Free Exercise of Religion act

[Tom Trail <ttrail@moscow.com>]

>Visionaries--The Idaho Free Exercise of Religion Act which passed the last
>session but will not
go into effect until February 1st will continue to be a topic of
discussion.   Sen. Schroeder and I
have drafted a bill to repeal the law.  Under current provisions of the law
someone from the Aryan Nation claiming the "right" of religious freedom
could defend his right to hire only whites from
the Aryan National rolls or rent apartments to this exclusive group.  This
all under the name of
religous freedom which would circumvent our hard won civil rights.

I thought you'd be interested in the following letter from Jon Brown,
Methodist Minister, about
the FERA.

Rep. Tom Trail/Dist. 5

>
>Dear colleagues and media:
>Attached is an opinion piece addressing the Idaho Free Exercise of Religion
>act.  This attached version is in plain text for your convenience.  In a
>second E-mail is an editorial written by Marci Hamilton, the national expert
>on this legislation.  Read and distribute, please.
>For the First Amendment,
>Jon Brown
>
>It isn't complicated; it is just confusing!  Last week, an Idaho Statesman
>reporter said Idaho's Free Exercise of Religion law was complicated.  I
>beg to differ.  Rather, I think it's supporters and sponsors have done a
>good job of confusing the public..  They keep talking about how much this
>law is needed -- but also how it is, at the same time, innocuous, and
>harmless!  Now, that IS confusing, to say the least
>
>They claim that this law does not do anything more than restore religion
>to its prior and stronger status.  That sounds conservative.  But the law
>is in fact quite radical.  And the US Supreme Court debunked this claim in
>a key 1997 decision.
>
>This misrepresentation that the new standards merely codify prior law has
>led legislators into dangerous new territory.  In other states, when
>legislators have understood that the strict scrutiny tests of "most
>compelling interest" and "least restrictive means" take us into altogether
>new legal waters, they have backed off.
>
>For example.  The Association of State Correctional Administrators
>Newsletter reported about the Religious Freedom Act, and its impact on
>prisons.  Here are some excerpts:
>	FLORIDA - "Since the enactment of RFRA, inmates have attempted to
>use the provisions to challenge the Department on any alleged religious
>tenet and often questionable religious tenets."
>	TEXAS - "... the corrections demands would again feel the pressure
>and burden from religious demands set forth by the inmates; and, from a
>legal standpoint, we would not have a leg to stand on in the course of any
>litigation brought about by (this new bill)."
>	IDAHO - "(Under the new version) There will be more demands by
>inmates who use religious claims to single themselves out for what they
>perceive as preferential treatment....  Security issues will inevitably be
>compromised."
>	NEW YORK - "During its existence, RFRA cost the State of New York
>millions of dollars..."
>
>Some of the key backers in Idaho have their own interests.  For example,
>one wants to protect the LDS confessional.  But through this law he has
>provided religious protection to all men that sexually abuse and neglect
>children.  Key backers, having already excluded clergy from having to
>report child abuse and neglect, say that men, particularly religious men,
>are wrongly accused of these criminal acts.  But in the state of Idaho,
>with the highest child abuse rate in the US, it is not the men who need
>protection.
>
>Other special interests include the desire to restore the physical abuse
>of children in the schools, or "corporal punishment," outlawed now in
>Idaho.   Some supporters are very upset that the state shut down a school
>for such infliction of physical punishment.  It was all done in the name
>of religion, in a Christian school, under the rubric of Godly obedience.
>Do we want this protected?
>
>Another area is the denial of equal protection to women.  Remember, "wives
>be subject to your husbands"?  One supporter awarded employment benefits
>to his full time male church staff, while denying them to his full time
>secretary, who happened to be female.  When she objected, she was
>summarily dismissed.  Do we want to make this practice acceptable under
>Idaho law?
>
>And it's a nightmare in local government affairs.  Across the country,
>cities and counties find their hands tied and their budgets threatened by
>costs of litigation in matters affecting zoning, historic preservation,
>and nuisance compliance.
>
>Free enterprise will be burdened by creating an unlevel playing field.
>It is made unfair as some claim exemption from regulations that other
>competitors have to meet, such as employment law, ordinance compliance,
>and commercial code compliance.
>
>So in real life, this is a mess.
>
>This is not a return to a legal standard that represents our honorable
>past.  Far from it.  This is a radical turn into new legal ground that
>takes us into divisive, litigious and dangerous territory.  It will be an
>embarrassment to religion, and bad law for Idaho.
>
>I urge you to write your legislators to support the repeal of this
>dangerous law.
>
>Rev. Jon Brown
>Methodist minister-at-large
>
>1
>

Dr. Tom Trail
International Trails
1375 Mt. View Rd.
Moscow, Id. 83843
Tel:  (208) 882-6077
Fax:  (208) 882-0896
e mail ttrail@moscow.com