't actually "hurt" anyone and it will save some unlucky people. In the end we are talking about democratic states, and since religions have a firm hold over a huge number of people the law will follow the most shared ideas, which could also be "exorcisms do work and should be done often" even if it doesn't (and no proofs that exorcism is a real thing have been recorded so far). That's dead simple.

I would like to use another question to explain why exorcisms are still legal: why abortion, euthanasia or de facto couples ARE STILL NOT LEGAL in highly developed country? The answer is the same and then I would object against the "developed" adjective.

theGarz
  • 167
  • 5
  • 1
    Having second-hand (yes exactly second hand) knowledge of real exorcisms, I don't think you know what you're talking about. – Joshua Jul 20 '18 at 16:19
  • @Joshua: then enlight us all. And what do you mean by "real" exorcism? – theGarz Jul 20 '18 at 16:48
  • 2
    This looks more like a rant about personal ideological views than an answer to the question. – vsz Jul 20 '18 at 16:52
  • @vsz I've highlighted the TL,DR part of the answer for your convenience. – theGarz Jul 20 '18 at 17:03
  • @theGarz: When you (well not you personally because you're not going to try it) decide you need to an exorcism, consent still has to be worked out and that's not easy because you are fundamentally dealing with two entities in the same body, and you should expect one of them to be violent, as in small woman throws big man across the room violent. Exorcism w/o consent is a bad idea. – Joshua Jul 20 '18 at 18:34
  • @Joshua who's consent? The possessed person? The exorcist? The supposed possessed person's one IS NOT enough to determine that he/she capable of discernment, may he/she's only a psychiatric person and therefore a 3rd entitled entity should allow the "treatment". This is necessary to avoid the possibility of a unhelpful treatment and, way more important, the lack of an helpful treatment. – theGarz Jul 20 '18 at 19:03
  • 1
    There is a dangerous problem when you assume a psychiatric person is not entitled to decide what treatment to receive. Unfortunately, there's a dangerous problem with not doing so too. The combined authority that can determine both psychiatric and possession does not to my knowledge exist. – Joshua Jul 20 '18 at 20:34
  • @Joshua, not every psychiatric person can't choose for herself, but it could happen and we have rules and legally entitled people that can and should choose the best option for the patient. Although surely not perfect, it's something that already proved its helpfulness. I agree that we don't currently have a combined authority that can judge both psychiatric and possession issues, but that's probably because no real proofs of possession have been recorded so far, therefore no reasonable treatment could be proposed in this case. – theGarz Jul 20 '18 at 20:43
2

The short answer is that the government cannot be trusted with the power to decide which religious beliefs are "legitimate" and which ones are "superstition". Since most religious tenets are things people believe despite there being thin or no evidence for it (of the sort that would, say, convince skeptic James Randi to award the million dollar prize)**, giving the government such authority would make it too easy for the government to persecute people on the basis that it's "unjustified by the facts" and therefore not "legitimate".

** - For instance, dozens of authenticated recordings showing someone fitting Zeus's description literally throwing thunderbolts.

Ton Day
  • 848
  • 5
  • 11
  • 1
    Even if it you take the religious sentiment out of the picture, governments should not regulate occasionally-harmful activities which happen to be whimsical. Amusement park rides can be occasionally harmful, too. – grovkin Jul 21 '18 at 07:02
  • See also the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. – Erik Jul 21 '18 at 07:41
  • 3
    @grovkin but governments do regulate amusement park rides. http://www.iaapa.org/safety-and-advocacy/safety/amusement-ride-safety/regulations-standards – RonJohn Jul 22 '18 at 07:24
  • 1
    In fact some folks were recently charged with murder over incompetence and disregard for safety regulations in the "design" of an amusement park ride: https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/us/schlitterbahn-waterpark-death-arrests/index.html – Ton Day Jul 22 '18 at 08:51
  • Why can't the government be trusted? In fact, they usually are trusted to make this decision...namely via the court system. –  Jul 23 '18 at 16:59
  • 1
    One of the surest signs a society thinks the government can't be trusted with something is that it only feels comfortable letting the government do it after it gets a permission slip signed by a judge saying there's a good reason. The President can pardon anyone he wants, without a judge's say-so; but if he wants to arrest someone, his men have to explain themselves before a judge, who has the authority to say 'no' and that's the end of it. – Ton Day Jul 24 '18 at 02:24
0

It's probably because of freedom of religion.

Now, as an atheist, I don't perform that kind of stuff (and I find it ridiculous).

But, as long as the exorcism doesn't cause harm (bodily, psychological, etc.), it is fine.

It's a ritual the is performed by certain religions.

And people should be able to freely practice their religions, as long as : no one gets harmed in any way, it does not discriminate or call for discrimination, and it does not try to put it's religion into government or laws.

Acid Kritana
  • 150
  • 9
-4

As a Christian I have done exorcisms and I can assure you they are not a joke.

The first time I didn't do one was when I was a missionary support worker (very new to it) and a man told me his house was haunted and could I do an exorcism. I said yes. I got his phone number but it took me 5 or 6 days to get to his house and by that time it was too late he had shot his father.

The second time, I was at a house where there were multiple suicide attempts, everyone living there had a diagnosed mental health condition they were taking medication for; and they didn't have any such conditions before living there, and there were rooms where people who lived there would not go.

I knew the man living there and stood outside and rebuked Satan in the pitch black and quoted scripture for about 45 minutes. I had my eyes closed and for most of the 45 minutes I daren't open my eyes - it was like being in the midst of a soundless whirlwind was swarming all around me a silent tornado - I can't describe it and towards the end of me continually praying out loud and quoting Jesus' promises in the Bible a huge cat face (like on a mask) came out from the building and tried to engulf me.

Then it was utterly peaceful. In an instant. It was some years ago but I still remember the face of that cat like creature that I saw even thought my eyes were shut.

The ministry of Jesus in the Bible is approximately covering 3 to 4 years yet he rebuked demons and stopped possession almost as much as any other miracle. What that means is if you go about the place meeting people you WILL run into demon possession regularly. And you do I can assure you. And most people if they live long enough WILL experience it whether they know it or not. This is the crux of why it is still in law: because most members of government are not 100% confident (deep down) it is not really real. It's only young inexperienced people who have shut their minds to the notion.

I could go on and on into the detail of it. But the very short version is this: In Daniel (Daniel ch10 v10-13) it clearly states that demons can be a possessor of family lineages, and individual people and places. Jesus also said that demons can be very powerful (Matthew 17:21) and hard to evict.

Mr Heelis
  • 161
  • 3
  • Alas for the experts now believe it is not real. – Joshua Jul 20 '18 at 16:21
  • 4
    As a skeptic of supernatural forces, I would love to experience anything akin to what you describe. – CramerTV Jul 20 '18 at 16:46
  • 1
    I don't get why if the government thinks that's not real it should then keep it in law. The opposite seems more reasonable, otherwise they should also create a law for the dragon hunters. Maybe I've lost in translation the real meaning of "this is the crux of why". – theGarz Jul 20 '18 at 17:11
  • @CramerTV You first need to attune yourself to the spiritual forces by being a sincere believer from childhood. Otherwise, you may not have the necessary sensitivity to experience spiritual reality. [/s] – lly Jul 21 '18 at 02:37
  • 1
    @theGarz Mr Heelis obviously misspoke. In the next line, he contrasts the leaders of the government with the young inexperienced people who have shut their mind to the notion. He meant to say that the gov't leaders are confident it is real. I'll leave it to him to edit that correction in himself, though. – lly Jul 21 '18 at 02:39
  • I corrected (and added) the missed word "not" in italics. It kind of ruined my answer. It was an honest typo. Also I want to be clear I am talking about building exorcism, which is the most commonly encountered (that I've been made aware of). – Mr Heelis Jul 22 '18 at 20:37
  • It is possible to be under a curse (in fact its a subtle element of even the ten commandments) but I am not experienced in this. Christians believe there is mind body spirit. And all three can have ailments. Physical and mental there are doctors for. But not spiritual ailments. Spiritual ailments can come from buildings or places or sin or curses or lineages. Church workers are incredibly careful about those because its so easy to misdiagnose spiritual ailments with mental ones. – Mr Heelis Jul 22 '18 at 20:37
  • 3
    The idea that "mental health problems" and "demonic activity" are mutually exclusive seems to me to be a hasty assumption. I would bet that the latter is often an ingredient of the former. –  Jul 23 '18 at 14:18
  • 2
    citations needed –  Jul 23 '18 at 16:57