Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, May 17, 1994 TAG: 9405170131
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
Supporters of a six-month-old law designed to protect worshipers from government interference say the view taken by the Justice Department in a Minnesota bankruptcy case undermines the new statute.
Clinton, who signed the measure into law with great fanfare last fall, said it would hold the government ``to a very high level of proof,'' requiring the government to have a ``compelling interest'' to interfere with religious practices.
``The department's position is a slap in the face to our religious community and it should not stand,'' says Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the new law's co-author.
At issue is an attempt by creditors to collect the $13,500 that Bruce and Nancy Young gave to the Crystal Evangelical Free Church of New Hope, Minn., in the year before they filed for bankruptcy.
The church is appealing a federal judge's ruling that the money must be turned over to the creditors. The Justice Department has sided with the creditors, arguing that the case could open a loophole for criminals to hide their assets.
The Youngs observed the practice of tithing, each week giving the church 10 percent of the gross earnings from their electrical contracting business.
``There is no instruction in the scriptures [where] God says you only give to me in the good times,'' said the Rev. Stephen Goold, the church's pastor. ``The government is saying we will now tell you how you practice your biblical faith.''
A judge held in 1993 that because the Youngs got nothing of value for the church donations, the offerings amounted to a fraudulent transfer of their assets.
Before filing for bankruptcy, debtors can spend their money on anything as long as they get something of value for it. To prevent people from hiding their assets, the bankruptcy code allows creditors to seize any money that debtors have given away.
``The debtor is free to spend his money however he wants, even on frivolous consumption ... traveling, booze, gambling and prostitution, as long as he isn't giving it away,'' said Douglas Laycock, a First Amendment scholar at the University of Texas.
``If he can gamble it away, he ought to be able to give it to his church.''
The church appealed to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that the Youngs' offerings were protected under the new Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The law says government must have a ``compelling interest'' to interfere with religious practices, a test used by the Supreme Court until 1990.
The Justice Department admits the Youngs were following church teaching and acting out of ``sincere religious convictions'' but says the money wasn't theirs to give away.
They can't ``contribute to their church money that was owed to creditors,'' the department said in papers filed with the appeals court.
``Giving to your church is ... an act of worship and adoration,'' said Steven McFarland, director of the Center for Law and Religious Freedom.
by CNB