The Haunting

A specter is haunting the world — the specter of Religious Protection Laws.
This specter takes many forms. Immediately after the International Religious
Freedom Act SB1868 was passed by the United States Congress, its perpetrators
bombarded the various state legislatures with further bills at the state level
with nice sounding names like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Arizona
SB1391 was properly defeated in the Senate Judiciary Committee, but its
proponents resurrected it as a strike everything amendment to
SB1056¹. Arizona legislators have learned well from our federal
legislators. When they cannot pass a bill, they rename it and/or give it another
number. Some of the Arizona legislators say they do not know the source of this
bill, but they say it has the distinctive odor of Washington, DC. SB1056 was
signed into law on May 19, 1999.

The principal problem with the RFRA is that courts will have no
choice but to allow all kinds of activities to become approved in the name of
freedom of religion. Some perverse groups claim that the tenets of their
religion require or allow them to perform deviant sexual acts. They could claim
protection under this bill, and others could “form their own church” in an
attempt to avoid prosecution for their acts. Some supporters claim that the RFRA
attempts to shield religious practice from unnecessary governmental influence.
That may be true in some respects, but its likely results rather than its
alleged intent must judge the bill. We severely suspect the intentions of its
proponents and supporters.

One can reasonably ask, “Why do we find good and decent people
supporting the RFRA? Why are they being taken in by this act?” The answer is
“watch the bottom line or the money trail.” The celebrity Christians are using
it to raise money. Charles W. Colson² of Justice Fellowship states:
“The battle for religious liberty is on, but we need your help in raising
$433,000 before June 30th in order to stay on track to win passage of the
Religious Liberty Protection Act.” Others are doing the same. Christians are
being overwhelmed by these activities. With the state RFRA (SB1056) and the
federal RLPA (HR1691) — there is not a dime?s worth of difference. The
essential wording of the two bills is identical.

Arizona law³ defines: “Exercise of religion means
the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a
religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a
larger system of religious belief.” This is a wide-open definition that would
cover everything including [witchcraft] illicit drug use, religious traditions
of whale worship, or even polygamy. Anyone could claim their acts are a practice
of their religion, and those acts would be classified as an exercise of religion
using this language. Many non-profit organizations have the same legal structure
as neighborhood churches. Even human sacrifices would not be excluded under
these definitions, and the state would be required to prove a “compelling”
interest to prevent such activities. (It is interesting to note that recently
the United States military has legally granted the right for the practice of
witchcraft by American troops on American bases. Indeed, witchcraft is
especially practiced at Fort Hood Army Base and numerous articles and a special
segment on ABC World News have documented it.)

Subsection A, states: “Free exercise of religion is a
fundamental right that applies in this state even if laws, rules or other
government actions are facially neutral.” Subsection B, states: “Except as
provided in Subsection C, government shall not substantially burden a persons
exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general
applicability.” Subsection C states: “Government may substantially burden a
persons exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the
burden is both: (1) In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. (2)
The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental
interest.”

Herb Titus, founder and President of Forecast Foundation, says
the RLPA fails to define the key terms “compelling governmental interest” and
“least restrictive means,” and the Supreme Court has not defined the terms. With
these bills, their meaning is left in the hands of judges who would be free to
make policy. It places in the hands of judges the power to determine the
nations religious liberty policies without meaningful guidance from Congress.
Compelling governmental interest has proved to be a malleable tool enabling
judges to decide legal cases in whatever way a given judge believes to be in the
best interests of society. This is clearly an unconstitutional delegation of
power to the judiciary. Titus tells us that RLPA has failed in NH and VA once a
few of the legislators were informed of this legal weakness.

Congressman Ron Paul (R, Texas) in a July 14, 1999, press
release states “Of course, that compelling interest is not defined, so it could
be literally anything.” He goes on to say that such loose language gives
bureaucrats and the courts near-free reign over religious exercise in the United
States. He also tells us that one of the staunchest supporters of the RLPA is
the liberal Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Ron Paul is
voting against the measure, so that he can ensure our religious liberties.

Arizona’s RFRA states that a person whose religious exercise is
burdened may assert that violation as a claim of defense in a judicial
proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. A party who
prevails in such action shall recovery attorney fees and costs. This power to
sue would weaken the rights of the states and local governments, which would
then become hostage to the demands of that person on behalf his alleged burden.
Most courts have the discretion to award attorney fees to those who successfully
sue the state. SB1056 makes the award mandatory. There would be an unjustified
substantial fiscal impact from class action lawsuits and subsequent attorney
fees and costs. This would be a rape of the taxpayers of the state of Arizona,
and this is not a proper use of our taxpayers money.

Abusive legal action under the Freedom of Access to Clinic
Entrances Act (FACE Act) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO Statutes) have already crippled pro life groups like Operation Rescue,
and it can only get worse. The FACE Act is not supposed to prohibit peaceful
picketing or counseling, but you will have a hard time convincing those who have
been manhandled by federal marshals and local police for doing just that. They
have faced physical assault, jail or prison time, and draconian punitive action.
The lure of treble damages under the RICO Statutes is sufficient to file
lawsuits for insufficient reasons.⁴ The Wall Street Journal, May 3,
1989, said “Christic lawyer, Daniel Sheehan filed a $24 million suit that
labeled as racketeers people the left simply disagrees with…”

It is difficult to ascertain how many state legislatures are
working on the RFRA, but we have found at least eighteen states in material from
the Home School Legal Defense Association, which unfortunately favored it.
Similar bills passed in six states and were proposed in 17 or more. ⁵
There is great pressure from behind-the-scenes power groups to restrict the
states and local governments from dealing with anything relating to religious
practices. States are being asked to surrender their power to deal equitably
with their citizens, and to submit to federal laws that would victimize the
states. States are to be prohibited from dealing with tax exempt pseudo
religious power groups that wish to carry out their social agendas in the name
of religious freedom. Any of the well-organized perversion lobbies could posture
itself as a group with religious goals and activities. Let us now look at our
national policy on perversion.

Consider how our laws have changed since the release of the
infamous and fraudulent 1948 Alfred Kinsey report entitled “Sexual Behavior in
the Human Male.” His fraudulent research⁶ shook Americans
foundations and launched the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. The American Law
Institute, known as the educational arm of the American Bar Association, adopted
the Model Penal Code in 1995. This Model Penal Code, written by Professor
Herbert Wechsler of Columbia University, was developed entirely from the Kinsey
Report. It was distributed to state legislatures, and the legal protections of
our nation were abolished at an alarming rate. The Kinsey Report data was
derived primarily from interviews with homosexuals, pedophiles, pederasts,
convicts, pimps and other sexually aggressive males whom he recruited at
homosexual bars and bathhouses. Alfred Kinsey himself was a child abuser. Much
of Kinseys data came from a habitual pedophile named Rex King. King was a
predatory pervert, a US government land examiner, who traveled about Arizona,
New Mexico and the Southwest. King molested as many as 800 boys and girls over
many years. Some of these children were as young as three months of age. Kings
acts were so despicable and grossly offensive that we shall not attempt to
detail them in this report.

There is a not well known organization known as the North
American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) which seeks to eliminate all laws
regarding the age of sexual partners. NAMBLA has been a direct beneficiary of
the sexual revolution, and they could easily organize its members and structure
its own church in order to avoid prosecution for their foul deeds. Only the
limits of their imaginations would restrain them from using these RFRA
protections, which are now law in several states.

Let us examine the results of the RFRA as it effects the
interest of states in drug control laws. Arizona members of the Native American
Church (NAC) claim about 70,000 members on the Navajo Reservation and as many as
250,000 nationwide. These members assert that ingesting the hallucinogenic
mescaline from peyote (mescal cactus buttons) results in mental and physical
effects that allow members to commune with God.⁷ Congress granted an
exemption to the NAC under the Native American Religious Freedom Act to use this
illicit drug without fear of prosecution for possession and use of the drug.
Vice-president Victor Clyde of the NAC of Navajo Land, AZ, wants laws tough
enough to prevent non-members from obtaining peyote for their own non-religious
purposes. What would prevent others from organizing as a church in order to
protect them from prosecution and incarceration for use of illicit drugs?
According to a well-known saying, “You aint seen nothing yet.” What is next?
Some may use the RFRA to challenge existing laws regarding nudity, public
decency, health and sanitation.

Next, let us examine the results of the RFRA as it effects the
interest of states in controlling hunting, fishing and the environment in
general. States and local governments need to control such activities, in the
public interest, without the need to prove that they are “compelled” to do so.
The Makah Indian Tribe in Seattle, WA, is guaranteed whaling rights under their
1855 treaty — the only Indian treaty to contain such a provision.⁸
Nancy Vineberg of the American Jewish Committee of Seattle says the backlash
against the Makah Indians resulted from what people said were contradictions
between the lives Indians lead today and their ancient traditions, and that this
could be said about any religious group in this country. She also said that we
hold onto our religious traditions because they give our lives meaning. Janine
Bowechop, executive director of the Makah Museum, says that whales have been
central to the Makah culture for thousands of years. The Makah honor the whales
for their sacrifice, and they consider the relationship to be one of mutual
respect. Will Congress now find a necessity to grant an exemption under a “Makah
Indian Religious Freedom Act,” or will they say that the treaty is valid (many
opponents suggest otherwise) so the Makah can have their special privileges.
Radical environmentalists have been threatening Indian children in school,
calling death threats to tribal leaders, and bearing protest signs such as “Save
the whales, kill a Makah.” States, in the public interest, need to be able to
control such matters without having to prove there is a “compelling” state
interest.

The RFRA does not restore religious freedom, but it allows
certain heinous activities and licentiousness in the name of religious freedom.
States that Pass RFRA will find themselves haunted by a brilliantly evil scheme
to promote international law by destroying local law. It strips states and local
governments of their tenth amendment authority, and cripples their ability to
govern. It makes the states subservient to federal and international agencies in
order that their social agendas may be implemented. States are asked to abdicate
their sovereign powers ? to surrender their trust, duties, rights and control of
their own destiny. They are asked to permit the 14^th amendment (equal
protection) to replace the 10th amendment (states rights). They are asked to
exchange their powers for a mess of pottage, and they accept this with hardly a
whimper. We must not allow this to happen. We must fight these efforts on every
front.

The RFRA is not a good law, and it should be repealed in every
state in which it has passed. All other states should head off the RFRA and not
allow it to pass.

End Notes:
[1] Arizonas RFRA (SB1056). Read the full text of http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/44leg/1r/bills/sb1056h.htm” target=”_blank
[2] Letter from Charles W. Colson dated June 8, 1999, toJustice Fellowship Partners.
[3] Arizona law regarding the RFRA is found in Section 1, Title 41,Chapter 9, Article 9 of Arizona Revised Statutes, specifically, Article 9,41-1493, 41-1493.01, and 41-1493.02.
[4] Dr. Susan Huck, Legal Terrorism, The truth about the ChristicInstitute. New World Publishing, Ltd., Copyright 1989.
[5] Email message dated Tuesday, April 6, 1999, from THSC staff toTexas Home Schoolers. Proposed states include AL, AZ, CT, FL, HI, IL, LA, MA,MD, MI, MO, NM, NY, OR, RI, SC, TX and VA. The acts have passed in AL, CT, FL,IL, NM and RI. The act was defeated in VA and TN and was tabled until next yearin HI. The SC House and the TX Senate passed it.
[6] “Fighting the Kinsey Fraud,” The New American, May 24, 1999, aninterview of Dr. Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Educationand author of Kinsey, Sex and Fraud published in 1990.
[7] “Peyote distributors dwindling — Native American Church fearsloss of drug,” The Arizona Republic, May 17, 1999.
[8] “Venom aimed at tribe alarms Seattle Churches — Makah killedwhale in ceremony,” The Arizona Republic, May 22, 1999.