August 11 1997

ARTICLE TOOLS

Find similar articles E-mail this page

In 1993, a broad-based coalition of national leaders helped the ReligiousFreedom Restoration Act (RFRA)—which limited governmentregulation of religious expression—become law.

But in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's June 25 ruling overturning rfra,the formerly close-knit coalition shows signs of fraying, as members bickerover what they should do now. Some say the emphasis should be on new federallegislation, while others support local and state laws, and still otherslobby for a constitutional amendment. "My concern right now is whether thecoalition can stay together," says Steven McFarland, director of the ChristianLegal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom.

About the only point anyone agrees on is that the high court chipped awayat believers' constitutionally guaranteed rights when it ruled 6 to 3 infavor of Boerne, Texas. The city had used local historic preservation lawsto prohibit Saint Peter the Apostle Church from renovating its 74-year-oldbuilding for its growing Catholic congregation(CT, April 28, 1997, p. 76).

"The provisions of the federal statute here invoked are beyond congressionalauthority," wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. "It is this court's precedent,not RFRA, which must control."

RAMPANT REBUKES: Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Scientologists,and Americans United for Separation of Church and State quickly condemnedthe Court's decision, which could make it harder for parents to exempt theirchildren from offensive classes or for prisoners to participate in Biblestudies.

"The religious liberty of every American is in peril," says Baptist JointCommittee on Public Affairs general counsel J. Brent Walker.

"Every religious person in the United States will be hurt by this decision,[which] ...