A proposal to give churches and other religious groups "special rights" has stalled in the New Jersey State Legislature. Dave Silverman, State Director for American Atheists, charges that the RFRA proposal discriminates against nonbelievers, and puts government in the role of providing Platinum Card-style perks for organized religion.

Web Posted: June 10, 1998

n New Jersey, what appeared to be a cakewalk for supporters of a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act has instead turned into a "Nothing's happening" situation according to one of the measure's backers. State Sen. Robert W. Singer (R-District 30), a major co-sponsor of the state RFRA, describes the legislation as "stuck" and "not going anywhere."

    According to American Atheists N.J. State Director Dave Silverman, similar comments are coming from the Assembly in Trenton as well. An aide to Assemblyman Joel Weingarten (R-District 21) told Mr. Silverman that while the measure was not "dead," there was no movement and that the measure continues to sit in Committee.

    Like other versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the New Jersey RFA requires that government use a "compelling interest" test before it may take any action which would "substantially burden" religious organizations and practices. It is based on a federal act which was enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1993, but was struck down last year in the controversial BOERNE v. FLORES decision. That case stemmed from an effort by the Roman Catholic Church to enlarge a church in the community of Boerne, Texas. When church officials sought a demolition permit, however, the city stepped in and noted that the decades-old structure fell under the purview of local historical ordinances.

   The archdiocese appealed, citing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In a 6-3 decision, the high court justices ruled that RFRA was an unconstitutional extension of congressional authority. Writing in his opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens warned that the act provided religious individuals and groups "with a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain."

    "This governmental preference for religion as opposed to irreligion is forbidden by the First Amendment," added Stevens.

    Unfortunately, the BOERNE decision has been interpreted as a green light for the enactment of state versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, since the bulk of the ruling concerned congressional authority. The ecumenical group which helped to draft RFRA -- a Washington-based political group calling itself the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion -- has since embarked on a campaign to quietly enact versions of the measure in states throughout the country. There has been little opposition, and over a dozen states now have these "mini-RFRA" proposals in some stage of their respective legislative processes. The Coalition has also drafted another federal version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which it hopes is "First Amendment proof." That could be introduced on Capitol Hill at any time.

    Support for the legislation is widespread throughout the religious community. The Coalition includes representatives of the Roman Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Humanist, Hindu, Islamic and even new age sects, and more traditional "separationist" groups including People for the American Way and the American Civil Liberties Union have, unfortunately, signed on to the RFRA bandwagon.

    But concerns remain. Dr. Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA, has warned that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act would "give a massive accommodation applicable in all walks of life, and potentially touching any conflict between conscience and law..." Others, including American Atheists, charge that RFRA is biased in favor of churches and other religious groups, and fosters a double-standard of justice that has the effective of marginalizing any secular group or activity, from private businesses to Atheists and other nonbelievers.

    There have also been practical objections to the proliferation of "mini- RFRAs" popping up throughout the nation. Legislators in Michigan, Illinois and elsewhere have expressed reservations about the measure, fearing that it would be abused by prison inmates or other groups seeking special privileges under the mantle of being a "religion." Officials elsewhere have warned that RFRA could lead to expensive litigation in matters such as zoning and building permits for religious groups.

Standing Up To RFRA In New Jersey

    Dave Silverman has led a concerted effort to stop the New Jersey RFRA, which is being called a "Religious Freedom Act." His message was recently carried throughout the region on a series of public service announcements (PSA's) which warned of the possible effects of the measure.

    "On the surface, this law is designed to look harmless," cautions Silverman. But he cites a long list of potential abuses where religious proselytizing and other activities would take place, as government is on the defensive to demonstrate its "compelling interest."

   "Teachers and/or principals could proselytize in classrooms, religious people could demand that public hearings with invocations, 'faith healing' could be permitted... and look for plenty of lawsuits because someone's religion requires him or her to do something that conflicts with a job."

    Silverman also reports that legislators are keeping mum on exactly why the RFRA is not being fast-tracked for action any time soon.

[text only]