President Signs Religious-Liberty Bill
Law says government must again prove compelling interest to curb free exercise of religion in land use, prisons, and hospitals.
By Tom Strod | posted 9/01/2000 12:00AM
2 of 2
RFRA, also supported by a broad coalition, was enacted in 1993 in order to remedy the 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, in which the Supreme Court rejected a previous requirement the government must show it has a "compelling interest" in restricting religious exercise and its action is the "least restrictive means" in furthering that interest. Instead, the high court said the government only must show a law is neutral toward religion. RFRA restored the "compelling interest/least restrictive" test, but the justices rejected the law in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision, ruling Congress exceeded its authority.
Copyright © Baptist Press
Related Elsewhere
Read more about the new religious liberty bill in the Los Angeles Times' "U.S. Restores Special Protections for Religious Groups" or in the Associated Press's "Clinton Signs Church Zoning Bill."
Previous Christianity Today stories about church zoning woes include:
Churches Reject 'Worship Tax' | (Sept. 6, 1999)
Permission Denied | Municipalities and neighbors are increasingly resistant to church construction and expansion. (April 28, 1997)
Supreme Court Ruling Due on Church Expansion Dispute | (April 28, 1997)
Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today. Click
for reprint information.
RSS Feeds
Audio
Twitter
share this page
E-mail
Print
Post
Subscribe to Christianity Today magazine today!
