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 zoing 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
"NJWEEDMAN" homepage |