c. 1997 Religion News Service
WASHINGTON _ The congregation of St. Peter the Apostle Roman Catholic Church in Boerne, Texas, has been growing at a rapid pace in recent years _ so much so, in fact, that on any given Sunday, parishioners no longer fit in the 230-seat stone church that was built in 1923.
Most churches only dream of increasing the number of people coming through their doors to worship, but for St. Peter’s the situation has become a legal nightmare. Hoping to expand its facilities to accommodate the some 2,000 now on parish membership rolls, the church launched a fund-raising campaign and drew up new building plans.
But city officials refused to let St. Peter’s make any structural changes, saying that because St. Peter’s is in a historic district, any renovations would violate local preservation laws.
St. Peter’s sued the city, arguing the preservation code violated the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) by hindering the church’s ability to freely exercise its religion. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed; but the city decided to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that RFRA is unconstitutional.
Next Wednesday (Feb. 19), the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in City of Boerne vs. Flores. And according to religious groups from across the theological spectrum, much more is at stake than a simple zoning dispute.”This is the most important church-state case that the Supreme Court has ever decided,”says Oliver Thomas, a constitutional attorney and spokesman for the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, an umbrella group of more than 60 religious and civil rights organization.”It affects every single religious organization and religious individual in the U.S., whatever their belief or their practice.” Nearly every religious group in America agrees with Thomas. But the attorney generals of several states have joined the city of Boerne to argue that RFRA undermines the authority of state and local governments.
Under RFRA, governments must demonstrate a strong or”compelling”reason for adopting laws that may”substantially burden”some religious believers. The law was passed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s controversial 1990 Oregon Employment vs. Smith decision. In that ruling, the justices said that state anti-drug rules could be applied to stop the use of peyote, a hallucinogenic drug, in American Indian religious ceremonies.
Even more troubling to religious groups was Justice Antonin Scalia’s surprise assertion in the majority decision that the government did not have to accommodate any”incidental”burdens on religion that came from a”reasonable”and neutral law.
Religious groups claimed that the Court had”gutted”First Amendment guarantees of the free exercise of religion. After aggressive lobbying from the religious community, Congress passed RFRA by a near unanimous margin in 1993.
Opponents, however, believe RFRA goes too far. In a friend-of-the court brief to the Supreme Court, 13 states and the territories of American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands argue that RFRA has dramatically limited state sovereignty.”Whether it be running prisons, educating children, defining criminal laws or exercising other police powers, RFRA has undermined the traditional discretion given to the states in these areas,”the brief says.
The prison issue is particularly sensitive. According to the brief, as of late November 1996, there have been scores of RFRA-based lawsuits brought by prisoners. The inmates’ religious freedom arguments have ranged from wanting to be allowed to wear yarmulkes or crucifixes to demanding the right to burn Bibles in satanic rituals or distribute marijuana for religious reasons.”RFRA has also facilitated efforts to use drugs, distribute weapons or engage in other dangerous activities in the prison,”the brief says.
RFRA supporters, however, argue the prison issue has been exaggerated. According to Forest Montgomery, counsel for the National Association of Evangelicals, inmates must be able to exercise their religious beliefs, although he says prisons can”take into account”legitimate safety and security concerns when evaluating liberty claims.”Whichever way this case goes, prisoners can still file frivolous lawsuits,”Montgomery adds.
Other groups supporting the city of Boerne in the case assert that zoning and preservation regulations do not overly burden churches. For example, the National Trust for Historic Preservation argues that the preservation code only imposes an acceptable,”incidental burden”on St. Peter’s. “No individual member of the church is being denied the ability to worship; no parishioner is subject to any penalty for worshiping as he or she wishes; and no one is being coerced in anyway owing to his or her religious practices,”lawyers for the Trust argue.
But RFRA supporters say that is a very narrow vision of religious liberty.”It’s a grave invasion of the church’s authority … for the state to come in and say, `You have to hold more services or hire more priests,'”says J. Brent Walker, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee in Washington.
A friend-of-the court brief filed by the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion argues that RFRA is needed to protect religious groups _ and particularly religious minorities _ from the legislative whims of the majority.
Large and powerful religious groups may be able”to shape legislation to avoid conflicts with their religious practices,”but”smaller, less organized faiths are unable to protect themselves in the process either because they are unaware of it, or because of outright bias,”it says.
According to Marc Stern, counsel for the American Jewish Congress and author of the Coalition brief, all religious groups can be vulnerable when liberty is left to a majority vote. “There are places in this country where every one of our (faiths) is a minority and knows it,”he says.
The Coalition represents Christians from numerous denominations, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Americans Indians and Sikhs, as well as advocacy groups from the politically liberal American Civil Liberties Union to the conservative Concerned Women for America.
Other religious groups who filed separate briefs in support of RFRA include the U.S. Catholic Conference, the National Committee for Amish Religious Freedom, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs and religious broadcaster Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice. The U.S. Justice Department has also intervened in support of St. Peter’s.
Stern says this is a”very hard case to predict”how the various justices will vote.”The interests of many of the justices run at cross purposes,”he says.
According to Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Washington-based Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, although there has been little public attention to this case, the repercussions will be felt across the nation.”This is a survival issue, particularly for many of the smaller religions,”Saperstein warns.
MJP END LAWTON
