Church-State Conflicts Are on the Rise

Religious leaders who say they are answering God’s call by offering food and blankets to the homeless are increasingly being called to answer to man’s law as well.

The case of the Rev. Wiley S. Drake, the Buena Park preacher convicted last week of illegally housing the homeless, is just one of many similar battles being played out in courtrooms across the nation.

Some recent examples include the leader of a Sacramento poverty center who successfully stopped the city from limiting his center’s services. City officials had hoped to make the inner-city area more appealing for redevelopment.

In Washington, a pastor who moved to swank new digs near the Watergate Hotel--and horrified his new neighbors by bringing the poor with him--won his battle to keep them there.

Conflicts pitting church against state are on the rise, experts said, and will likely increase in the wake of recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings giving government wider latitude to enforce local laws against churches and others who say they are exercising their religion.

“You get churches in residential neighborhoods trying to address the problem and neighbors who are becoming less tolerant,” said Robert Tuttle, a law professor at George Washington University Law School in Washington, who said there are nearly 100 such cases being heard nationwide.

The history of the high court’s recent moves can be traced back to a 1990 decision in which the justices ruled that two Oregon drug counselors could not claim religious discrimination when they were fired for chewing peyote during religious ceremonies.

That decision angered politicians who, while not condoning peyote use, feared the principle would infringe on other religious activities.

*

In 1993, Congress tried to overrule the court with passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which granted exemptions to religious activities.

In June, just weeks before Drake’s trial, the justices overturned that law, ruling that Congress does not have the right to interpret the Constitution.

The loss of the act gives cities the upper hand, said J. Brent Walker, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, a Washington-based advisory group.

“Without the protection of [the act], I think municipalities will be emboldened all the more,” Walker said. “The cases you see are just the tip of the iceberg.”

In Sacramento, Assemblyman Joe Baca (D-Rialto) has proposed a state constitutional amendment that he believes will meet the high court’s standards.

“We’re trying to have California hopefully be the leapfrog in allowing freedom of religion,” he said.

*

LeRoy Chatfield, the Sacramento Christian leader who won his battle to keep his poverty center open, said that laws should be waived if they interfere with religion.

He believes zoning and building codes are often enforced to appease a society that does not want to see the poor in its midst.

“The real issue is what are we going to do as a community to get together and provide services for the poorest of the poor,” Chatfield said.

Tuttle agreed and called on churches to address society’s concerns. “Churches need to do a much better job building their support among neighbors,” he said.