The Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1998 and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993--what do they have in common?
The congressionally defeated Religious Freedom Amendment (RFA) was an obvious attempt to amend the constitutional impact of the religion clauses of the First Amendment. All subsequent Religious Freedom Restoration Acts in the states and the Religious Liberty Protection Act in Congress are deliberate and deceptive attempts by misdirected politicians and organizations to establish religion by law--to establish religious activities, actions, and exercises as exempt from or within the protection of civil law. They are attempts to amend the clearly stated intent of the Constitution by using the Free Exercise Clause as a way to overcome the Establishment Clause. These attempts are based upon a misreading, a distortion, and a misunderstanding of the religion clauses of the First Amendment. They are attempts to make the laws of America accommodate the religious practices of groups and individuals. They are attempts to use the power of government to impose religion upon all Americans, especially when on public property and in public institutions which are owned by citizens of all religious persuasions. They are attempts to use the power of law to destroy the right of every American to be free from religious tyranny--which is, specific action, in the name of religion, imposed upon all Americans and stamped with the approval of law and government. Even some current justices on the Supreme Court of the United States are attempting to prostitute the Free Exercise Clause and ignore the unanimous and clearly stated opinions of earlier Court decisions (Reynolds v. U.S., 1879; Davis v. Beason, 1890). The issue in debate, then, is the attempt to establish religious actions as exempt from civil law, which is the real purpose of RFA, RFRA, and RLPA.
The word "religion" in the Establishment Clause can be understood correctly, contextually, and constitutionally only in its broad meaning. In America "religion" shall not be established by law, and the Free Exercise Clause does not nullify the "Congress shall make no law respecting" prohibition. The two clauses are not in conflict. Therefore, congressional attempts to pass RFRA and RLPA are not acceptable because they violate the spirit of the religion clauses (religious civility in an America where all religious opinions are welcome) and are a direct violation of the "no law" provision.
The specific wording of the religion clauses as accepted by the Joint Senate-House Conference Committee (1789), by the First Congress (1789), and by the state legislatures (1791) is just fine for real conservatives (those who say do not change the wording) and strict constructionists (those who accept the words as written). The word in the Establishment Clause is "no"-- Congress shall make "no" law, and the word in the Free Exercise Clause is "prohibiting"--not abridging or restricting or limiting. The exercise of religion cannot be prohibited (which means totally), but action can be restricted to the civil laws of the land regardless of personal opinion as to the ethical or religious significance of the action (Reynolds v. U.S., Davis v. Beason, Employment Division v. Smith, Flores v. Boerne). The Constitution does not authorize anarchy in the Free Exercise Clause which protects only those actions which are in harmony with the laws of society.
Besides being political and unnecessary meddling in matters of religion and because religious opinion is already totally free, RFRA and RLPA are obvious attempts to exempt (in the name of "religion" and the "free exercise thereof") actions from the jurisdiction of civil law by stipulating that actions in the name of religion cannot be restricted. The below is quoted from H.R.4019 and S.2148, June 9, 1998 (as located at the following URL-- http://www.hslda.org/nationalcenter/alerts/rlpa/docs/hr4019.pdf:)
SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF RELIGIOUS EXERCISE. (a) GENERAL RULE- . . . government shall not substantially burden a person's religious exercise . . . even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. . . . (c) FUNDING NOT AFFECTED-Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the United States to deny or withhold Federal Financial assistance as a remedy for a violation of this Act. . . .
SEC. 5. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. (a) RELIGIOUS BELIEF UNAFFECTED. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious belief. (b) RELIGIOUS EXERCISE NOT REGULATED. Nothing in this Act shall create any basis for regulation of religious exercise or for claims against a religious organization, including any religiously affiliated school or university, not acting under color of law. (c) CLAIMS TO FUNDING UNAFFECTED-Nothing in this Act shall create or preclude a right of any religious organization to receive funding or other assistance from a government, or of any person to receive government funding for a religious activity. . . .
SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Act--(1) the term ‘religious exercise’ means an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the act or refusal is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.
RLPA defines "religious exercise" in terms of "religious belief." RLPA is not dealing merely with opinions or beliefs; it is an obvious attempt by revisionist and theocratic politicians in Congress to establish religion as above civil law and to exempt actions based on religious belief from the authority of civil law--a departure from the American principle as to the rule of civil law being applied to all and a violation of the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" prohibition in the First Amendment.
Moreover, the RLPA of 1998 specifically abolishes the principle of civil law being applicable to every citizen in cases where the action is claimed to be a religious exercise. Section 2. (a).: "A government may substantially burden a person's religious exercise if the government demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—-(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest." What a repudiation of the principle that religion is not the business of government! The RLPA would have public officials, judges, and justices involved in determining whether or not a particular "religious exercise" or action wasto be allowed, the very danger (government involvement) from which the Establishment Clause protects us. The essence of this paragraph emphasizes that the compelling governmental interest is to uphold and enforce the criminal and civil laws of society. Therefore, the only "compelling governmental interest" which government needs to demonstrate is this: The action, did it or did it not violate the law?
Yes, a restriction, limitation, or abridgment is indeed a prohibition in conformity with the civil and criminal laws of the land; but, it is not a total prohibition. The Constitution does not say that the exercise of religion cannot be restricted, limited, or abridged; it says that the exercise of religion, the broad definition, cannot be prohibited (which means totally). Of course, there are individual and specific actions which can be prohibited (polygamy, peyote chewing, etc.) according to the laws of society. If you do not like the laws, you work to change them. If you do not like the Constitution, you work to amend it. In the meantime, you believe whatever you will; but, you obey the laws of the land. Otherwise, we have anarchy. The First Congress thoroughly debated an acceptable wording for the religion clauses and, after many proposals, the result was two clauses in perfect harmony. The First Congress knew the difference between "prohibiting" and "abridging"; it did not apply "abridging" to the exercise of religion. Therefore, in accordance with the words of the Constitution, we the people of all faiths and none will make (through our representatives) the laws by which all Americans are to peacefully abide--that is not terrorism or tyranny, it is the American way. As Benjamin Franklin said, the Constitution may not be perfect; but, it is the best ever created. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands.
The RLPA is an unnecessary and dangerous can of worms. The First Congress said all that needs to be said regarding the relationship between religion and government. Religion is not to be established by law, and the Free Exercise Clause is not a license for anarchy. Stop the congressional RLPA and all RFRA legislation in the various states.
For example, the state of Texas is now attempting to pass legislation known as
the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The proposed Texas RFRA, like the
congressional RFRA of 1993, is based upon an erroneous understanding of the
religion clauses of the First Amendment. It is even being promoted by a University
of Texas law professor,
If there is one principle upon which America stands, it is the rule of law; and, the supreme law is the Constitution for the United States of America. The Constitution does not place religion above the law. In America, "we the people" make the laws at every level of government; and, everyone is to obey the law, regardless of religious opinion. In 1802 President Thomas Jefferson wrote that "the legitimate powers of government reach actions . . . and not opinions," and in 1879 the Supreme Court of the United States clearly understood the distinction between actions and opinions when it unanimously ruled--in a free exercise case (Reynolds v. U.S.): "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."
Efforts by frustrated religious bodies to reestablish religion into the laws of the land have been with us from the beginning. In his essay "Monopolies," James Madison wrote: "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." The danger obviously continues, and the people of Texas should reject the RFRA legislation. Laws are to apply to all citizens equally, and no state should be required to bend or defend any law in order to accommodate religion.
Acknowledge, then, the wisdom of the specific words in the religion clauses as finally chosen by the majority in the First Congress, admit the existence of freedom and prosperity for religion in America, thank the Supreme Court of the United States for the 1879 Reynolds and 1890 Davis decisions, support the supremacy of civil law, uphold Matthew 6:5-6, and leave the First Amendment alone.