JUDGES NEED TO HEAR, HEED VOICE OF GOD

Most of you know God speaks to you through this column, but you may be
unaware many charlatans claim God speaks to and through them as well.
In fact, many of us with at least a dollop of Sunday school
instruction or other religious upbringing claim, at one time or
another, at least a wee bit of heavenly "inspiration."

Except for judges. God never speaks to judges. That is why
church-state litigation is such a mess. If only the Lord would chat
with judges about the claims that come before the court in
church-state cases, the legal burden on the justice system would be
eased considerably, allowing the judges more time to pray for wisdom.

There was Vernon Smith in Superior Court in New London, asking for a
show of leniency when being sentenced in November for possession of
marijuana with intent to sell. Vernon had 20 pounds of the stuff, but
he professed to be a Rastafarian, a religion that claims a God-given
right to light up and be cool.

Judge Susan Handy, who had given Smith a suspended sentence once
before, wasn't inclined to be a kind and merciful legal god this time
around. She said she had "the greatest respect" for his religious
faith, but the law is the law, and he was putting his family at risk
by dealing drugs. Amen. Off to prison he went.

Of course, Judge Handy went home that night, poured herself a good,
stiff Scotch and said, "Thank God (so to speak), that case is over."
You see, Judge Susan may have told a little fib in court that day. She
may not actually have the greatest respect for pot-smoking
Rastafarians; she is required only as a matter of law and custom to be
politely ecumenical, in a First Amendment, freedom-of-religion kind of
way.

But the legal tradition is not always as cut-and-dry as it seemed that
day in New London.

American Indians for decades have had a legal exemption that allows
them to use peyote in religious rituals -- a mescaline-flavored pass
on the Controlled Substances Act not available to you and me.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court sort-of-allowed a religious sect to
import hallucinogenic tea into the United States, citing federal
legislation that told the government to tread carefully when
contemplating a curb on religious freedom, even when it conflicts with
competing federal law.

These kinds of cases become more complex when children are involved.
The Jehovah's Witnesses, who have a long, successful legal track
record of fighting off government regulation and harassment, tend to
be less successful when their children are involved. The faith's
prohibition on blood transfusions tends to be upheld, even when the
decision might be life-threatening, when an adult makes the personal
decision. But the children? As the Massachusetts Supreme Court said in
one case, the child's "best interests, and the interests of the
state," outweighed the "parental and religious rights."

Small fundamentalist churches in the South have fought off government
efforts to prohibit the handling of poisonous snakes at religious
services . The courts have tended to carve out prohibitions on the
snake-stuff for children and non-consenting adults, but wish the
consenting true-believers godspeed and send them back to church.

As a state appeals court in Tennessee explained in the 1970s: "When a
party injures, or threatens injury, only to himself and does not
injure or disturb the public, his activity cannot be prohibited under
a nuisance rationale ..."

Government is obligated to invent a "compelling interest" in enforcing
laws that interfere with religious practice. What is "compelling?"
What is a religious practice, as opposed to an excuse? Only God knows
for sure. And He doesn't talk to judges.