|
 |
|
|
|
|
COVER STORY:
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
October 13, 1997 Episode no. 106
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BOB ABERNETHY: Our Cover Story is about another court decision. Many religious leaders were outraged last June when the court ruled unconstitutional a law protecting religious freedom. Congress had passed the law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, nicknamed RFRA, in 1993. It required that government have a really compelling reason to interfere with anyone's free exercise of religion. Religious leaders were delighted. But then the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had overstepped its authority and declared RFRA unconstitutional. So where does that leave religious freedom? What kinds of church-state conflicts are affected by the decision? Correspondent Jed Duvall took a look.
JED DUVALL: In Richmond, Virginia, the fight has been over whether churches can continue feeding the crowds of poor who arrive at their doorsteps. You could send the police, you could even send tanks; still you wouldn't keep Pastor Darrell Rollins from his mission.
Dr. DARRELL ROLLINS (31st Street Baptist Church): We called the police and we are in violation, proudly so, come get us.
DUVALL: The city of Richmond threw down the gauntlet when it passed an ordinance saying no more than 30 people could be fed at one time.
Dr. ROLLINS: The First Amendment guarantees us the right to practice our ministry, our religion, and our religion is to feed the hungry.
DUVALL: In Los Angeles, the battle is between the city and a group of Orthodox Jews. Rabbi Chaim Rubin's small congregation used to pray in his father's home until his father became ill. So the rabbi bought a nearby house to use as a place of worship instead. The fight went to the city council when neighbors objected, claiming a violation of zoning law.
Unidentified Man #1: I would remind all of you that the United States Supreme Court is clearly on the side of the homeowners' association.
Rabbi CHAIM RUBIN (Congregation Etz Chaim): I cannot in good conscience, I cannot from a religious belief, close this shul down. Please use the influence of this city council to allow -- allow us to continue.
Unidentified Man #3: Okay, prepare the roll on the motion.
Unidentified Woman #1: Fourteen ayes.
Man #3: And that is approved. The appeal has been denied.
Rabbi RUBIN: They are hiding behind a zoning law to essentially keep out the community that wants to live and practice their religious dictates from an area.
DUVALL: Orthodox Jewish practice requires the faithful to walk on the Sabbath, never to drive, and many in the congregation cannot walk far, says Rabbi Rubin's wife, Raizel.
RAIZEL RUBIN (Congregation Etz Chaim): What we really are struggling with here is a confrontation between civil law, the zoning laws of the city of Los Angeles, and religious law, which requires certain things of an Orthodox Jew. And right now as it stands, the two are not compatible, and the question is, who needs to accommodate whom?
|
|
|
|
DUVALL: That was the issue before the Supreme Court when it considered the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The case that brought RFRA to the justices began at a church in the small town of Gurney, Texas. St. Peter and the Apostle Church has been on the site since 1923. When it sought to expand, city authorities tried to stop it. The church sued and won -- a victory that Reverend Oliver Thomas credits to RFRA.
Mr. OLIVER THOMAS (General Counsel, National Council of Churches): RFRA put the burden where it ought to be, on the government that wants to restrict religion. We ought to start from the baseline that we're free to be as religious or nonreligious as we want to be as American citizens.
DUVALL: And RFRA says?
Mr. THOMAS: RFRA says, "Government, if you want to restrict Jed's right to be religious, you're going to have to show a good reason for it."
DUVALL: But that changed when the Supreme Court overturned RFRA in the Gurney case last June. Religious leaders such as Thomas were outraged at the court's decision. Now, without RFRA we are -- the burden is?
Mr. THOMAS: Now we can treat a church like a dry goods store. We can say that a yarmulke is no more important than a baseball cap, despite the fact that one is a claim of conscience.
DUVALL: But did RFRA, as opponents claim, represent too much religious freedom? Too much power for churches? Arguing against RFRA before the high court was Marci Hamilton.
MARCI HAMILTON (Cardozo Law School): As a matter of fact, a matter of empirical fact, religion and churches and synagogues are part of communities; and the question is whether or not they can find ways to serve their needs and the people's needs in concert with the community.
DUVALL: In Richmond, Virginia, the church has found a way to serve their poor by swamping the city council with church folks opposed to the ordinance restricting feeding programs.
Unidentified Man #4: Richmond is my city. And this is the first time that I've seen the religious leaders of this city come out and say, "This is an ordinance that we're not going to obey."
Man #4: We want this ordinance repealed, period.
Unidentified Man #5: The mission of the church is not to be tampered with.
DUVALL: Then promised to dump the ordinance. But Rabbi Rubin and his congregation are still fighting their city hall for the right to have a place of worship in their neighborhood. They plan to sue.
Rabbi RUBIN: I think that we qualify to be here even without RFRA. But of course, if RFRA had been upheld, it would've been a lot easier.
DUVALL: Members of Congress would like to help Rabbi Rubin and others of all faiths in similar situations. The effort has begun here to write and pass new RFRA legislation. Hearings have been held already and many state legislatures across the country have begun to work on their own versions of RFRA. I'm Jed Duvall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
