Louisiana joins nearly a dozen other states in the stealth campaign for religious "civil rights." RFRA threatens to discriminate against Atheists and secular activity, while giving platinum card status to churches and other religious groups...

Web Posted: April 7, 1998

version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has been introduced in Louisiana. HB 167, like its counterparts elsewhere, would require government to demonstrate a "compelling state interest" before any action can be taken which has the effect of "burdening" religious groups or exercises. The measure was introduced by Rep. Jimmy D. Long, Sr. a Democrat from District 23.

"General Applicability" vs. "Compelling Interest"

    Like other versions of the RFRA, the Louisiana bill states that:

"A governmental authority may not restrict a person's free exercise of religion, unless both of the following conditions are met: l) The restriction is in the form of a rule of general applicability and does not intentionally discriminate against religion or among religions. 2) The governmental authority proves that application of the restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest,"

Ellen Johnson, President of AMERICAN ATHEISTS, charges that RFRA "sets up one rule for private citizens and groups, and other more lenient standards for religious organizations." She also warns that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is "a full employment act for lawyers."

   Critics of the Act, however, point out that under this perverse standard, laws and civil code -- "rules of general applicability" -- are no long applied in a fair and equal way once the "compelling governmental interest" rider is attached.

    "It sets up one rule for private citizens and groups, and other more lenient standard for religious organizations," says American Atheists President Ellen Johnson. She added that the proposed measure in Louisiana and elsewhere is "a full-employment act for lawyers," and predicted that if RFRA measures pass, "churches and other religious non-profits will be doing everything they can to claim exemption from whatever civil codes 'burden' them." She predicted that everything from environmental regulations to handicap access codes and even zoning could be contested. "They may not win in court, although sometimes they will. Thanks to RFRA, the legal system is going to get another boost as 'America's growth industry,'" added Ms. Johnson.

    Louisiana now joins nearly a dozen other states including Georgia, California, Michigan, Maryland, New Jersey, Florida, Ohio, and Kentucky where versions of the Act have been introduced. Spear heading the effort is the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, a national umbrella group which includes Roman Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Humanists, Ethical Culturalists, Scientologists, Hindus, Jews and other movements.

    The state level "mini-RFRAs" are based on the discredited Religious Freedom Restoration Act which was enacted by the U.S. congress in 1993, and signed into law by President Clinton. RFRA was challenged in the case of BOERNE v. FLORES, and involved the City of Boerne, Texas and the local Roman Catholic church. Church officials sought to demolish most of a decades-old historic structure in order to erect a new facility; but the City refused to grand the proper permits, insisting that the building fell under the purview of local preservation ordinances. The Church filed suit, citing RFRA, and claimed essentially that, as a religious organization, it was exempt from the local ordinances.

    In a 6-3 decision handed down last summer, however, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, noting that Congress had exceeded its authority in passing the legislation. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter and Stephen Breyer dissented. Writing in his opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens noted the crucial First Amendment aspects of the case, and how RFRA involved discrimination against nonbelief:

"If the historic landmark on the hill in Boerne happened to be a museum or an art gallery owned by an atheist, it would not be eligible for an exemption from the city ordinances that forbid an enlargement of the structure... Whether the Church would actually prevail under the statute or not, the statute has provided the Church with a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain. The governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion, is forbidden by the First Amendment..."

The RFRA Stealth Campaign

    Despite the setback from the Court, religious groups have quietly been promoting state RFRAs in legislatures throughout the country, and are reportedly crafting another version of the discredited Act which, they hope, will pass on Capitol Hill and withstand constitutional review. Critics charge, though, that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act -- sometimes disingenuously presented as a "preservation" act, as in California -- is unnecessary and an example of "bad law."

    "The First Amendment has been quite effective in protecting the rights of believers in this nation," says Ron Barrier, National Media Coordinator for American Atheists. "But RFRA is going too far. It's an attempt to achieve 'special rights' for churches and other religious groups. It discriminates against Atheists, and marginalizes over 25 million Americans who have no religious faith."

[text only]