CHURCHES EXTENDING CHARITY COLLIDE WITH ZONING LAWS.

Byline: Jon Kaiser

SOCIAL and political trends permeating the culture often percolate first in California before spreading north, south, and east.

A collision between city leaders and local churches is hitting several fronts around the state. Boerne, Texas got all the national press recently: It initiated the Supreme Court case that resulted in a 6-3 ruling invalidating the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

And now several California cities are boldly passing legislation that restrains churches from helping the hungry and homeless.

Is the secular state running roughshod over religion?

In Long Beach, tough new zoning legislation targets the Salvation Army, the Christian Outreach Appeal and other groups that serve the homeless, hungry, mentally ill, paroled prisoners, recovering alcoholics and drug addicts.

In Sacramento, a truce was declared recently between the interfaith charity Loaves and Fishes and the City Council, but they have been battling for months over code and zoning violations. The downtown center provides meals and counseling to the indigent. Residents and business owners think too many unsavory types congregate at the location.

And in Buena Park the Rev. Wiley S. Drake of the First Southern Baptist Church is in the news again - this time for violating city zoning laws by allowing homeless people to use a makeshift patio attached to the church. The vocal leader of the national Southern Baptist Convention boycott of the Disney Co. stands convicted of four of five misdemeanor zoning law violations.

The Orange County Superior Court judge who issued an eviction notice based his decision on the recent Supreme Court action.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, argued: ``When the exercise of religion has been burdened in an incidental way by a law of general application, it does not follow that the persons affected have been burdened any more than other citizens, let alone burdened because of their religious belief.''

In other words, in a political dialogue there are winners and losers. In the competition of ideologies and policies, religious groups bring a specific voice to the discussion, but Congress cannot endow them with a preferred status.

Many of the new city laws are mean-spirited and simply aim toward dispersing the homeless into someone else's back yard, but there is a viable principle at work: Charitable religious groups have to function within secular government regulations just like every other group.

Patrick Heath, mayor of the small Texas town that brought the case to the Supreme Court (City of Boerne v. Flores), can see both sides of the street. A retired United Methodist Church minister, Heath understands fairness: ``It's always a matter of balance between our responsibilities to social order and our freedom to express our religious beliefs.''

Local governments pass laws to protect public health and safety. Is it asking too much for well-meaning religious groups to get up to code?

The Rev. Drake thinks Buena Park wants to ``make it illegal for us to help the poor.''

Not at all. City leaders are saying: If you want to help the poor, simply conform to the civil codes. In Orange County alone, it's done every day by dozens of religious groups such as the Santa Ana Salvation Army Hospitality House, the Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter, and the Anaheim Interfaith Shelter.

But local officials are not obligated to give legal exemptions to religious groups just because they are doing good work. Helping the homeless, hungry, drug and alcohol addicted, mentally ill, paroled prisoners, and runaway kids is something most of us wouldn't do. We have neither the time nor the inclination.

Religious charitable groups do perform a very valuable public service. They make human compassion a priority; they offer a helping and guiding hand to those in need; they translate their religious beliefs into social action - yet we all must live within the boundaries of the secular society.

Religion doesn't need special dispensation.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in her dissenting opinion to the Supreme Court decision, wrote, ``Our nation's founders conceived of a republic receptive to voluntary religious expression, not of a secular society in which religious expression is tolerated only when it does not conflict with a generally applicable law.''

Maybe once this was true. But we do, in fact, live in a secular society, and religious groups - which offer an essential, vigorous, independent voice - must stand toe to toe with competing voices.

Religious expression can function perfectly well within secular society and its laws through dialogue and cooperation.

Churches and interfaith groups that provide social services for their local communities can follow the rules like everyone else.