Members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution must choose in the next two weeks whether they believe religious freedom is for everyone or only a select few. It should not be a difficult choice.

     America once embraced Old World thinking about religious freedom. In colonial Virginia, Anglicans had greater rights than Baptists. In Maryland, Catholics were at times preferred and at other times persecuted. And all non-Christians suffered disabilities in most of the colonies.

     Slowly, all of America embraced the concept introduced by Roger Williams and his fellow Baptists in Rhode Island—religious freedom is and must be for all.

     As we stand on the threshold of the 21st Century, significant voices are calling for this nation to embrace the Old World’s view of religious liberty by extending this guarantee only to some, but not all Americans.

     Charles Canady in the House and Ted Kennedy in the Senate are the key leaders for the “Religious Liberty Protection Act.” Canady, a Republican and an evangelical Christian from Florida, is the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee in the House. You know Senator Kennedy. The Canady-Hatch-Kennedy bill is endorsed by most Jewish groups, most liberal lobbying organizations, and the so-called mainline Protestant Churches. The RLPA is also supported by some significant voices among evangelicals including Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition, James Dobson, Gary Bauer, and Chuck Colson.

     There is no doubt that this coalition is attempting to resolve a real problem created by two disastrous decisions of the Supreme Court which have emasculated the meaning of the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion. And there is also no doubt that this coalition is very powerful. But, in my opinion, the bill being pushed by this coalition is both dangerous—the RLPA could lead to church taxation—and fundamentally unAmerican.

     I do not believe that strong political terms should be used lightly. The terms “extremist” and “demagogue” are tossed about so often in politics today that they have come to mean little. Therefore, I realize how serious a charge I have made by labeling the efforts of this group to be “unAmerican.”

     I can prove my point, but first let me make it clear that I do not believe that any individual or group pushing this bill deserves this label. It is their bill alone which merits this condemnation.

     The genius of American thinking on religious liberty has been the unshakable commitment to the idea that all Americans should be protected. All faiths, all creeds, all denominations, all people deserve equal treatment for their faith and practice. If Buddhists don’t have religious freedom, Baptists really don’t either.

     Any cheap little tyrant can extend religious liberty to some. And many religious totalitarians reign over countries like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Burma. In these countries, religious liberty is extended for the preferred faith and denied to all others.

     Representative Canady and the coalition which supports him admit that their bill does not extend religious liberty to all Americans. It is true that the line of exclusion has not been drawn on a denominational basis like the traditions of the Old World. The Canady-Hatch-Kennedy bill extends religious liberty along financial lines.

     The chief provision of their RLPA is to extend religious freedom to those Americans whose exercise of faith substantially impacts interstate commerce. I assure you, I did not make this up.

     Thus, if you worship in a way that has serious monetary impact you are in the favored category. This rule will protect the biggest, most wealthy religious institutions to be sure. It is the small, the weak, the poor, and the religious individual who will receive infrequent or no protection from the RLPA.

     The proponents of this bill and I have debated whether certain scenarios would be included or excluded from the bill’s coverage. Any hypothetical scenario misses the basic point. The sponsors agree that the RLPA does not protect all Americans. This bill is unAmerican because it intentionally extends religious freedom to only some Americans. If religious freedom is denied to any of us, no American truly has religious freedom.

     This bill has other hidden dangers that should alarm all religious institutions including the Christian and Jewish groups which are pushing for its passage.

     There are substantial forces in our nation who would like to tax churches and other religious institutions. Naturally, religious leaders generally oppose this idea. However, those religious leaders who have embraced the RLPA have embraced the political premise of those who want to tax their institutions. Do the members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution want to tax churches?

     Again, in order to be successful under the RLPA the religious group will have to prove that its exercise of faith has a substantial impact on interstate commerce. The more that churches prove that they are centers of commerce, they more they position themselves to be subject to taxation. An increasingly secular society may be all too willing to impose the taxes on these “Centers of Commerce & Faith” that their commercial activities would seem to suggest.

     The Old World ruler, like the modern theocratic tyrant, was always willing to extend religious freedom to those who worship his god. The RLPA follows this tradition. The real god of America is money. Those who worship mammon in sufficient quantities are protected. The rest of us are left out.