Led by State Director Randall Gorman, AMERICAN ATHEISTS speaks out against proposed "special rights" legislation for churches and other religious groups in the Lone Star State. The Texas RFRA is unconstitutional, discriminatory and a violation of Atheists' civil rights, charges Gorman.

t a packed hearing of the Senate State Affairs Committee earlier today in Austin, Texas, State American Atheists Director Randall Gorman warned legislators that the proposed Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act was violative of state-church separation, and encouraged "special rights" for churches and other religious groups.

    With Mr. Gorman was Dick Hogan, another Texas atheist activist who also serves on the National Board of the organization.

    Several dozen witnesses signed up to present remarks to the committee which sponsored the public hearing. Hogan noted that the first round of those giving comment came out in support of RFRA, and that some of those questioning the proposal said they would support the legislation if specific alterations were made.

    Mr. Gorman provided the Committee with written documents outlining American Atheists objections to the legislation, which would require government to employ a "compelling interest/least restrictive means" test when dealing with religious groups or beliefs. In a statement released to news media, Gorman noted, "This bill has nothing to do with legitimate religious rights. It's discriminatory legislation which grants 'special rights' to churches, temples or other faith-based groups."

READ THE TESTIMONY... Find out what American Atheists had to say about the proposed Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act at Thursday's hearing.

   In addressing the Committee, Gorman cited the opinion of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in his written summation in the historic BOERNE v. FLORES case. That June, 1997 ruling struck down the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but has left the door open for a slew of state versions with nearly identical phraseology. All of the bills -- variously called "religious protection" or "restoration" acts -- require government to use the "compelling interest" test. Some attempt to exempt prisoners from coverage of the bill, fearing that inmates would abuse the act and use the cry of "religious rights" to gain special benefits, and possibly compromise security.

    Citing Justice Stevens, Mr. Gorman told legislators that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act gives faith-based groups a tool which "no atheist or agnostic" can obtain.

    "RFRA is 'bad law', and it discriminates against millions of Americans who do not have any religious faith, and indeed any private group or business. It violates equal protection by establishing a dual system of justice in the administration of civil laws."

   According to Gorman, one of the most important witnesses speaking out against the Texas RFRA -- constitutional scholar and law professor Dr. Marci Hamilton -- was deliberately scheduled at the end of today's lengthy hearing. Hamilton successfully defended the City of Boerne, Texas in the BOERNE v. FLORES case, and has become a major national critic of the "compelling interest/least restrictive means" test being mandated by RFRA legislation.

    After speaking with legislative aides, Senators and capitol watchers, Dick Hogan said that in his opinion the Texas RFRA is in for a rough fight. "It may pass this committee, and the Governor supports it, but there are a lot of problems with the bill and different groups are concerned about the impact it could have."

[text only]