It may still prove to be unconstitutional, but voters in Alabama are being asked to approve a Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In a state divided by First Amendment issues like school prayer, churches are unanimous in their call for this special rights legislation.

oters in Alabama are being asked to approve a November 3 ballot measure that would put the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into the state's constitution, and require that government demonstrate a "compelling interest" before taking action which burdens religious exercise. Church and religious interest groups throughout the state are vigorously supporting the measure, and the director of the powerful Alabama State Baptist Convention, urging a yes vote on RFRA, warned "If government became more restrictive or people less religious, the state could tell people how to worship."

    The battle over RFRA legislation is raging in over a dozen other states, and even in Washington where a similar measure has been introduced under the moniker of the Religious Liberty Protection Act, or RLPA. But the Alabama proposal comes against the backdrop of a statewide debate over religion and government which has focused on issues like prayer in the public schools, display of the Ten Commandments in government buildings, and the importance of faith as a political litmus test for candidates. Public opinion has been sharply divided over an order by federal Judge Ira DeMent which put an end to classroom prayer and religious invocations at school athletic events. And in Etowah County, Judge Roy Moore continues to display a hand carved Decalogue plaque and open judicial proceedings with a Baptist prayer. These sorts of practices have drawn supporting from Alabama's leading officials, including Governor Fob James and Attorney General Bill Pryor.

    As is the case in other states, the Alabama RFRA enjoys wide support from both mainstream liberal and conservative denominations. When approved by the State Senate last April 26-0, Rev. Dan Ireland of the Alabama Citizen Action program gushed, "it's a good piece of legislation." Associated Press, noting the ecumenical support for RFRA, added, "Even the American Civil Liberties Union likes it..."

    Opposition to RFRA/RLPA legislation has not fully crystallized, although American Atheists has announced its complete disapproval of the measure. A number of diverse organizations are beginning to voice doubts about certain components of the measures and how they impact issues as diverse a prison security, or maintaining the integrity of neighborhoods. The latter seems to be emerging as a point of contention with the Alabama RFRA. Preservationist groups have become vocal in speaking out against the legislation, citing battles over church zoning applications. The executive director of the Alabama Preservation Alliance, Brandon Brazil, warned that "This law is a veiled attempt to give religion far-reaching powers that you and I don't have." Brazil noted recent squabbles involving churches which wanted to expand their buildings or parking lots, despite oppositions from neighbors concerned about intrusive noise, traffic, pollution and the impact on property values.

    Indeed, zoning has emerged as a leading complaint from religious organizations which are annoyed at the prospect of conforming to local land use and preservation ordinances. The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, struck down last year in the historic U.S. Supreme Court case BOERNE v. FLORES, involved an effort by the Roman Catholic Church to demolish most of a decades-old structure and erect a new building. When officials in Boerne, Texas refused to issue the appropriate permits, the Archdiocese sued, citing RFRA and the requirement that government employ a "compelling interest" test. The high court ruled against RFRA as an improper extension of Congressional authority, but in his decision Justice John Paul Stevens warned that RFRA violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment, and provided religious groups with a legal weapon which "no atheist" could hope to obtain.

    More recently, residents in Belmont, Massachusetts have filed suit alleging that their constitutions rights are violated by a discriminatory, 1950 law known as the Dover Amendment. Critics charge that the measure is similar in its effect to the proposed RFRAs, in that it exempts religious organizations from many land use and zoning regulations. The Massachusetts plaintiffs have been fighting the construction of a 69,000 square-foot Mormon Temple on nine acres of land located in a residential neighborhood. In Totowa, New Jersey, the pastor of a Methodist church has clashed with neighbors and town officials because he wishes to open a homeless shelter. The local fire inspector, though, says that proper safety equipment and permits are required, along with emergency lighting and improved access.

    RFRA opponents, citing conflicts such as these, warn that passage of the controversial legislation could unleash a wave of litigation from churches and other religious groups seeking exemptions from the "generally applicable" and neutral laws which apply to private individuals, businesses and secular groups. They note that in many cases, local problems are best handled by a process of community involvement, compromise and constructive dialogue rather than the "one size fits all" approach used by the RFRA/RLPA legislation.

    In Alabama, even a thumbs-up on the state RFRA would not justify the discriminatory effects of the measure. Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists, warns that the legislation is "Platinum card-style treatment for churches, temples, mosques and other religious groups," and discriminates against atheists.

[text only]