hile Washington, D.C. is often the site of high-profile battles over the separation of government and religion, state legislature are becoming increasingly friendly to organized religion, especial in the creation of "special rights" and privileges for faith-based groups. A random survey of state legislatures by AANEWS reveals a shocking volume of new legislation which would give churches, mosques, temples and other religious organizations a staggering array of tax-breaks, immunity from local laws -- and in one state -- even the protection of a blasphemy statute.

    New York State appears to be the leader for such legislation. Over two-dozen bills now in the legislative hopper are considered "religion friendly." Most receive little or no publicity and perfunctory public hearings. The scope of the proposals ranges from exempting religious groups from the coverage of anti-discrimination laws, to a "blasphemy" proposal aimed at those who belittle or insult religion and a provision exempting churches from the need to clear their sidewalks after a snow storm.

    The most controversial proposal unearthed in our investigation is New York State Bill S02167 introduced by State Senator Serphin R. Maltese (R-15th District). The proposal "Creates the crime of ridicule of religious beliefs or practices which is a class B misdemeanor; provides that a person is guilty of the crime when in a public place he/she holds up the deity or the religious beliefs of any religious class of people to ridicule or hatred or presents religious beliefs in an obscene, lewd, profane or lascivious manner." The bill is currently in the Senate Codes committee.

    The bill also holds a person guilty of ridiculing religious belief when he or she "Presents, portrays or depicts the religious beliefs, practices, symbols, figures or objects of any religious denomination in an obscene, lewd, profane or lascivious manner..."

    Incredibly, Maltese is a trained lawyer who was admitted to the New York State Bar in 1963. He served as Queens Assistant District Attorney and was a Deputy Chief of the Homicide Bureau.

    Others bills are nearly as constitutionally suspect. Proposals in the New York Assembly, for instance, would provide an exemption from workers' compensation coverage for religious groups (A00661); tough penalties for "criminal mischief" when a "house of worship" is involved (A01580); mandates a special residential rate, rather than business service, for telephone connections to churches (A06838); and an exemption from the property owner's duty to clear sidewalks after snow storms if the land belongs to a church or other religious group (A07064).

    Several of the proposals met an early death in previous legislative sessions, but are continually reintroduced. Bill A01580, for instance, which "would provide for a penalty for the damage of religious property or damage to a house of religious worship," died in the Code committee in 1994, 1995 and 1996.

    A05139 is the equivalent of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and decrees that "Governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification." Less widesweeping but equally discriminatory is A06285 which requires all children under the age of 14 to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle except "where the use of such helmet would prohibit the wearing of traditional headwear as dictated by the child's religion..."

    And A02636 "Suspends duties of persons having charge of building in New York City to remove snow, ice and dirt from sidewalks during periods of times in which religious tenets of obligors prohibit the doing of work."

    Courts, in using a "soft" interpretation of the establishment clause, may well find that most of this legislation passes constitutional muster. Even so, the fact that such an array of activities is now receiving the coverage of special legislative attention highlights the growing effort by faith-based groups to receive "special rights," and effective immunity from the civil laws and regulations which apply to everyone else. RFRA remains the most glaring example of this process, where government -- whenever it deals with a religious group or practice -- must employ a stern legal standard which is does not have to use when private individuals, secular groups or businesses are involved. As Justice John Paul Stevens opined in his opinion in the BOERNE v. FLORES case (which struck down the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act), this clearly favors "religion over irreligion" and violates the First Amendment.

   But from the RFRA standard to more mundane issues involving snow removal or helmets on children, legislators continue to "religion friendly" in providing special privileges for faith-based organizations and members.

[text only]