Efforts continue at the state level to pass versions of the discredited Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and obtain "special rights" for churches and believers.

nother state version of the unconstitutional Religious Freedom Restoration Act has been proposed, this time in Tennessee. State Sen. Steve Cohen, (D- Memphis) has introduced Senate Bill 3054, which states, in part, that "Laws 'facially neutral' toward religion, as well as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise, may burden religious exercise and profession..." It requires that "Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship," without demonstrating that such action "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and...Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

   The Tennessee bill follows on the heels of similar legislation proposed in California, a Religious Freedom Protection Act. Both bills, and others now being introduced in state houses throughout the nation, are modeled after the controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act which was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court last year in the case of BOERNE v. FLORES.

   As in California, the Tennessee measure has been introduced by a Democrat with liberal political credentials -- State Senator Stephen I. Cohen. An attorney and former legal advisor for the Memphis Police Department, he has been cited by environmental, cultural and women's groups for his political activism. But that fact masks the involvement of religious right groups like the Christian Legal Society and even the Rutherford Institute, which have entered into an odd "popular front" with liberal counterparts including the ACLU, People for the American Way, mainstream "establishment" religions both Protestant and Roman Catholic, and Humanists, Scientologists, New Agers and Muslims. All have become involved in the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, a group formed to promote the discredited Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

    According to the First Amendment Center's Freedom Forum, the director of the Tennessee ACLU chapter says that, "A law modeled on the federal RFRA makes sense" for the state. But law professor Marci Hamilton, who served as an attorney for the City of Boerne in the controversial Supreme Court test, said that "the case for state RFRAs has not yet been made" and that "No one has offered an quantitative evidence of religious suppression to justify such an expansive law."

    Critics charge that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act established a system of "dual justice" that favored believers and church groups. Writing his opinion in the BOERNE decision, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens agreed, noting that RFRA was a clear breech of state-church separation. "This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion, is forbidden by the First Amendment."

   BOERNE v. FLORES was the result of a dispute between the City of Boerne Texas and Roman Catholic authorities who wanted to demolish most of a historic church in the community in order to erect a new facility. The city, however, noted that the 74-year old structure fell under the purview of local historical zoning ordinances. Church officials responded by saying that they should be exempt from such regulations, and cited the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, which had been enacted by Congress. The measure required that government had to demonstrate a special, compelling interest in burdening religious groups with any legal action. Critics charged, though, that RFRA discriminated in favor of believers and religious organizations.

    RFRA had the support of a powerful, Washington, D.C.-based lobby, the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion. Membership included representation from a surprising array of diverse groups -- Baptists, Unitarians, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Scientologists, Lutherans, Humanists, Muslims and Jews. Surprisingly, even organizations identified with the state-church separation cause (ACLU, People for the American Way, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State) signed on to the pro- RFRA bandwagon as well. All sought special protection and status for religious exercise from government under the banner of RFRA.

    When the Supreme Court declared the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to be unconstitutional, RFRA boosters then began turning to the individual states. Most of the issues addressed in BOERNE v. FLORES involved limits on congressional authority; the decision left the door open, however, for state "mini-RFRA" proposals like the ones in California and now, Tennessee.

    Versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act are now being introduced in legislatures across the country, and measures have been enacted in Connecticut and Rhode Island. While they contain provisions supported by many civil libertarians -- guaranteeing religious exercise, for example -- the problem in these "mini-RFRAs" often rests in a sentence which requires government to demonstrate a "compelling interest" or burden religion only with "the least restrictive means," as in the Rhode Island law. While that sounds reasonable, critics wonder why similar laws aren't passed to protect the rights of private individuals or businesses, or, indeed, if legislation such as RFRA is even necessary. And in Tennessee, RFRA critics point out that the state government was not interested in protecting the rights of those who wished to exercise their freedom from religious intrusion -- as in the case last November of a prison inmate who resisted compulsory participation in religion-based drug and alcohol rehab programs as a condition for parole. That case went to the Tennessee Supreme Court, where justices ruled that such mandatory religious ritual violated the Establishment Clause of the constitution.

    Despite the involvement of liberal political groups and "separationist" organizations, American Atheists has continued to oppose RFRA at both the federal and state level.

[text only]