I've read several articles today as related to Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and its applications. Interestingly, the history of this act is rooted in Native American religious practices and the protections of same. Numerous groups (liberal, conservative, evangelical, Christian, Jewish) came together in support of protecting religious rights from government intrusions and the act passed (virtually unanimously), being signed into law by Clinton.
Its reach, however, has been challenged on various occasions due to States' rights. Today, some 20 states have versions of RFRAs in place. These acts serve as avenues for folks with grievances so they may take their complaints to the courts on a solid basis. Often times the 1st Amendment isn't enough, so the RFRAs offer grounds for petitioning the courts for people who feel their religious liberties have been violated.
Most cases brought before the courts have been about the free exercise of religion (another interesting fact I've discovered is that Jewish, Muslim, and Native American religions comprised a disproportionately large percentage of the cases). Native Americans petition to save their land from the National Forest Service, Quakers have petitioned to be exempt from federal income taxes, while others have invoked RFRA to avoid social security numbers due as they invoke scripture (the “mark of the beast” from the Bible).
RFRAs are about the free exercise of religion. And in the majority of the cases, the plaintiffs have lost. But they have an avenue for their complaints; their grievances have a leg to stand upon. I, for one, cannot understand why we (as a nation based upon religious freedoms) would be so critical of restoring – or at the very least maintaining – those religious freedoms (even / especially if one’s religious preferences are counter to our own).
Christopher Massie
