ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, April 14, 1996 TAG: 9604120031
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: 1 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: The Back Pew
SOURCE: CODY LOWE
The religion clause of the First Amendment is open to some interpretation, but the idea of religious freedom is pretty clear.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...''
Actually, as is true with many of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, the freedom of religion is not absolute. There are some limits that most of us think are reasonable.
Parents are not free to take their children's lives as religious sacrifices, for instance.
But the restrictions we - through our courts - have allowed on that fundamental "first freedom" are severely limited.
The freedom to associate with those who believe in the same things we do is an essential aspect of that free exercise of religion we are guaranteed. And it has led to a diversity of religious congregations that the writers of the Bill of Rights never could have imagined.
Christians who believe strongly that baptism is valid only if one is completely immersed in a pool of water are free to form churches whose membership requirements include adherence to that doctrine. Jews who believe in strictly following biblical prohibitions against the eating of certain foods may congregate in synagogues limiting their members to others who keep strictly kosher kitchens.
Similarly diverse subgroups may form in virtually every religion known in the country and all are protected by the Constitution.
So what do we do when a group offends the religious and democratic principles held by most of the rest of us?
The recent case in point is a small Georgia church where matters of race have made national headlines.
The church first drew attention last month when it was revealed that some of its leadership wanted the body of a mixed-race child disinterred from the church cemetery. Some of the deacons wanted the cemetery kept all-white and were insisting that the child, who had one black and one white parent, be moved elsewhere.
The resulting national uproar apparently embarrassed many members of the congregation and led to the child's body being left alone.
Now that same church is back in the news, this time for refusing to marry the mixed-race couple whose child's burial caused such an uproar.
The assumption again is that the reason the marriage is being denied is because one of the participants is black and the congregation has always been exclusively white. Once more some church members are embarrassed, and much of the rest of the nation is outraged.
Fortunately, in these times there is a widespread - though not universal - sense that racism in any form is abhorrent, even sinful, and that it should not be tolerated. But before we get up on too high a horse, we should be careful to consider the other prejudices that continue to be enforced in our houses of worship - right here in Western Virginia.
Let's not forget that we still live in a time in which religious marriages may be denied to couples that include mixtures of Catholic and Protestant, Christian and Jew, Muslim and Wiccan. Many congregations deny the use of their buildings for marriages of couples who do not belong to the congregation. Others require religious premarital counseling sessions during which the parties to be wed must make pledges of support or membership before a ceremony is allowed.
It is easy for me to condemn a congregation that denies membership or marriage or burial just because of the color of someone's skin. The freedom of speech I am guaranteed - in that same First Amendment that grants me religious freedom - ensures that I have a right to speak out. And my Christian beliefs include an obligation to try to correct fellow Christians who I believe are misrepresenting or besmirching my religion.
Yet I know there are many Christians - black and white - who have objections to interracial marriage based on their interpretations of the Bible. They do not hate people whose skin color is different from their own, but they read Scripture to counsel against intermarriage.
Yet that belief - and actions based on it - seem more offensive to much of the country than some other equally exclusivist religious tenets.
Actually, we tend to be tolerant of some other forms of religious exclusivity. We are understanding of Jewish parents who don't want their children to marry non-Jews. We tend to grant that churches should be able to insist that only members be married at their altars. We wouldn't object - out loud at least - if a Muslim told us that Muslims should only marry other Muslims.
So why did so many of us find ourselves recoiling at the news that one congregation in Georgia included members who wanted to remain racially ``pure''?
After all, most of us belong to an either all-white or all-black religious congregation. Even those congregations that can boast of being racially integrated usually have only a handful of members of the minority race.
This is one of those rare times that our broader culture is having a positive influence on our religious practices, I think. The legal and cultural stigma associated with racist behavior has carried over into our churches. Even when the intent of those actions is not racist, the behavior itself - a congregation.
Still, I don't want to change the First Amendment in a way that would require a little church in Georgia - or Virginia - to accept members based on some cultural code that may conflict with that congregation's religious principles.
We may want to change their minds, but we shouldn't want to take away any of their religious freedom.
LENGTH: Long : 101 linesby CNB