High Court’s Ruling May Give Proposed Amendment a Boost

The U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning a 1993 religious freedom law may give added impetus to a proposed constitutional amendment already introduced in Congress with the backing of evangelical Christian groups.

An influential Catholic voice, Los Angeles Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, added his support for an amendment in a statement calling the high court’s Wednesday ruling an “inappropriate constraint on religious freedom.”

“Without such an amendment, there looms the ominous threat of governmental intrusion into the spiritual affairs of individuals and religious bodies as well as the prospect of even more litigation,” Mahony said.

The proposed Religious Freedom Amendment would prohibit government infringement of “religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on public property, including schools.”

Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.), the amendment’s sponsor, has garnered conservative Christian backing, including support among evangelical leaders hoping to return prayer to public schools.

The Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Orange-County based Traditional Values Coalition, said the fight for guaranteed religious freedom has turned into “a different kind of ballgame.” He noted that those who previously supported the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act--overturned by justices--”don’t necessarily support the Religious Freedom Amendment.”

Sheldon contended that the religious right has seen court victories overturned time and again. “Now that [the act] has been overturned, the liberals got a dose of what has been happening to the conservatives.”

“So we’re looking at each other and saying to each other, ‘Maybe you were partially right. Maybe we ought to hang together on some new step,’ ” Sheldon said.

An unprecedented coalition of conservative and liberal organizations--religious and secular-- had backed the religious freedom act, which said that government officials must bend rules and make special exemptions for people whose actions are based on their religion.

The court found that Congress exceeded its authority in giving more religious freedom than justices said was required by the Constitution.

The gloom was palpable among religious leaders in Washington. “The 1st Amendment has just been gutted by the Supreme Court,” said James Dunn, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee.

Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American Islamic Relations, said Muslims were worried that an increase in discrimination against Muslims may result from the removal of the law. Marc Stern, legal director of the American Jewish Congress, said the court decision reflects a societal cynicism about organized religion.

“I don’t think . . . institutionalized religion occupies for many Americans quite the same sacrosanct status as it once did,” Stern told Religion News Service.

The religious freedom act had been used to defend a Sikh student’s wearing of a ceremonial dagger under his shirt at school as a requirement of his faith. The high court issued its ruling Wednesday on a case near San Antonio, where a Catholic church had tried to rebuild its small stone cathedral but was thwarted by city officials on the basis of the town’s historic preservation law.

Mahony was involved in a somewhat similar case in Los Angeles when he first attempted to tear down quake-damaged St. Vibiana’s Cathedral to build anew on the site. Meeting resistance, he later opted for a different site.

Oliver “Buzz” Thomas, lead attorney for the coalition that pushed for the religious freedom act, advised against supporting Istook’s amendment.

“That raises more problems than it solves,” said Thomas, who is a consultant to the 1st Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. “It is a long-term solution, requiring the ratification by three-quarters of the states and years of Supreme Court interpretations over what the amendment means.”