Panel discusses public worship

    225

    By KERSTIN SMIT

    A desire to protect religious rights in public places — including schools — has prompted two congressional bills, both discussed in a religious equality conference sponsored by BYU Law School’s Federalist Society Monday.

    Walter E. Dellinger III, associate Attorney General in the United States Department of Justice; John H. Garvey, a professor at Notre Dame Law School and Steven T. McFarland, director of the Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law and Religious Freedom, led a panel discussion Monday morning about proposed constitutional amendments protecting religious speech and expression in schools, public workplaces and other public arenas.

    They disagreed on the necessity for a constitutional amendment to protect against religious discrimination.

    “Constitutional misinterpretation necessarily requires a constitutional remedy,” McFarland said. “Nothing less is required, there is no other remedy broad or durable enough.”

    He said the Supreme Court’s “piecemeal” way of deciding cases is too long and the cost too high for individual fundamental freedoms.

    Examples given of high litigation costs included distributing religious pamphlets or a high school valedictorian including religious remarks in an address.

    “The costliest price,” McFarland said, “is the years of lost exercise of fundamental freedoms by parents, students and workers solely because of their religious beliefs.”

    Dellinger, who advises President Clinton on constitutional issues, is more satisfied with the United States Supreme Court’s decisions.

    “A new constitutional amendment seems troublesome,” he said.

    He believes recent Supreme Court cases strongly endorse anti-discriminatory practices and that case-by-case language is a better way to guarantee religious equality than an amendment.

    Garvey agreed on the Supreme Court’s trend toward religious neutrality and equality, especially in cases of government benefits.

    “The trend in cases is to treat everyone equally and neutrally,” he said.

    He said the amendments would not conflict with First Amendment provisions and in most cases, wouldn’t be much different.

    Efforts to publicize existing anti-discriminatory laws among schools was rejected by McFarland as a good way to help prevent religious discrimination — but Dellinger disagrees

    He said all school districts were sent U.S. Department of Education anti-discriminatory guidelines this year as a way to prevent free speech and exercise law violations.

    All agreed the bill’s Senate version co-sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, is the better of the two bills, but are not certain it will be ratified.

    A second afternoon session, focusing on the amendment’s political and social implications, featured professors from BYU’s law school, the University of Nebraska College of Law, Capital University Law School and the University of Texas School of Law.

    Print Friendly, PDF & Email