Religious favoritism in Congress
The Religious Liberty Protection Act is special
legislation favoring religious groups over private individuals, businesses
and secular organizations.
Jim Senyszyn
It threatens the application of anti-discrimination
laws, work place codes of behavior, such as dress codes, public zoning
laws, child welfare laws, and the administration of prisons.
People can claim as a religious front organization
that certain races or groups are evil and should not be hired or housed.
Laws against such discrimination can be
construed as an "undue burden" on what is alleged to be religion. Recently
in Peoria, a so-called "church" disciple went on a killing spree.
Would a search of the church premises for
guns and explosives be an "undue burden?"
People can claim that dress codes prohibiting
clothing promoting religion such as "What Would Jesus Do?" shirts or other
paraphernalia at work are restrictive.
Would barring such displays by government-paid
election workers at the polls infringe on their religious beliefs?
RLPA is an attempt to overturn the 1997
U.S. Supreme Court decision, Boerne v. Flores, in which a church used the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act to evade local zoning restrictions.
Do people really want new mammoth-sized
churches and all the crowds and traffic in their neighborhoods?
It astounds me that Medicare and Medicaid
will pay for faith healing, even at a distance.
RLPA will allow gullible believers to go
one step further and not obtain professional medical care for their sick
children.
RLPA is an exercise in futility and will
be struck down as unconstitutional just like the original RFRA.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that RFRA
provided churches with a legal instrument that "no atheist" could hope
to obtain.
Jim Senyszyn is a computer programmer
in Peoria, Ill. |