Rabbi DAVID SAPERSTEIN (Religious Action Center): We are in danger. These Supreme Court cases have drastically lowered the protection of religion in America. It used to be that all fundamental rights -- speech, press, freedom of association, freedom of religion -- the government could only restrict those when it had the most compelling interest in doing so and when it pursued that interest in a manner that most limitedly interfered with the exercise, with that right. The court has thrown that in the garbage now and the religious freedom of every American is in danger.
ABERNETHY: Do you agree with that, and what would be a specific example?
FOREST MONTGOMERY (National Association of Evangelicals): Well, I can remember a testimony before a congressional committee of an Asian American, a member of the Hmong faith, of course, a minority faith, and according to their religious belief, they do not believe that there should be an autopsy following death, under any circumstances. And yet in this particular case, the government had ordered an autopsy, and the witness wept. That witness has no protection now.ABERNETHY: Do you feel that your religious freedom -- the Constitution is still there? The First Amendment is still there?
Professor AZIZAH Al-HIBRI (University of Richmond): Exactly.
ABERNETHY: Do you feel that your religious freedom is in danger?
Mr. MONTGOMERY: No. The words are there, but they've been emptied of all meaning by the Supreme Court. That's the problem. You see, interpretation of the words.
Prof. Al-HIBRI: I think we're going way overboard when you say the protections has been drastically eliminated, when you're saying there are, the Constitution has been emptied of its meaning on this. I think what we really saw is that the Supreme Court recognized that the burden of proof that you had mentioned originally was too high. And if you used that kind of burden of proof, the state would have hardly any ability to enforce any of its laws on a universal, national basis.
Mr. MONTGOMERY: For 30 years the court had no difficulty on upholding governmental interest. You think we've gone overboard ...
Prof. Al-HIBRI: Think about it.
Mr. MONTGOMERY: There are 68 civil rights and religious organizations then that you think went overboard on this.
Prof. Al-HIBRI: Well, I think part of what we need to do is talk to each other as communities. Engage in dialogue. Involve ourselves in alternative dispute resolution. We want the government to be resolving every single problem that ever arises.
Rabbi SAPERSTEIN: Well, you now applaud that.
Prof. Al-HIBRI: We can go to the legislature.
Rabbi SAPERSTEIN: But that gets the government resolving them.
Prof. Al-HIBRI: Yes.
Rabbi SAPERSTEIN: Where before, we were protected? Listen, Azizah, should Catholic children be able to take wine at Communion? Have a constitutional right to that protection in the face of raising drinking law ages? Should Jews and others have their constitutional right to have their dietary laws protected in prison? Should Jews and Sikhs and Muslim women have a right for head coverings in the face of regulation saying state employees shouldn't wear them? It has always been so, it worked fine. This is a revolutionary retrenchery of our rights.Prof. Al-HIBRI: No, I don't see it that way.
Rabbi SAPERSTEIN: And endangers every American's religious freedom.
Prof. Al-HIBRI: I don't see a revolutionary change in the wrong direction. I think that the protection of the Constitution is still there. We have to work a little bit harder because the burden of proof is not now on the government as high as it used to be, and the reason for that is that we need a government that can pass its laws and enforce them.
ABERNETHY: Okay. I hear you, but I want to change the subject.
Prof. Al-HIBRI: The way it has been interpreted to me, the way I understood it, is that it's a ritual, taking care of each other, serving each other. I have absolutely no problem with that.
