he Religious Liberty Protection Act was approved by the House of Representatives this afternoon, 306-118. The measure survived attempts to amend it, after congress turned down a proposal by Rep. Jerrold Nadler that would have limited the scope of the act, and not allowed groups to cite religion in trumping anti-discrimination laws and other civil rights legislation.

   Two versions of the measure were put on the House floor, one offered by Rep. Charles Canady of Florida, a second more restricted writing presented by Mr. Nadler.

   The Religious Liberty Protection Act would hold government to a "compelling interest/least restrictive means" test when dealing with faith-based groups and practices. It is based on the old Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the historic BOERNE v. FLORES decision in 1997. Justice John Paul Stevens opined that thanks to RFRA, churches and other religious groups possessed a legal instrument which "no atheist" could hope to obtain, and thus constituted an impermissible establishment of religion.

   The battle over RLPA has pitted a coalition of religious groups and some advocacy organizations, against an equally broad range of opponents. Many of the latter disagree only with certain portions of the Religious Liberty Protection Act, and have attempted to have the legislation amended so it would be accommodating. Legal groups, for instance, worried that RLPA might compromise security inside the nation's penal system, by allowing inmates exemption from regulations so that they may pursue questionable religious activities. Others, like historic preservation groups and municipal agencies, worry that the law would create an incentive for churches to ignore land use and zoning ordinances.

   RLPA, like its predecessor, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, was crafted in order to adjust the balance between religious exercise and the enforcement of "neutral" and generally applicable legal statutes. In EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH (1990), the high court ruled that the First Amendment's protection of the free exercise of religion did not extend to religious exercise that is burdened by a neutral law of general applicability. That, backers of RFRA/RLPA argued, changed dramatically the standard the court had used since 1963 established in case like SHERBERT v. VERNER; in SHERBERT, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who refused to work on her religion's Saturday Sabbath was awarded unemployment compensation which had previously been denied. Other decisions came into play as well before EMPLOYMENT DIVISION and the historic BOERNE v. FLORES which struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In LYNG v. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION (1988), for instance, the court opined that rendering an individual's obligation to obey a law continent on religious belief thus permitted that individual "to become a law unto himself," a contradiction of "constitutional tradition and common sense."

Find out how Congress voted on the Religious Liberty Protection Act

Index of web articles: The Religious Liberty Protection Act

   Critics of RFRA and the Religious Liberty Protection Act charge that the legislation thus encourages "special rights" for churches, mosques, temples and other faith-based groups.

   The House opened deliberations at 10 a.m.(ET) with a prayer by Rev. James Ford, official chaplain of the body. During a session of off-topic one minute speeches, C-SPAN interviewed Larry Wirtham of the Washington Times newspaper, who provided background on the RLPA, and said that opposition to the measure came from municipalities worried about land use and zoning problems which they might encounter as a result of the act. While acknowledging that RLPA enjoyed universal support from America's religious community, he did not mention opposition from state-church separaitonists worried about the First Amendment consequences of the legislation.

   Debate then began on a modified version of RLPA. Even those supporting the new rendition claimed that the bill was necessary in order to protect religious groups from encroachment by state and local governments. Considerable attention was paid to the fact that the measure enjoyed the support of America's religious community, specifically over 70 different faith-based denominations and groups. Some, such as Texas Rep. Ron Paul, criticized RLPA as an improper extension of congressional and/or government power. Paul opined that the bill did not properly define notions inherent to the legislation, such as "compelling interest" or "least restrictive means."

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) proposed a version of RLPA which would have prohibited religious groups from using the statute to trump anti-discrimination laws. The amendment failed 190-234.

   "This imposes a universal standard of religious liberty beyond that established by the Constitution," Paul warned. He described the measure as "national terms of infringement" in respect to such liberty. "We do not need an unconstitutional standard of religious freedom."

   Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX) said that the First Amendment guaranteed religious excise, and prohibited government from intervening in the affairs of churches. Like others in Thursday's debate, little attention was paid by Edwards to the separation of church and state. Edwards defined "compelling interest" as enforcement of the nation's civil right and anti-discrimination laws, but then -- incredibly -- urged that even with modifications, members of the House should still support the original act proposed by Rep. Charles Canady and others.

   Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) then presented the House with a shopping list of horror stories that, he argued, demonstrated the willingness of local or state governments to interfere with religious exercise. This included discrimination against Jehovah's Witnesses taking oaths, an unidentified community supposedly banning Bible study groups, and a California municipality that prevents churches from building in commercial-zoning districts. Blunt noted that an adult bookstore would be tolerated, but not a house of worship. He then presented the clerk of the House with a list of religious groups supporting RLPA.

   Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) took the floor, warning that the original version of the Religious Liberty Protection Act, while ostensibly preventing discrimination against faith-based groups, would foster other forms of discrimination. Conyers pointed out that RLPA would blunt enforcement of civil rights and anti-discrimination statutes. Rep. Charles Canady of Florida -- the major RLPA booster in the House -- followed, and presented his rendition of the history of the act. He questionably argued that RLPA was crafted in such a way as to avoid the constitutional problems encountered in the earlier Religious Freedom Restoration Act. He justified the use of the commerce clause of the Constitution to protect religious exercise, adding that government should "accommodate" those practices, and the intervention -- "based on the record of abuse we have seen" --of the state on behalf of churches in matters of land use or other local action.

   Rep.Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), defending himself as a supporter of the old Religious Freedom Restoration Act, nevertheless expressed skepticism about RLPA. He argued that the Conyer's rendition of the act trumped the nation's civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, adding, "this is unacceptable." He agreed with Conyers and others, though, that religious groups had "suffered" because of recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) followed, and pointed out: "All you need to do is invoke your religion, and you can discriminate..." A similar argument was advanced by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas).

   Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), declaring"I think we're all children in the eyes of god," said that he was still voting against RLPA because it would trump civil rights protections, and rhetorically asked: "Does this act protect the World Church of the Creator?" Rep. Canady responded by saying that the RLPA had such broad support from the religious community that everyone should vote for its passage.

   Defending his amended version of RLPA, Rep. Nadler returned to the congressional well, and suggested that his "carve out" exemptions for civil rights and anti-discrimination was both necessary and desirable. He too, though, cited the "damage" done to religious practice by recent Supreme Court cases. Nadler added that if his amended version did not pass, he would urge his House colleagues to vote against the Canady version. Rep. Canady praised Nadler as a sincere friend of religious practice, but added, "In his zeal to adopt language to adopt a stance acceptable to groups like the ACLU, he has varied from the principle that truly animates this bill." He criticized "other groups on the far left" as well.

   Canady also observed that the Clinton administration "expresses strong support" for the Religious Liberty Protection Act; and he criticized opponents of his version, noting that the same objections they now raise about RLPA could have been raised about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act -- but were not.

   After nearly two hours of debate, the House voted on the Nadler version of RLPA.

   The amendment failed on a voice vote, and during a recorded vote, C-SPAN interviewed Janet Parshall of the Family Research Council. She opined that there had been "a tremendous, systematic assault by the Supreme Court over the past 35 years," -- a figure not cited by some RLPA boosters who only go as far back as the EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH ruling. Parshall said that "we have lost perspective," and that "95% of all Americans believe in god, they have a creed, they have a house of worship." She also described RLPA as a "wall of protection instead of a wall of separation," in defining the relationship between church and state.

   Michael Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Fund predicted that if passed, RLPA would be declared unconstitutional. He praised the goal of RLPA, but said that he had problems with the means being used, specifically the commerce and spending clauses. Farris also argued that RLPA "helps only the big denominations," rather than small groups of religious believers. "The bills is a hoax on the American public, the people pushing it know better, it will be declared unconstitutional."

    Following the vote on Nadler's proposal, the House turned to the main bill, The Religious Liberty Protection Act (H.R. 1691). Representatives voted immediately, and the measure cleared 306-118. Mr. Canady then rose to introduce a stipulation that Representatives would be given five days to change their vote in hopes of making the passage of RLPA unanimous. The measure now moves to the Senate where a tougher fight over the legislation is expected.

[text only]