c. 1998 Religion News Service

RICHMOND, Va. _ While religious activists and congressional lawmakers ponder on how to fix last year’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that scrapped the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Virginia legislators are moving ahead to adopt their own measure protecting religious practices from government infringement.

Pending in the state legislature is the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which will prohibit local governments from enacting ordinances restricting religious groups from pursuing ministry in their communities.”We should ensure that all Virginians are able to practice their faith, whether that be feeding the poor or (helping) any other part of their community,”said State Delegate A. Donald McEachin, the measure’s chief sponsor.

In moving the proposed legislation forward, Virginia _ the cradle of the First Amendment’s protection of religious expression and practice _ joins others states, including Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Rhode Island, Michigan, New Jersey and California, in not waiting for a national fix of what advocates say is a sharp erosion of religious liberty since the Supreme Court’s ruling last June.

At that time, the High Court struck down RFRA, enacted in 1993, on the grounds that Congress had exceeded its authority in enacting the legislation. RFRA required that government show a compelling reason before interfering with religious practices and that when it did so, it use the least restrictive means available.

Since the court struck down RFRA, a host of religious groups and individuals have complained that local governments _ especially through the use of zoning laws and other local ordinances _ are interfering with their religious practices.

Indeed, the Virginia proposal was sparked by a recent Richmond controversy over church programs for feeding the hungry and homeless. At issue is an ordinance banning the feeding programs outside the city’s downtown district unless the groups _ mostly churches or church-sponsored agencies _ agree to pay a $1,000 fee to plead their cases before a zoning board.

The Rev. Patrick Wilson III, pastor of Trinity Baptist Church, one of congregations affected by the ordinance, said the city law limits the”ministry of the church to those things which may be convenient for a number of neighborhood residents”and that in writing the local law, the government not only attempted to regulate religious expression”but has audaciously proceeded to codify the very definition of what the church is.”At this moment, the operative definition of `church’ in the city of Richmond is as a place of `prayer and worship,'”Wilson said.

McEachin said his proposal is modeled after the national RFRA.

Like RFRA, the proposed statute says free exercise of religion cannot be restricted unless a government agency proves the restriction is non-discriminatory and is”essential to further a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering this interest.” In many ways, the bill’s supporters argue, the measure hearkens back to the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty, enacted before the U.S. Constitution and which was a main component in forging the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The Virginia statute and the Constitution’s later Bill of Rights _ created by Virginians Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and James Madison _ set in place America’s system of protection of religious liberty.

But it has also been modified to meet some of the criticisms that were leveled by government officials _ especially prison officials _ against the original RFRA.

As the state bill now stands, for example, prison inmates are not guaranteed the broad protection of religious expression as are other citizens, which supporters said is designed to prevent inmates from bringing frivolous lawsuits.

No date has been set for a vote on the proposal.

DEA END BRIGGS