proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has won the support of the Idaho state legislature Judiciary and Rules Committee despite opposition from some religious and political groups. SB 1394 would require that governments use a "compelling interest" test when dealing with faith-based groups and practices.

    The Idaho RFRA is broadly based on the old federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1997 case of BOERNE v. FLORES. Despite that 6-3 ruling, RFRA boosters have reintroduced the legislation on capitol hill as the Religious Liberty Protection Act. Over a dozen states have also had versions of RFRA introduced and, in some cases, enacted. The constitutionality of those statutes has yet to be determined.

    Supporters of RFRA say that the measure is needed to reverse a 1990 high court ruling, EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH which held that religious practices can be limited by a neutral civil law that applies to everyone. Under SMITH, a person or group could not demand an exemption from drug laws, zoning ordinances, taxes or other "generally applicable" statutes by claiming that the practice violates their religion.

   Critics of RFRA legislation, though, warn that the measure would create a class of "special rights" for religious groups, and provide them a legal tool which private individuals, businesses and sectarian organizations do not have. In his written decision in the BOERNE v. FLORES case, Justice John Paul Stevens ruled that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act violated the separation of church and state, giving faith-based groups a legal instrument "which no atheist" could obtain.

    RFRA and RLPA have enjoyed almost unanimous support throughout America's religious community. The original RFRA had the backing of conservative and mainstream denominations, as well as Moslem, Hindu, new age, humanist and other groups. Last year, though, several organizations that had backed the proposed statute announced that they were withdrawing from the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion -- the group formed to promote RFRA and RLPA -- amidst concerns that the act could be used to trump civil rights and anti-discrimination laws.

    Concerns about the possible consequences of the Idaho RFRA were evident in the House committee hearing, with even some religious groups speaking out against the proposal. Episcopalian Bishop Harry Bainbridge told the committee, "Senate Bill 1394 is a wolf in sheep's clothing ... it is a deception that infringes on the political liberties of all citizens in our country."

    Rabbi Dan Fink of Boise warned that the bill could permit Aryan Nations and other racist sects to use RFRA as a shield for questionable or illegal activities.

    "The burden should not be on the state to provide 'compelling interest,' " Fink said. "The burden should be on the bigots."

    Extremist groups masquerading behind the facade of religious liberty may be a special concern in Idaho. The state has become headquarters for a number of white supremacist sects which embrace "Christian Identity," a theology which teaches that Jews, blacks and other "mud peoples" descended from Satan.

OFFICE OF THE IDAHO STATE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN ATHEISTS

IDAHO ATHEISTS

    Supporters of the Idaho RFRA said that the act was needed to protect religious groups from tangible regulations and interference by local municipalities. One attorney pointed to planning and zoning statutes which presumably infringed on the freedom of religious practice.

   SB 1394 was introduced in the Idaho Senate on February 10; the mirror version was floated in the House on March 7. The measure opined that "Laws that are facially neutral toward religion, as well as law intended to interfere with religious exercise, may burden religious exercise."

    The legislative summation of SB 1394 claimed that the bill would have "no fiscal impact," but increasingly, critics of RFRA legislation disagree. Among those speaking out against RFRA/RLPA measures are neighborhood, community and preservationist groups who warns that lowering the bar for faith-based groups on zoning or land use issues -- everything from parking ordinances to statutes on land development, traffic and density -- seriously affects people living near churches and other houses of worship. In Belmont, Mass. for instance, two neighborhood groups are protesting the Dover Amendment, a 1950 state law which effectively exempts churches, mosques and temples from enforcement of most zoning and land use statutes. The neighbors say that construction of an enormous Mormon Temple in the middle of their mostly residential section of Boston threatens in the integrity of their area, affects property values, and unfairly provides religious groups with a way of opting out of neutral civil laws.

    The Idaho Religious Freedom Restoration Act now heads to the full House floor for a vote. Rep. Dan Madder (R-Genessee) has introduced the measure there. In the Senate, a mirror bill has been proposed by Sen. Grant Ipsen (R-Boise).

[text only]