-Caveat Lector-
House Passes Religious Rights Bill
Legislation Curbing Government's Right to Interfere Prevails 306-118
By Michael Grunwald and Hanna Rosin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 16, 1999; Page A01
The House yesterday overwhelmingly passed a bill designed to protect
religious practices from government interference, affirming the right to
exercise faith even in cases where it might conflict with state or local
laws.
Spurred by gripping tales of prisoners barred from receiving communion,
students disciplined for wearing yarmulkes in school and houses of worship
frozen out of residential neighborhoods by zoning laws, the
Republican-controlled House passed the Religious Liberty Protection Act by a
306 to 118 margin. The bill is a slightly narrower version of a law the
Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional in 1997.
Several civil rights groups opposed the bill, warning it could be used to
undermine other anti-discrimination laws, but the Senate is likely to pass
some version of the legislation as well, and the Clinton administration
signaled its "strong support" in a statement.
Supporters of the bill -- including a broad coalition of religious groups
ranging from the National Sikh Center to the Peyote Way Church of God to the
Campus Crusade for Christ -- called it a much-needed correction to
government infringements on religious freedom. The vote was a particularly
sweet victory for Christian conservatives, a landmark in their 10-year
struggle to convince Americans that they are an embattled minority in need
of additional legal protection.
But Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), a coauthor of the bill, withdrew his
support after failing to pass an amendment ensuring that existing civil
rights laws would not be affected. Nadler expressed concern that the bill
could empower landlords, for example, to use their religious beliefs to
refuse to rent to homosexuals, single mothers or unmarried couples. The
bill's supporters said that was not the intention, but opposed Nadler's
amendment anyway, saying it would have created an impression that religious
rights are second-class rights.
"This bill is supposed to be a shield to protect rights, but some people
want to use it as a sword to attack rights," Nadler said. "Religious liberty
is very dear to my heart, but I can't support this bill anymore."
In the end, though, the bill was propelled by a fierce lobbying effort led
by conservative Christian groups such as the Family Research Council and the
Christian Coalition, with help from a wide array of apolitical religious
organizations and even some liberal groups such as People for the American
Way and Americans for Democratic Action.
The bill would make it much harder for state and local officials to take
actions that inconvenience people of faith, requiring them to demonstrate
that the actions serve a "compelling" public interest and that they have no
less restrictive means to achieve it. To its supporters, this legislation is
a fix desperately needed to uphold the original vision of the nation's
founders, many of whom came to America to escape religious intolerance.
"This is a great day for religious liberty in America," said Rep. Charles T.
Canady (R-Fla.), the bill's chief sponsor. "In recent years, we've seen less
and less protection for the free exercise of religion. In this country,
beliefs have been trampled on every day."
The bill's supporters dramatized their arguments with a long list of horror
stories describing government intrusions on religious expression: Muslim
firefighters forced to shave beards, Hmong corpses submitted for autopsies
even though their relatives believed it would condemn their spirits, Roman
Catholic priests prohibited from serving communion wine to minors.
Most of all, they complained about zoning disputes, which they claim are
often used to keep religious institutions out of residential neighborhoods.
In Cheltanham Township, Pa., officials rejected a synagogue's construction
plans because of insufficient space for parking, even though Orthodox Jews
do not drive on the Sabbath. The synagogue then offered to build a parking
lot anyway, but officials turned them down again, saying it would create
traffic jams.
Such conflicts date to 1990, when the Supreme Court ruled that the
Constitution's "free exercise" clause does not preclude laws that burden
religious practices -- as long as they serve a "rational" public interest,
and are not designed specifically to squelch religion. The "compelling"
interest requirement in the current bill would set a much higher legal
standard.
President Clinton signed a similar bill into law in 1993, but the Supreme
Court ultimately ruled that Congress had exceeded its constitutional
authority in passing it. The authors of the current bill limited its scope
to interstate commerce, federally funded programs and blatantly
discriminatory land use regulations in an effort to pass constitutional
muster.
But the debate on the House floor dwelt on cultural and political issues,
not constitutional ones. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) attacked Nadler's
amendment protecting existing civil rights, arguing that "nontraditional"
groups now enjoy more protections than religious institutions. Rep. Patrick
J. Kennedy (D-R.I.) complained that opponents of the amendment were engaging
in an underhanded attack on gays. Ultimately, the amendment failed, 234 to
190, largely along party lines.
"It's unconscionable that the House passed this bill without protecting
civil rights," said David M. Smith of the Human Rights Campaign, the
country's largest gay and lesbian political organization.
The bill's passage is the culmination of a major shift among Christian
activists, who over the past decade have adopted the political strategies of
the civil rights movement. Once portraying themselves as the dominant
cultural force in a God-fearing America, Christian conservatives have
redefined themselves as a persecuted splinter group.
"The bill appeals to the notion that we are a minority with a target printed
on our chest," said Justin Watson, a professor at Florida State University
who has written a book on the Christian right's latest incarnation. "It's a
kind of me-tooism, useful in an era of appeals to victimization."
The rhetorical shift crystallized with Ralph Reed, executive director of the
Christian Coalition from 1989 to 1997. Without abandoning the triumphalism
of the Moral Majority, Reed added the cry of the oppressed. He even started
a monthly publication, Religious Rights Watch, dedicated to documenting
discrimination against Christians.
Until the passage of this latest bill, legal attempts to rectify the alleged
persecution of Christians had faltered, but politically and culturally, the
strategy soared.
"It fit into the American ideology that everyone deserves to have rights,"
said James Guth, a professor at Furman University who studies the religious
right. "If you can persuade people your rights are abused, you're on the
road to convincing them they ought to protect you."
Yesterday's vote was the ultimate triumph of that strategy, wrapping
evangelical Christians with the Amish, the Buddhists, the Scientologists and
other minority faiths. Even Barry Lynn of Americans United for the
Separation of Church and State supported the bill, because he appreciated
its protections for groups that he believes are truly endangered. But to
Lynn, the Christians-as-martyrs line rings a bit tinny.
"For them to say they are some kind of beleaguered group is truly
ridiculous," Lynn said. "Look at the political clout the religious right
has, notwithstanding their setbacks."
� Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
