Saturday, July 5, 1997

Court decision could force faithful to make choice

By MICHAEL O'CONNOR / Abilene Reporter-News

The Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Religious Freedom Restoration Act brought a predictable howl from many corners. Passed in 1993 and supported by a broad coalition of political and religious interests, RFRA was considered to be a constitutional, legislative way of circumventing Supreme Court rulings that many deemed to be hostile to religion.

The specific ruling that triggered the act's creation involved some Native American drug counselors who were fired because they used peyote in Native American religious rituals. The court had previously used a two-part test to make its decisions about cases involving religion: Did the government have an overriding, compelling interest in passing the law, and did the law accomplish the purpose in the least restrictive way?

In the case of the fired drug counselors, the court believed it was also being asked to determine whether a religious practice was central to a stated religious belief and eventually said the firings did not violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. Critics of the decision pointed out that the compelling interest and limited infringement questions were not used.

The RFRA was an attempt to force the court to apply those standards to every law, including those ordinarily considered neutral toward religion, such as zoning laws. A Catholic church in Boerne ran afoul of a zoning regulation when it asked to expand its facility. Unfortunately for the church, it fell in a historic district and the expansion wouldn't have fit the regulations for that area.

The resulting suit and appeals utilized the RFRA as one of the key arguments and by the time the issue reached the Supreme Court, the question was whether the act was a constitutional exercise of congressional authority under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court found that the breadth of the acts reach - to every single government entity - exceeded Congress' authority and overturned the act. (The decision, along with the text of the act and discussions on its appropriateness and history can be found on the World Wide Web at http://www.religious-freedom.org/rfratop.ht ml.)

Among the concerns about the act was its reach. Could a government show a compelling interest or minimal infringement if every religious group out there decided to challenge an ordinance or law on religious grounds under the act? Would you be able to keep the House of Weird Religion out of your neighborhood on the basis of your community's zoning laws, for instance?

What attracted my attention while reading up on the decision was a comment attributed to U.S. Rep. Charles Schumer (D-New York.) After pledging to find a way to neutralize the perceived chilling effect on religion of the decision, Schumer said, "Sadly, with this ruling, citizens will be forced to choose between their government and their God."

If he is right and such a choice is the primary effect of the ruling then all I can say is "Hallelujah."

Despite what we have convinced ourselves, governments' purposes - even those of a democratic government - are ultimately at odds with the purposes of religions. When government and religion mix, religion always loses - even in such a simple thing as trying to guarantee religious freedom - check your Anabaptist history if you doubt me.

The Bible is full of admonitions to the faithful to choose. Sometimes the choice is easy and allows us to support what the government is doing or condemn it. Most times the choice is more difficult, the edges grayer. But to assume that we needn't make a choice because we believe the government is on our side or ought to be most often automatically puts us on the wrong side of the fence.

We misplace faith when we put it in the First Amendment or the Congress or the Supreme Court. We should prophetically call governments to task for trampling on the rights of the innocent. We should be active in the political process, and we should be trying to transform the political arena and those involved in it. But we should never be surprised to find that our goals are in conflict with the world's and that at some point, we will suffer for pursuing them.

Yes, Congressman, we will have to choose, but we should have been choosing all along.

Michael O'Connor is Online Editor for the Reporter-News and is an ordained United Methodist minister. He can be reached by e-mail at religion(at)abinews.com.