RELIGIOUS RIGHTS: THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS

WASHINGTON -- In principle, freedom of religion stands as the highest of
American values. In practice, however, it is a complicated issue.

Congress now is trying to legislate a solution and, like others, finding
the issue to be devilishly complex.

Consider these cases:

* Orthodox Jews wanted to use a private home in Hancock Park as a
synagogue, but a homeowners' association objected and the city of Los
Angeles refused to give them an exemption from the residential zoning law.
They sued the city in 1997 for violating their religious rights.

* A Christian fundamentalist refused to rent an apartment in Anchorage to
an unmarried couple. Alaska law forbids discrimination based on marital
status, but the landlord prevailed this year before the U.S. 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

* To get a California driver's license, you must give the Department of
Motor Vehicles your Social Security number. But five Southern California
men refused, claiming in 1997 that their religious beliefs told them these
numbers were the "mark of the beast" cited in the biblical Book of Revelation.

Finding a fair legal formula for resolving these and scores of similar
conflicts has eluded local officials, judges and the Supreme Court. Their
failure illustrates how difficult it can be to settle disputes that arise
when some rights and laws contradict others.

On July 15, 107 House Democrats joined 199 Republicans to pass legislation
that attempted to solve the problem. The Religious Liberty Protection Act
said that local and state officials must bend their rules to accommodate
religious claims.

"A government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of
religion," the House bill says, except when officials have a "compelling"
need to do so. The bill leaves it to judges to decide on a case by case
basis when the government's interest is compelling. However, its sponsors
cited the plight of the Orthodox Jews in Hancock Park as a prime example of
the government wrongly suppressing religious liberty.

Already, the issue has made for strange alliances and rare divisions.

Firmly united in support of the bill are the American Jewish Congress and
People for the American Way on the left and the Christian Coalition and
Focus on the Family on the right.

In the House, however, Republicans who usually rail against excessive
federal regulation supported forced changes in local zoning ordinances to
the dismay of city officials. And two liberal Democrats from Los Angeles,
Henry A. Waxman and Howard L. Berman, voted against the bill, to the dismay
of the Orthodox Jewish congregation.

In recent weeks, the once solid coalition supporting greater protection for
religious rights has fractured. The American Civil Liberties Union and the
NAACP Legal Defense Fund split away and now actively oppose the bill. These
liberal advocates say that they fear religious conservatives could use the
federal legislation to attack state civil rights laws that bar
discrimination against gays, lesbians, unmarried mothers and workers with
AIDS.

As the Senate prepares to take up the matter as soon as this week but
perhaps not until after the August recess White House lawyers are having
second thoughts as well.

The new opponents of the bill point to the case of the Alaska landlord who
refused to rent to an unmarried couple.

"As currently written, this bill would allow people to claim their
religious beliefs justify discriminating against gay individuals or a woman
with a child out of wedlock or an unmarried couple," said David M. Smith,
communications director for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group.

Concerns That State Bans on Bias May Fall

California and 10 other states, as well as hundreds of municipalities, make
it illegal for landlords or employers to deny housing or jobs based on
sexual orientation or marital status. There are no comparable federal laws.

While the House sponsors of the bill deny that they want to nullify state
anti discrimination laws, they defeated an amendment that would have
shielded these laws from its impact.

And the statements of some Christian activists who support the bill have
raised alarms among those worried about civil rights violations.

Charles Colson, the former aide to President Nixon who heads Prison
Fellowship Ministries, strongly endorsed the legislation in a July 13 radio
commentary.

The only substantial opposition to the bill, Colson said, comes from
"homosexual activists. . . . [The legislation] boils down to a very simple
question: Which is the more basic liberty in America, the right of
homosexuals to practice sodomy without inconvenience or the right of free
religious exercise?"

But Elliot Mincberg, legal director of the advocacy group People for the
American Way, believes that the measure is intended to strengthen the
rights of minorities, such as Orthodox Jews or Muslim prison inmates, not
to undercut civil rights.

"For now, we remain in the coalition [supporting the bill], but some of
these statements [from conservatives] are troubling," Mincberg said.

Meanwhile, the bill's House sponsor, Rep. Charles T. Canady, a conservative
Republican from Florida, 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 1st Amendment and its 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 compelled to send their children
to high school.

But a new coalition led by Justice Scalia reversed course nine years ago,
saying in a 54 ruling that religious claimants deserve no special exemption
from "neutral, generally applicable laws." Scalia's opinion rejected a
religious rights claim from two Native Americans who were fired from their
jobs for ingesting peyote, an illegal hallucinogen that they said was
integral to their religion.

Scalia Opinion Stuns Church Lawyers

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 court's 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 not a righting effort. It
is about restoring the principle of religious freedom."

It has been a long struggle. In 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, which President Clinton hailed in a signing ceremony on
the White House lawn. However, the justices struck down that law in 1997 on
the ground that lawmakers did not have the power to expand constitutional
rights.

Undaunted, Canady wrote a new version of the bill, this time making it a
regulation on government units that receive federal funds. That, of course,
includes virtually all cities, counties and states.

Among the most vocal critics of the new legislation are the National League
of Cities and the National Assn. of Counties. They say that the measure
would make it difficult for local officials to protect neighborhoods from
noise, traffic and other problems created by building religious
institutions such as "megachurches."

"This is zoning by Congress," said Diane S. Shea, associate legislative
director for the National Assn. of Counties.

"What church isn't going for a 16foot steeple on grounds that anything less
is going to be a burden on religious exercise?" added Susan M. Parnas,
senior legislative counsel for the National League of Cities.

Christopher K. McKenzie, executive director of the League of California
Cities, said that the proposed fix may be worse than current law.

"A group may claim that constructing a building . . . in violation of local
zoning laws to practice various Satanic rituals and publish and distribute
hate literature is protected under this law," he wrote California's senators.

Local officials also expressed concern that children and animals could
suffer under the bill. They said that the measure could make it difficult,
for example, to collect child support from a parent who refuses to pay
"because all his money belongs to the church" or to prosecute someone who
sacrifices animals in the name of religion.

In an interview, Canady said that the groups representing cities and
counties are grossly exaggerating the effect of the bill. "This bill is
aimed at ensuring that government accommodates the free exercise of
religion. That doesn't mean that people who claim that they're acting on
the basis of their religious convictions will always be able to overcome
governmental regulations."

Home Worship by Orthodox Jews

The bill's supporters said that a number of cases around the country,
including two in Southern California, underscores the need for the
legislation. In the Hancock Park case, a small group of Orthodox Jews said
they sought to meet in a home because elderly and disabled congregants were
unable to walk the mile or more round trip to the nearest synagogue outside
Hancock Park. Jewish law requires that they walk rather than drive to
services on the Sabbath and other holy days.

Congregation Etz Chaim sued the city. The lawsuit is pending before a state
Court of Appeal. The congregation's rabbi, Chaim Baruch Rubin, also brought
the case to Congress.

"Fair housing legislation made it possible for Jews to move into Hancock
Park," he testified before the House Judiciary Committee last year.
"However, today local zoning laws are being used as 'latter day'
restrictive covenants making it essentially impossible for many Orthodox
Jews to live in Hancock Park."

Los Angeles officials said they want to ensure that religious institutions
make good neighbors.

"The city's determination was that this particular use, where it was, was
not consistent with the character of the neighborhood," Assistant City
Atty. Anthony S. Alperin said in an interview.

"We have no intent of telling anybody how . . . to practice their
religion," added Frank Eberhard, Los Angeles deputy planning director.
"What we get concerned about are the impacts of those activities on
neighborhoods."

During House debate on the bill, Rep. Roy Blunt (RMo.) said it would allow
"churches in places like Rolling Hills Estates to build in an area that was
zoned commercial, where the churches are told they cannot build . . . but
adult businesses can be built."

Morning Star Christian Church filed suit earlier this year against Rolling
Hills Estates after the city banned churches in commercial zones.

City officials said that they wanted to preserve the commercial areas for
tax producing businesses and churches are permitted in areas zoned
"institutional." But church officials said those areas are filled up.

Michele Swanson, a spokeswoman for the city of about 8,000, said: "We're
being painted as antichurch and proadult business, and I don't believe
that's the case."

Berman, who voted against the bill, said he was concerned about its
potential effect on the rights of others. "I don't think this law should
trump those [civil rights] protections," he said in an interview.

Despite the objections from the National League of Cities, several former
Republican mayors voted for the measure, including Reps. Howard P. "Buck"
McKeon of Santa Clarita and Elton Gallegly of Simi Valley. Both said that
the measure would not allow religious groups to ignore local zoning laws
but rather would prevent local officials from discriminating against
religious groups.

"I don't doubt that it will certainly have an impact on civil rights
protections," said Michael Lieberman, Washington counsel for the
AntiDefamation League, which supported the measure. But, he added, "it's a
balancing test."

White House lawyers are hoping that the Senate can find a compromise on the
civil rights issue so Clinton can sign the bill.

"The president very much supports the goal of this bill," an administration
official said. "We don't want to see it bog down on the civil rights issue
and die because of it."