RIGHTS CONFLICT DIVIDES CONSERVATIVES

LEGISLATION to address the conflict between freedom of religion and other
civil rights is sponsored in the House by Rep. Charles T. Canady, a
conservative Republican from Florida. He finds himself in the odd position
of working to reverse a decision by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a
conservative icon.

Until 1990, the high court generally had sided with the religious claimants
who invoked the First Amendment protection for "the free exercise of
religion." For example, the court had ruled that the children of Jehovah's
Witnesses need not salute the flag at school, that states could not deny
unemployment benefits to a Seventh Day Adventist who refused to work
Saturdays and that the Amish could not be forced to send their children to
high school.

But a new coalition led by Scalia reversed course nine years ago, saying in
a 5-4 ruling that religious claimants deserve no special exemption from
"neutral, generally applicable laws." Scalia's opinion rejected a
religious-rights claim from two American Indians who were fired from their
jobs for ingesting peyote, an illegal hallucinogen which they said was
integral to their religion.

Church lawyers were stunned by Scalia's opinion. Could a priest be charged
with violating liquor laws for giving communal wine to a child? Could a
church be sued for violating state laws against sex discrimination for
refusing to hire female priests?

The religious-liberty coalition vowed to overturn the decision.

"Our guiding light since 1990 has been that religious liberty should be
restored for everyone, with no exceptions," said J. Brent Walker, general
counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee. "This is a not a right-wing effort.
It is about restoring the principle of religious freedom."