c. 1998 Religion News Service

WASHINGTON _ With a rare display of broad political and religious unity, federal legislation was introduced Tuesday (June 9) to replace a religion protection law overturned by the Supreme Court last year. Supporters say this time their effort will pass constitutional muster.

The new measure _ the Religious Liberty Protection Act (RLPA) _ is a narrower version of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) rejected by the High Court a year ago this month.

Like RFRA, the new measure seeks to protect religious expression in cases where it conflicts with other government regulations. As with RFRA, government would again have to show it has a compelling reason _ such as health or safety concerns _ and is operating in the least restrictive manner to legally infringe upon religious practices or beliefs.

RLPA, said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah,”seeks to protect religious activity even in the face of general legislative rules that make worship difficult or impossible through unawareness, insensitivity or hidden hostility.” Since the court turned aside RFRA on the grounds it unconstitutionally usurped power belonging to the federal courts, liberal and conservative religious groups and their congressional supporters in both parties have worked feverishly to come up with substitute legislation that might survive another legal challenge.

Supporters say they have met that challenge by largely shifting the new measure’s legal basis away from RFRA’s reliance on the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clauses. Instead, RLPA will rely mainly on Congress’ established powers to regulate interstate commerce and spend federal funds.

For example, under RLPA an individual may not be fired because of their observance of religious holidays or dress if the company they work for receives federal funds. RLPA might also be invoked to supercede local regulations preventing construction of a church when out-of-state contractors are involved in building the structure.

RLPA would also negate local zoning laws designed to exclude houses of worship.

The bill’s backers, speaking at a Capitol Hill news conference, said language used to legally justify RLPA was lifted verbatim from landmark legislation used to extend rights to racial minorities and the disabled.”If the Supreme Court were to overturn this bill, it would also have to overturn the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act,”said Marc D. Stern, an American Jewish Congress attorney who helped write RLPA.”The genius of this bill is it forces no one to be religious and establishes no special class. It only requires a second look at bureaucratic regulations that are enforced blindly,”Stern said.

RLPA’s backing in the Congress is broad and includes the leadership of the House and Senate, according to Hatch. In addition to Hatch, other members of Congress at the news conference included Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Reps. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Charles T. Canady, R-Fla.

Given its broad support, Canady said the bill’s backers will try to get the measure passed by both houses of Congress by year’s end. Initial House consideration was scheduled for June 16 in the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee.

Canady pointed out that RFRA enjoyed near unanimous backing in both the House and Senate. He expects RLPA to receive similar support.

Likewise, RFRA had the virtually unprecendented support of a wide variety of religious groups across the theological and social divide. The same holds true for RLPA. Groups that were in opposition during the recent congressional fight over the defeated school prayer constitutional amendment are in agreement over RLPA.

Liberal and conservative Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, America Indian, Sikh, Unitarian Universalist and other faith groups are among the more than 80 religious organizations backing the measure.

They include the National Association of Evangelicals, the National Council of Churches, the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and the American Muslim Council.

Also, the Native American Church of North America, the Episcopal Church, the Church of Scientology International, the Christian Coalition, the Coalition of Christian Colleges and Universities, American Ethical Union, the Baptist Joint Committee and the Mystic Temple of Light, Inc.

Several civil liberties groups and church-state watchdog organizations also support the bill. They included Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Americans for Democratic Action and the NAACP.

The limited opposition toward RLPA expressed so far has come from some groups on the religious right who object to the measure’s legal reliance on interstate commerce and federal funding and what they see as its inherent approval of expanded federal powers.”Never before in our nation’s history has a fundamental right been reduced to a level of a commercial transaction,”the opponents said in a joint statement.”Many of us believe that this is an affront to our faith. Worship is not commerce.” Among the opponents are the Rev. Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition, Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum and former Southern Baptist Convention president Adrian Rogers. Former Attorney General Edwin Meese also signed the statement.

(OPTIONAL TRIM _ STORY MAY END HERE)

In response, Douglas Laycock, a University of Texas at Austin constitutional law professor who also helped write RLPA, said supporters”also preferred not to rely on commerce and funding. But given the narrow parameters dictated by the court’s decision, we had to use the legal grounds at our disposal.”The ends certainly are worth it in this instance,”he said.

The Supreme Court case that led to RFRA’s overturning involved St. Peter Catholic Church in Bourne, Texas. The city opposed the church’s effort to rebuild its aging sanctuary because it is located in a historic district. The church argued that the city’s action was illegal under RFRA, setting up the legal showdown.

Ironically, RFRA was itself a congressional response to an earlier High Court ruling _ the 1990 case in which the justices said laws otherwise neutral toward religion are legal even if they impinge upon some people’s religious practices. In that case, the court ruled American Indians have no constitutional right to use the drug peyote in religious ceremonies.

DEA END RNS