State judges determined that harm done to a 17 year old girl during an exorcism performed by her church are protected by the First Ammendment.
And while this might mean "certain harms may go unaddressed...the larger protection of the church and religious freedom is the overriding concern."
The protection of the church overrides our children's safety?
"The government can't get involved in overseeing religious practices. The best way to say it is it's not American.
"If she did prevail that would erase about 150 years of law in this country from the Supreme Court saying the government does not get involved in the internal affairs and operations of the church. It would effectively be the end of church independence and religious freedom in our country."
In other words, these judges refuse to hold religion responsible for its crimes. Once again, religion is escaping criticism. When are we going to remove religion from its pedestal of un-earned respect and hold it up to the same standards of decency we require of ourselves?
At what point would these judges consider the abuse to be severe enough to warrant interference?
Luckily, three of the judges did not agree with the ruling:
[the ruling] was "inconsistent with US Supreme Court precedent and extends far beyond the protections our Constitution affords religious conduct."
Laura Schubert Pearson, now 29 and mother of two, says she plans to take her case to the US Supreme Court. Let's hope they show a little more sense.
(Thanks to RichardDawkins.net)