WASHINGTON: The US House of Representatives struck a blow for religious freedom May 11, approving landmark legislation to restore a high level of protection for religious practice. This marks & major victory for a large coalition of organizations, covering the full spectrum of the religious community, who had joined in protest of the Supreme Coundecision and in support of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RERA). National Sikh Center and Guru Gobind Singh Foundation representing the Sikh Faith has worked as a member of the coalition for the passage of the bill. Both are based in Washington, D.C,
RFRA would restore the tough Standard the U.S. Supreme Court previously required government to meet before it could restrict the free exercise of religion, in 1990, the high court virtually abandoned the three decades old test that stipulated government had to have a compelling reason, such as safety or health, before it could interfere with its citizen’s religious practice. When the story broke after the April 17, 1990 decision, the focus was on the specific case, where two members of the Native American Church were fired from their job as drug counselors because they used peyote (an illegal drug) as a sacrament in their worship services.
On April 17,1990, the Supreme Court over turned these two standards, the “compelling state interest” standard and the “Least restrictive means” standard and ruled, in the Oregon State Employment Division V.Smith case, that from now on, all religious people must obey all neutral laws of general applicability. Thus, the right of minors to drink wine in religious ceremonies or be absent from school for religious observance, Moslems who want to take time off to pray, and even the right of Jewish community to utilize kosher methods of slaughter and to wear religious garments such as yarmulkes for Jews and turbans for Sikhs in school or in court are all at risk under Smith.
The impact of Smith is already being felt at the Federal level, as governmental agencies take advantage of their new freedom from the “compelling state interest” test. In November 1990, for example, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), in light of Smith, canceled an earlier exemption from wearing hard hats previously extended to Old Order Amish people and to Sikhs (whose religion requires them to wear turbans).
In the Smith decision the majority took a position which Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in her concurring opinion criticized because it “suggests that the disfavoring of minority religions is an un avoid able consequence’ under our system of government and that accommodation of such religions must be left to the political process.” She added, with Justices Jusices Brennan, Marshall and Blackmun concurring that “the First Amendment was enacted precisely to protect the rights of those whose religious practices are not shared by the majority and may be viewed with hostility.” Organizations and legislators have been arguing the finer points of this decision all year. But after manipulating the syntax to placate Catholics and conservatives who somehow thought the bill was pro-abortion, consensus was reached, Baptist Joint Committee which spearheaded this campaign on behalf of the Coalition said in a press release, “All Americans Protestants and Catholics, Jews and Muslims, Mormons and Sikhs, believers and non-believers alike will benefit from this legislation, for no one’s religious liberty is secure unless the rights of the least popular minority are protected.”
National Sikh Center in a statement said, “the religious freedom of belief to be basic human right that has its root in the Guru Granth ‘Sahib (the Sikh scriptures), and it is fundamental to our religious heritage (we) share the commitment to the protection of human dignity and recognition of the right of every individual to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In the Sikh tradition, and in the emerging consensus of human kind, this freedom is deemed to be inherent in human personality every person individually or in association with other should be free to hold religious beliefs; to express religious beliefs in worship, teaching and practice; and to proclaim and act upon the implications of religious beliefs for relationships in a social and political community.. We support the explicit constitutional safeguards which have long undergirded religious liberty in the United States. We believe it is of utmost importance for all per sons, religious groups, and governments to maintain continuing vigilance to ensure that religious liberty be guaranteed.”
Guru Gobind Singh Foundation, said in statement, “The Sikhs are true advocates of equality, liberty and fatuity. Practicing the religion, adherence to prescribed symbols means more to them than life itself. The Sikh history to a testimony to this fact. In the American tradition, the laws of the land should allow a citizen to carry about his or her life and serve this country without com promising the religious belief or practice.” It further stated, “This organization firmly believes that religious liberty granted by U.S. Constitution was not a luxury” but a “necessity,” an essential fundamental night to the very Survival and growth of religion as well as personal freedom.”
Dr.Rajwant Singh, Secretary of GGSF, coordinated with the coalition members on behalf of the Sikhs, said, “200 years ago the founders of this great nation gave us a precious gift The Bill of Rights. The right to freely exercise one’s religion is one of those precious rights.
Chaitar Singh Saini, President of National Sikh Center said, “As the Declaration of Independence indicates, religious freedom is our God given, unalienable right. As a religious minority wear acutely concerned with the preservation of the free exercise of religion. Religious practice is a bedrock for observance and the perpetuation of our tradition and values. The ideals of our democracy rooted in these values, is best served by allowing religious practice to flourish within the compelling interest standard.” Dr.Rajwant Singh further said, “We are pleased with the outcome but it is too soon to celebrate because the Senate still has to act. “Almost as much legislation fails to pass both houses, even after passing in one, as is ever enacted into law,” he said. “We are only half way home.”
Article extracted from this publication >> June 4, 1993
