From: Deon.Strydom@f1.n7104.z5.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Religious Freedom/Bill of rights
Date: 16 Nov 92 03:10:55 GMT

Hi,
As some of you know, we are moving towards more freedom here in South
Africa.  One of the items hotly under discussion at the moment is a
Bill of Rights, and then specifically a Religious Freedom Clause.
Here is the latest proposal for such a clause:

===========================================================================
PROPOSED CLAUSE FOR THE BILL OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The following clause on  religious freedom for the  proposed Bill
of Rights has been "distilled" from the foregoing Declaration and
is  hereby  presented  for  comment  to  the South African public
together with the Declaration:

Subject to  the requirements  of health,  public order  and sound
morality,
a. all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and,
   if they so wish, to profess, practise and propagate  religion;
   and
b. every religious community and subdivision thereof shall  enjoy
   the  right  to  establish,  maintain  and manage its religious
   institutions,  and  to  have  account  taken of its particular
   system of law by the state.
=============================================================================

While I firmly belive that we South Africans (all of us) should decide
our own future, it's still good to hear other people's comments.  Some
of the countries where this is read already have Religious Freedom
Clauses in a Bill of Rights.  Measured against your own, how does this
proposal measure up?  What do you see lacking here?  What seems good?

Thanks
Groetnis (cheers)
Deon

[I would hope the people who are working on the constitution would
look at the history of constitutional law in the U.S. and elsewhere.
It's hard for a body like a constitution to settle all issues in
advance.  But in the U.S., the basic question has been what to do when
religion conflicts with secular law.  There are several possible
approaches.  One might want to try to choose one in a constitution.

For some time, the U.S. took the position that religious freedom took
precedence over "normal" law.  A typical example involves the Amish.
Several cases involved Amish.  They objected to compulsory education
beyond somewhere around junior high school level, and to to
requirements for putting brightly colored signs on their buggies.
Generally compromises were worked out in such cases.  In several
states, the Amish are allowed to leave schools early (though there are
reports that their kids learn more before they leave than many in
other areas who stay through high school), and they have special black
and white luminous signs for their buggies.

Concessions are also made in areas of taxation, building regulations,
etc.  Due to changes in the Supreme Court rulings, this may change.
It now appears to be legal to pass laws that prohibit religious
practices, as long as the law has a legitimate secular purpose, and
interference with religion is a side effect.  I've seen claims in
earlier discussions that some laws may go even further than that.
This is quite a different approach, which would probably not encourage
allowance for groups like the Amish (and Christian Scientists, and
Native American religious, etc.)

At any rate, if you want the stronger kind of religious freedom, I
think I'd try to say that.  "Subject to the requirements of health,
public order and sound morality," is a hole large enough to drive a
truck through.  Religious freedom does no good if it only protects
religious whose beliefs agree with the overall community -- those
religions are going to be OK anyway.  You've got to consider how far
you're prepared to protect people whose practices are unpopular.
Subordinating religious freedom to "sound morality" suggests to me
that it's going to be hard to protect any religion whose practices
differ substantially from the norm.

--clh]