rganizations representing historic preservation, children's' rights, planning and even the welfare of animals are coming out in opposition to the proposed Religious Liberty Protection Act now being considered in the U.S. Senate.

   This week, over two-dozen groups are contacting senators pointing out the "unintended consequences" of RLPA. Most oppose specific, limited portions of the act, such as clauses pertaining to environmental integrity, land use or historic preservation; but all agree that RLPA poses a dangerous threat to their work.

   The RLPA would require government to employ 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 introduced in congress in 1993, but struck down four years later by the U.S. Supreme Court in the BOERNE v. FLORES decision.

   American Atheists has opposed both RFRA and RLPA, arguing that they violate the separation of church and state and create "special rights" for churches, mosques, temples and other faith-based groups.

   Until recently, the federal Religious Liberty Protection Act has enjoyed near-universal support from America's religious community. The Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion included representatives from Protestant, Jewish, Catholic, new age, humanist, Islamic, Hindu and other groups. In September, though, key groups began abandoning the campaign to pass RLPA, reacting to concerns that the legislation would allow faith-based sects to use religion as a way to trump the nation's civil rights and anti-discrimination statutes.

   This has been mirrored by the emergence of a surprising coalition of interest groups opposing the RLPA. Now coming out in opposition to the Religious Liberty Protection Act are the organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Humane Association, American Public Works Association, Child Welfare League, Dallas Homeowners League, League of Conservation Voters, Municipal Art Society, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, the National PTA and the Sierra Club.

   "It's a startling array of different organizations," the spokesman for one group told AANEWS. "Some are opposed to specific parts of RLPA which might endanger local zoning statutes, or the ability of communities to enforce laws against child or animal abuse."

   A statement issued by the informal group urges Senators to oppose RLPA, saying that "While purporting to restore religious freedom, the bill would actually have numerous unintended and extremely harmful effects."

   "The RLPA would erect barriers to the enforcement of a variety of laws to protect vulnerable populations. Such laws include: those protecting the health and safety of children and youth (e.g., laws to protect children and youth from neglect, and laws to ensure the safety of schools, child care centers, and other facilities which serve children and youth); laws protecting victims of domestic violence; and civil rights laws which protect individuals from discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, familiar status, and disability. The RLPA would also unduly burden the ability of local governments to adopt and apply to religious land uses the same zoning, planning, historic preservation, and other types of generally applicable laws (e.g., on and off-street parking restrictions, and building and lot size requirements) that affect all other land uses in order to protect community character, the environment, and quality of life. Further, many constitutional scholars believe that RLPA is constitutionally flawed, and would not survive a legal challenge..."

   Despite the array of groups now coming out against the Religious Liberty Protection Act -- and the loss of key organizations which had supported the measure, including the National Council of Churches, ACLU, People For The American Way and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State -- backing for RLPA is still formidable. Both Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) promise a "full push" on the measure at any time. RLPA is also being "held at the desk," which means that Lott can introduce the proposal on a whim for a full floor vote; further committee hearings seeking public input on the act are unlikely.

[text only]