The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in a case which could decide the fate of one of the most controversial pieces of "religious liberty" legislation, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Supporters say that RFRA is a necessary measure to guard churches and temples from government intrusion; but critics charge that the net effect of the Act is to create a class of "special rights" or privileges which apply only to those Americans who profess religious belief and participate in a "recognized" religious group.

In January, the Court declared that it would hear the case of City of Boerne (Texas) v. P.F. Flores. A decision is expected sometime before July. It began in the small town of Boerne, Texas when the Roman Catholic Archdiocese announced plans to demolish the 70-year old St. Peter church building and erect a larger facility. City officials, though, insisted that the church was under the regulation of local zoning and historical ordinances, as are houses and various businesses. The case would have remained a local flap about zoning regulations -- until the Archdiocese invoked the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and insisted that as a religion, the church was exempt from such encumbrances.The Mayor of Boerne told reporters: "This church has been a community landmark since it was built in 1923, and this community values its visual and historical heritage, whether it's a church or our 100-year old library."

Origins of the RFRA This constitutional "crisis" which appears to pit the interests of government against those of religious organizations stems from an obscure 1990 decision which allowed the state of Oregon to enforce drug laws against a Native American church which used peyote, a hallucinogenic drug, in its rituals. The high court ruled in favor of the state: Justice Antonin Scalia, no friend of state-church separation, wrote that the constitution did not guarantee "equal protection" of free religious exercise, but provided safeguards only against harmful discrimination where one religion is singled out by government for unequal treatment. Scalia admitted that the ruling (SMITH v. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION) could place smaller religious groups at a "disadvantage," but insisted that this was "an unavoidable consequence of democratic government."

But there was a deeper issue in the SMITH case: should religious groups be exempt from laws and regulations which apply to the wider society? Should government ignore behaviors and rituals which are practiced by religious sects that are illegal for everyone else?

A religious coalition was promptly formed which consisted of Christians, Jews, Moslems, Scientologists, Humanists and other organizations often identified with state-church separation. Drafting of a proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Act began, and in 1993 Congress passed the legislation which was promptly signed into law by President Clinton.

Should religious groups be exempted from laws and regulations which apply to everyone else in society?

In agreeing to hear the BOERNE case, the high court will essentially be deciding the constitutionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It will have serious consequences concerning the future balance of free expression of religious faith, and the role of government in "establishing" religious belief.

American Atheists takes the position that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is an unfair -- and unconstitutional endorsement by government -- of religious belief. The nation's religious groups have filed amicus ("friend of the court" briefs in support of RFRA; but among the members of the Coalition supporting this act are several organizations which in the past have defended state-church separation. Read the American Atheist position on this split within separationist ranks -- and why we see the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a danger to the First Amendment, and the rights of non-believers.

[text only]