Speak of the Devil by Joseph P. Laycock

Author:Joseph P. Laycock
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Published: 2019-07-15T00:00:00+00:00

Becoming “Official”

While I was researching this book, TST began achieving small victories toward receiving official recognition as a religion. Donny of TST-Springfield described an incident where a chapter member had failed to keep up with electricity bills and their power had been cut off. Some power companies will reactivate accounts if the client can submit a letter from their church pledging to support the delinquent account. TST-Springfield asked the National Council for a pledge letter and received one in only a few hours. Significantly, the power company felt TST qualified as a “church” and turned the power back on.117

Another interesting case occurred in 2018 when a mental patient suffering from schizophrenia at Bridgewater State Hospital in Massachusetts refused to take antipsychotic medication, claiming that they were a member of TST and that this would violate their religious beliefs. Because the patient was considered legally incompetent, the court attempted to assess whether they would still have refused antipsychotics if they were competent. Lucien Greaves was brought in as an expert witness. He explained that while TST has no stance on psychiatric medication, the third tenet—that the body is inviolable and subject to one’s will alone—naturally includes the choice of what medications to take. On December 17, 2018, Brockton District Court sided with the patient. The opinion stated:

The court’s decision is based on the following subsidiary findings, not necessarily in the order of their significance:

1. The respondent holds a sincerely-held belief in Satanism;

2. One of the core tenants [sic] of Satanism is that one’s body is inviolable.

3. While Satanism does not prohibit the use of antipsychotic medications, their use is left to the sole discretion of its members

4. Satanists are free to refuse antipsychotic medications, provided refusing such medications will not pose a danger to others;

5. There is no evidence before the court that the respondent is violent or that his refusal to take antipsychotic medications poses a risk of harm to other patients or staff at BSH;

6. The respondent has clearly expressed his preference not to take antipsychotic medications to his doctors at BSH; and

7. None of the other factors override the respondent’s expressed preference or his religious convictions.118

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.