The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a controversial piece of legislation now under review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Enacted by Congress in 1993, it requires government to justify any action which might "burden" religious practice. Support for the RFRA has come from a wide range of religious groups, including Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Humanists, Ethical-Culturalists, Muslims, Scientologists and others.

American Atheists opposes the RFRA as a clear "establishment" of religion by the government, and a blatant form of discrimination against millions of Americans who profess no religious faith. On the First Amendment scale which balances the rights of believers with the prohibition that government may not aid or establish religion, it clearly tips the balance in favor of churches, temples, sects and cults. Religious institutions can argue under the RFRA that they are immune to the laws and regulations which apply to everyone else. In fact, the court case of BOERNE v. P.F.FLORESwhich will test the constitutionality of the Act involves a situation where, in effect, the Archdiocese of San Antonio insists that it is immune to zoning regulations and the sorts of laws which apply to businesses and private individuals.

American Atheists takes the position that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act creates a class of "special rights" which apply to believers, and thus discriminate against other Americans who profess no religious faith. It establishes one standard of conduct for churches, mosques and temples, and another for private individuals or businesses. It gives preferential treatment to religion and clearly violates the "Wall of Separation" between state and church which Thomas Jefferson spoke of.

A Split In Separationist Ranks A number of organizations which over the years have worked on behalf of state-church separation have chosen to support the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and have been active in the religious coalition which has filed amicus ('friend of the court" briefs for the defendants in the BOERNE case. One such group is Americans United for Separation of Church and State, publishers of Church & State Magazine. That journal has been a premier source of separationist views; in addition, AU has litigated a number of important cases, and done much to defend the "Wall of Separation" between government and religion which is now under attack by the Christian right.

RFRA clearly gives preferential treatment to religion, and violates the "Wall of Separation" between government and religion.

The February, 1997 issue of Church & State outlines the group's defense of RFRA, using measured words to defend the "religious liberty" aspect of this important case. It emphasizes the potential threat to religious exercise if government is not restrained. It charges that Justice Antonin Scalia "all but eviscerated

the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause," and goes on to quote Justice Robert Jackson who wrote in a 1943 ruling: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to...freedom of worship and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no election."

Even so, RFRA may not be the way to defend religious options and simultaneously protect "equality" under the law without creating a class of special rights and privileges enjoyed by a religious elite. Church & State warns of "unthinking majorities" which might "trample the rights of minorities"; but why should those "rights of minorities" be protected when the same trampling may be done to non-religious groups and individuals.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the BOERNE v. FLORES decision will prove to be a complex issue, one certainly that legal experts, separationists and historians will debate long after it is decided. Separationists remain honestly and sincerely divided over this law. Even so, American Atheists consider this Act to be unfair, unconstitutional and discriminatory against the rights of the millions of Americans who profess no religious beliefs.

SUPREME COURT TO RULE ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT