draft study which examined claims made by supporters of the Religious Liberty Protection Act (RLPA) has found that government licensing regulations do not seriously threaten the practices of faith-based groups seeking permits for church expansion, liquor licenses, gambling permits and other activities.

   Authored by two sociologists from the University of Arizona, the research is based on statistics gathered by the authoritative National Congregations Study, a definitive survey of religious groups in the United States. A copy of the draft was obtained by AANEWS, and the final report is expected to submitted for possible publication by the Journal of Church and State. It concludes that "congregations are only very minimally constrained by regulatory authority," and that "it is extraordinarily uncommon for congregations to be denied permission by government authorities to engage in the activities in which they wish to engage."

   The findings may be important in the debate over the Religious Liberty Protection Act, federal legislation which would require government to employ a "compelling interest/least restrictive means" test when dealing with churches, mosques, temples or other religious groups. The authors of the study, Mark Chaves and Bill Tsitsos, noted that the precursor of RLPA, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), was to "expand religious freedom beyond the bounds articulated in the 1990 EMPLOYMENT DIVISION OF OREGON v. SMITH decision." In that landmark case, the justices of the Supreme Court ruled that states could enforce "generally applicable, neutral rules" even if they happened to impinge on the religious practices of certain groups. In SMITH, the court found that religious belief did not constitute an exemption from state drug laws as claimed by a member of the Native American Church.

   For Dr. Marci Hamilton, constitutional attorney and professor of law at Benjamin Cardozo School of Law, the latest findings refute key arguments used by supporters of the Religious Liberty Protection Act. "RLPA backers are claiming that the law is necessary because government is encroaching on freedom of religion," Hamilton told AANEWS this afternoon. "That's just not true, and churches usually get what they want when it comes to things like zoning changes or permits."

   Indeed, the Arizona study may even suggest that religious groups find an unusual and "faith-friendly" atmosphere in the halls of government. Among the findings:

   ¶    17% of religious congregations have requested a permit or license of some kind from a government office in the past year. "Larger congregations are more likely to seek permits/licenses than smaller congregations," notes the analysis. 36% of those who attend religious services happen to be in these larger congregations where activities "require some sort of permit or license." The study then notes that in light of this high percentage, "this form of interaction between church and state is indeed an important point" where the government's attitude toward faith-based sects may be measured.

   ¶    The most common reason for religious groups to seek a permit is for alterations in physical plant. Indeed, this was the basis of the dispute in the historic BOERNE v. FLORES case which struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1997. The Roman Catholic Church sought to demolish most of a decades-old structure in Boerne, Texas in order to build a new facility; city officials, though, noting that the older building fell under the purview of local historical ordinances, refused to issue the demolition permit.

   36% of permits sought by religious groups are for construction or remodeling, and 7% involve signage or erecting statues.

   ¶    The second biggest category involved congregations seeking licenses or permits to organize social events. 17% fall under this heading, with 10% relating to applications for bingo or other gambling, 2% for liquor license, and 5% for operating festivals or "other larger social events." The study noted that 33% of requests covered a broader area including resale permits, food licenses (5%), and day care centers (4%).

   ¶    Perhaps the most significant finding in the Arizona study is that when queried, only 5 congregations out of a sample of 1236 reported that applications for permits or licenses were turned down. "Nearly all" of the congregations -- 92% -- reported that their applications were approved by government regulators, with 5% responding that the process was still ongoing. "In no case did a congregation discontinue the process because they expected to be rejected." The authors add that that the "near universal experience" of churches and other religious groups seeking permits or other licensing from government to do something they wish to do "is one of facilitation rather than roadblock."

   ¶    What about those cases where permits were not granted? These rare incidents cover two Roman Catholic congregations, and Methodist, Baptist and Mormon churches. Applications were filed in connection with putting up additional signage, operating an "after school" program, an unspecified zoning issue, and bingo licenses. Three other congregations -- Hindu, Jehovah's Witness and an independent church, say that their applications were granted, but with "modifications" or changes.

"Perhaps the most significant finding in the Arizona study is that when queried, only 5 congregations 0ut of a sample of 1236 reported that applications for permits or licenses were turned down..."

   The draft study stops short of insisting that these findings alone argue against the need for a Religious Liberty Protection Act. They note that even with this religion-friendly climate, the number of religious groups who are constrained in some way by government regulators "is bigger than zero (though not by much)," and that "relative weights" balancing religious practice and separation may impel some to still insist that no burdens for any reason be placed on congregations. They add that most of the congregations involved were "mainstream," and that this statistical profile may not hold for smaller or fringe religious groups.

   But for Hamilton, it's a clear case of questioning the need for the passage of the Religious Liberty Protection Act. "Supporters of RLPA have been insisting that ever since EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH, we have seen a dangerous rise in government obstruction to religious practices," she said. "That's just not true, and these findings are just another good reason why we do not need RLPA."

[text only]