A who’s-who of some of the most idealistic organizations in the land took the position that the federal government had authority to enforce employment discrimination law against the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Church in the hiring of its ministers. Briefs siding against the church in Michigan were filed by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the People for the American Way, law and religion professors, Bishopaccountability.org, anti-trust professors and scholars, the Anti-Defamation League, Americans for Separation of Church and State, the American Humanist Association and American Atheists, and the National Employment Lawyers Association.

Yet the Supreme Court concluded that when it came to the hiring of ministers, not even the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — one of the premier law enforcement agencies in the land — had jurisdiction. It declared that the First Amendment protecting the free exercise of religion establishes a ministerial exception that is essentially an absolute bar to such discrimination suits. “The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important,” the Supreme Court said, “But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission.” The Court’s vote in favor of the church was nine to zero.

We wonder what those nine justices might decide in respect of a law mandating ministers or rabbis to go straight to the police at the first suspicion child molestation. Particularly if the law prohibited the clergy from pausing for study or consultations or, one can suppose from the way this matter is being covered in the press, even such prayers as their religion might require. Since we last wrote about this, the drums have been beating for just such a law to be passed at Albany. This has grown out of the controversy in Brooklyn, where the district attorney of Kings County, Charles Hynes, has been working on the problem of child molestation in the Orthodox Jewish community.

Mr. Hynes himself has shown both judgment and courage in his efforts to bring the law to bear on child molestation cases in the religious communities. We understand the idea of mandatory reporting for clergymen is not novel; Mr. Hynes tells us that mandated reporting of child abuse has been laid upon clergymen in 26 states. The D.A. has not always pursued such a law here in New York. But he has come around as he has wrestled those in some of the Orthodox Jewish communities, such as the Agudath Israel of America and its Council of Torah Sages, who prefer that these kinds of issues go first to a rabbi.

Yet we ourselves are leery of laying a legislated reporting mandate on the rabbis or other clergymen. We share the same abhorrence of the crime of child molestation as the district attorney, the New York Post, and, we have no doubt, the Agudath Israel of America. We don’t gainsay the newspaper reports and the statements from the district attorney that there have been cases of witness intimidation in molestation cases in Brooklyn (not to mention elsewhere). If the D.A. believes any of his investigations has been obstructed, he is well within his authority to act.

Imagine, though, if a legal mandate were laid on newspaper reporters to go to the police with suspicions of criminal wrong-doing brought to them by their parishioners … excuse us, readers. Why, the New York Times and the Reporters’ Committee for the Freedom of the Press and the ACLU would be running for cover of the First Amendment faster than you could say Jack Robinson. But the same First Amendment that protects freedom of the press also protects the free exercise of religion. If a consistent line is not taken, people will start to conclude that what vexes the do-gooders is not child molestation but religion.

Our country is, after all, in the midst of a broad attack on religion. It comes from the liberal culture and secular government that sees religion as a competitor. The battle has been joined over the regulation of marriage, abortion, and religious expression in the public square. In recent years religious Americans have started to fight back against an over-reaching government. We wouldn’t want to say this is why the left-press has turned to the child molestation cases. But the nature of those crimes is so disturbing that it’s awkward for religions leaders to protect their authority.

All the more reason to be careful here. Passing a law or enforcing a policy prohibiting, or even discouraging, someone from speaking to a rabbi or priest or minister, or scheduling when he might speak to a clergyman, or placing on a rabbi or a priest some law enforcement obligation that conflicts with their religious teaching, these would be, in our opinion, violations of the free exercise clause. Not all analysts agree on that point. There is at least one law review article predicting the contrary. But on the question of what the Supreme Court might say about it, we’re prepared — within the limits of our modest budget — to give odds, say nine to zero.