Bay Area leaders voice support for ‘religious liberty’ legislation

An Orthodox boy is prohibited from playing high-school basketball because he wants to wear a yarmulke.

Why? Because the state athletic association has a rule against wearing any hats or headgear during games -- and, after all, a rule is a rule.

End of story?

Representatives from a nationwide coalition of religious leaders held a news conference last Friday in San Francisco to offer a resounding "no!"

Jewish, Muslim, Catholic and Seventh-day Adventist leaders and others from a handful of other religious organizations, stood together in a conference room at St. Mary's Cathedral to support the Religious Liberty Protection Act.

The bill now stands before the Senate after passing the House of Representatives, 306-118, in July. Backers assert that the measure will prevent state and local governments from placing a "substantial burden" on an individual's free exercise of religion.

They point to ordinances in some cities that prevent synagogues and other houses of worship from expanding, policies that prohibit Jewish children from wearing yarmulkes in public schools, and laws that conflict with the Orthodox prohibition against autopsies.

Tracy Salkowitz, executive director of the American Jewish Congress' Northern Pacific region, told reporters that the bill will prevent personal religious freedoms from being stomped on just because of a rule or a law already on the books.

"The point of this bill is to reinstate the delicate balance" between the right to practice one's religion and laws that uphold freedom of religion, she said.

Salkowitz blamed the U.S. Supreme Court for helping to erode that balance in 1997 when it struck down the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

In recent times, she said, school officials or other arbiters of justice have summarily disregarded the rights of individuals without opening up the issue for discussion. For example, a principal will prevent a student from wearing a yarmulke to class without even considering whether the particular situation is potentially inflammatory, she said.

"There is not even a conversation. It's 'a rule is a rule,'" said Salkowitz. "This bill says you at least have to have the conversation." And from there, the right of the individual can't be taken away unless officials make a compelling case for doing so -- and only then through the "least restrictive means."

Salkowitz, whose office is in San Francisco, was the only Jewish coalition member present the press conference.

Other Jewish organizations, such as Agudath Israel of America, support the bill; but others pulled back this summer after offering initial support. Among those groups that renounced their support are the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the National Council of Jewish Women and the Anti-Defamation League.

Their trepidation is over whether religious liberty or civil rights laws should take precedence when the two conflict. "This is a balancing act," Salkowitz said in an interview.

The proposed legislation, opponents argue, might allow landlords and employers in states and cities with laws prohibiting discrimination to invoke their religious principles as a defense for refusing to rent or hire gays and lesbians.

When asked to explain why AJCongress hasn't backed away from its support of the bill, Salkowitz said, "We don't believe any civil rights infringement will trump this [law] because civil rights remains a compelling government interest. If we believed civil rights and gay rights protections would erode, we would back off very fast."

Religious leaders last Friday expressed concern that the U.S. Supreme Court has given "nearly unfettered power" to the courts to rule against the right to practice one's religion.

"All the court does is look at the law, and if there is a constitutional basis for the law, the law wins and religion loses," said Alan Reinach, president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church State Council.

The coalition cited several cases that illustrate the need for change.

At the Hancock Park assisted-living complex in Los Angeles, for example, a small group of elderly and disabled Orthodox Jews -- unable to walk the half-mile to the nearest synagogue -- were denied permission to worship and pray in one of their apartments.

Salkowitz said the case was quickly decided because of noise ordinances and parking laws already on the books.

"Parking? These are Orthodox Jews. It wouldn't even be an issue," she said. "This is why negotiation needs to take place...Now we're looking at the free speech angle. If you can have a party or a bridge night, why shouldn't you be able to get together to pray or study Torah?"

The legislation passed the House with bipartisan support, although Republicans voted 199-20 as compared to much narrower 107-97 support by the Democrats.

Of the 23 Jewish members of the House, 15 voted against the bill and one did not vote, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

The Senate is currently having committee hearings on the bill, which coalition members said President Clinton has pledged to sign.

After the press conference, coalition members met with the staffs of Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Greenbrae) and Dianne Feinstein (D-S.F.).

Said Reinach: "The Supreme Court has, in effect, kicked religion off the back of the civil rights bus...It's time for religion to be allowed back on the bus."