A Way to Gain Religious Freedom : Clinton’s guidelines won’t stop ‘religious apartheid,’ but an amendment would.

From coast to coast, religious expression in public places, especially in schools, is under assault. Court decisions have relegated religious freedom to the back of the bus. Now President Clinton is attempting to block the religious equality constitutional amendment now being considered by Congress.

The President last month directed officials to distribute guidelines to the nation’s public schools on what religious activities are allowed on campuses. This was a slick political move by the White House, an attempt to portray the President as being very much in favor of full religious equality in the American political landscape. But it was too little, too late. The President did not address “religious apartheid” in the workplace or in American society in general.

The religious equality amendment is needed for many reasons beyond what Clinton’s initiatives offer to the public schools.

Some examples:

* The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in October, 1993, proposed new guidelines for the workplace. This powerful federal agency sought to equate sexual harassment and the hostile environment it creates with a the conduct of a person who acts on his or her Christian faith. Having a Bible on your desk or in your work area and talking about the Bible on your free time was deemed creating a hostile environment.

A Senate hearing in June, 1994, chaired by Sen. Howell Heflin (D-Ala.) revealed not a single significant piece of evidence to warrant a “religion-free workplace,” in Sen. Heflin’s words. The EEOC voted to drop the proposed guidelines, this act of religious apartheid.

* The Department of Justice backed a Minnesota Bankruptcy Court ruling in 1993 against the Crystal Evangelical Free Church in New Hope, Minn. The church had a faithful couple who tithed for a number of years and whose family-owned business went bankrupt in 1992. The court declared that the church must repay the couple $13,450, the tithe for one year before the bankruptcy.

The Justice Department argued that the tithe was similar to a gratuity and that nothing of equal value was given in return by the church. The court ordered the church to return the funds. The sense here, it seems, is that the money could have been spent on parties, gambling and liquor, but not given to one’s church on the basis of religious principle.

Besides the $13,450 tithe, the court ruling cost the church more than $225,000 that the congregation says it spent to fight the ruling. Since then, President Clinton has asked the Justice Department to drop its support for the ruling. Meantime the church’s appeal of the court decision is pending.

* The House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, holding hearings across the nation, heard last month from Cardinal John O’Connor of New York, who testified that when the city government asked all churches to open their doors to the homeless because of the severe winter, the Catholic Church made local parishes available. The city said it would offer a small payment for heating costs and cleanup. When church representatives tried to collect the compensation, they were told that since they were a religious group that had not complied with the City Council’s order on affirmative action for homosexuals, no funds would be given, Cardinal O’Connor said.

The religious equality amendment would forbid governmental agencies from denying benefits or discriminating against any group because of the religious character of its speech or ideas, motivations or identity, in circumstances in which expressions of a non-religious character would be permitted.

Pro-family groups have documented, and will continue to document, the laundry list of cases of hostility toward religion in the workplace, public schools and other public places. President Clinton has not stopped the government’s assault on religious freedom. The solution is the religious equality amendment--the only way we can ensure an end to discrimination against any person or group because of the religious character of their speech, ideas, motivations or identity.