Printer Friendly

Email to A Friend

Friday October 9, 1998

Wilson's veto of religious freedom act angers some Jews

JOSHUA SCHUSTER
Bulletin Staff

American Jewish Congress activists are steaming over Gov. Pete Wilson's veto last week of the Religious Freedom Protection Act.

The act would have forbidden the state from regulating religious activity unless the government could prove it had a "compelling interest" in doing so.

Wilson vetoed the bill on Sept. 28, the day before his deadline on several bills. It was two days before Yom Kippur.

"It's a slap in the face to the Jewish community," said Tracy Salkowitz, regional director for the AJCongress and chair of the California Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion.

"It is in such bad taste to slam a religious minority on their holiest day of the year," she added.

Salkowitz had spent several months gathering support for the bill, working with communities as diverse as conservative Christians, Orthodox and Reform Jews and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Had the bill passed, it would have provided protection to such individuals as Jews wearing yarmulkes in schools with a no-hat dress code. The school would have had to show a compelling reason why the yarmulke posed a risk to others. Additionally, the bill would have allowed Jews in prison to request a kosher diet.

Wilson claimed in his veto that the bill was "poorly drafted" since it created a loophole for "prisoners who claim that alcohol, a specific diet, sacred knives, conjugal visits and satanic bibles are part of their free exercise of religion."

Law enforcement groups and the state Department of Corrections opposed the bill on the grounds it would tie up courts with illegitimate complaints. Wilson said the bill could potentially justify cases of domestic abuse based on a purported religious belief that wives should be submissive to their husbands.

Wilson also stated the bill was simply "unnecessary" since the Constitution already protects freedom of religion. He argued the bill's focus is "on laws that regulate conduct claimed to be motivated by religious beliefs, not religious beliefs."

But some Jewish officials find the logic of Wilson's statement hard to believe.

"The argument that this bill will endanger security in prisons doesn't even rise to the level of specious," said Marc Stern, co-director of AJCongress' national legal department.

Stern, who helped draft a version of the bill, said the legislation was designed so that no legal justification would be given in cases such as a prisoner seeking to carry knives for religious reasons.

"It may be politically popular to beat up on prisoners, but it is not intellectually competent," he said. "It is as if Wilson doesn't have the intelligence to distinguish between a few inmates bringing bogus claims from people who have a righteous belief."

Stern tagged Wilson's veto statement that the bill would be unnecessary as "a lie to the public." Freedom of religious belief covered in the Constitution, according to Stern, is not the same as protecting the freedom to reasonably practice religious rituals.

Furthermore, Stern wondered how serious Wilson is about protecting the rights of religious minorities. "I have no reason to think he is" sincere about defending those rights, Stern said.

Wilson's veto won only the first round in the battle for religious protection, said Stern. He plans to send letters and rally to introduce a similar bill after Wilson leaves office early next year.

For now, Wilson's veto has already spread sour feelings among some Bay Area Jews.

"In my mind, the veto was based on the fear that religious people not in the mainstream are somehow dangerous," said Fred Blum, a member of AJCongress' regional board and active with the organization's efforts to support the bill.

Blum said the veto sends the message that the government is not willing to accommodate minority spiritual groups.

"As long as your religious beliefs are reasonable, you're OK," he said. "But God forbid you look strange, have a long beard and wear a funny prayer shawl -- you'll be in trouble. The government believes the state has no obligation to protect what you do and understand your religion."

Blum said Wilson's veto appears more vicious in light of the multiethnic and religious support the bill received. He vows to continue to fight for the bill: "This issue is not over."

Did you find this article interesting? Subscribe to our FREE newsletter and you'll be notified each week when "J." goes online. We'll tell you about the most important stories of the week and give you a link to each one.

This page contains a BETA version of Amazon contextual links. They are marked by the dashed underline.  Your purchases support our site. At times they point to items which are not related to the actual link. Please alert us by email if you discover objectionable links.