he Religious Liberty Protection Act has received a new lease on life, with word that Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) is readying the legislation for Senate action by the end of the 1999 term. Sources on capitol hill tell AANEWS that last week, Lott met privately with representatives of a group supporting the measure. RLPA passed the House of representatives 306-118 this past summer; the Senate version is sponsored by Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and has the endorsement of the Clinton Administration.

   RLPA is based on the old Religious Freedom Restoration Act, RFRA. It requires that governments use a "compelling interest/least restrictive means" test when dealing with faith-based groups and practices. RFRA was introduced in 1993 to counter U.S. Supreme Court rulings and legislation which many church groups said infringed on religious liberty. But critics of the measure charge that RLPA, like RFRA, is special "entitlement" legislation which favors religious groups and discriminates against private individuals, businesses and secular organizations.

   In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in the historic BOERNE v. FLORES case. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that RFRA provided churches with a legal instrument which "no atheist" could hope to obtain. Despite that ruling, RFRA was simply rewritten and introduced as the Religious Liberty Protection Act. Versions of the act have been promoted at the state level, and enacted in Texas, Florida and elsewhere.

   Supporting RFRA and RLPA has been an ecumenical group, the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion. Its ranks have included Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Humanists, Scientologists, new agers and others; all see the RLPA as a "common cause" for protecting the special status of organized faith.

   In recent weeks, however, several groups have withdrawn from the Coalition. Most are doing so somewhat reluctantly and under pressure, publicly stating that they fear that the Religious Liberty Protection Act could trump anti-discrimination laws, and permit discriminate against gays, nonbelievers or others if it is justified on the basis of religious belief.

   ¶    The Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion has apparently morphed into an ad hoc alliance, the Religious Liberty Protection Act Leadership Group operating under the aegis of the Virginia-based Center for Law and Religious Freedom. This afternoon, the group issued a press statement praising the Majority Leader: "Religious liberty is a common cause we can all agree on," said Group spokesman Samuel Casey. "We are delighted that Senator Lott agrees that this cause is deserving of the Senate's priority attention for a floor vote before it adjourns this year. A vote for RLPA is a vote for religious liberty..."

   ¶    The list of RLPA supporters has diminished since several groups abandoned the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion in September. The two biggest defections included the American Civil Liberties Union and the Anti-Defamation League. Also departing were People for the American Way, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

   ¶    The current range of supporters still reflects formidable support for RLPA. Members of the Group include Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice, Christian Coalition, Christian Legal Society, Family Research Council, First Church of Christ Scientist, Agudath Israel of America, Seventh Day Adventists, Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship, Southern Baptist Convention, the Mormon (LDS) Church, National Association of Evangelicals, Republican Jewish Coalition, U.S. Catholic Conference, Council of Christian Colleges and Universities and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations.

   ¶    Support in the Senate is problematic. Despite enthusiasm for the old Religious Freedom Restoration Act, key legislators including Sen. Edward Kennedy are no longer behind the RLPA, fearful of its unintended consequences and impact on civil rights enforcement.

   ¶    The new RLPA Group is lobbying hard on the hill, assuring Senate staffers that the bill is capable of passing constitutional muster, and is "crafted to address the Court's constitutional rulings." Behind the scenes, though, many are reportedly skeptical. AANEWS has been told that in the event of passage, some groups opposing all or portions of RLPA will file an immediate legal challenge to the legislation.

   ¶    While RLPA enjoys support among many Republicans, even the bill's main booster in the Senate, Orrin Hatch, has nagging doubts. Some fear the use of the commerce/money clause as a rationale for making this considerable leap of federalization. Many Democrats worry that the RLPA will endanger civil rights laws, enforcement of child protection statutes, and even historic preservation programs.

   ¶    The powerful Family Research Council is solidly behind RLPA. Within hours of the RLPA Group press release, FRC followed up with its own broadside praising Senator Lott for his decision to hustle the Religious Liberty Protection Act for a Senate vote. FRC spokeswoman Janet Parshall opined, "Over the last decade, Supreme Court decisions have weakened the constitutional protection for religious exercise." She added that religious freedom was "vulnerable to burdensome governmental regulation without having to justify a compelling reason for doing so."

[text only]