Religious freedom bill awaits governor's signature

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Missouri would join a growing number of states taking steps to strengthen protections against government intrusions into religious practice under legislation waiting to be signed into law.

Shifting court interpretations that expanded the scope of the government's power to regulate religious practice in recent years prompted several states, including neighboring Illinois, to enact various versions of what is known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The Missouri Legislature overwhelmingly approved such legislation in May. Gov. Bob Holden hasn't said whether he will sign the bill and has through July 14 to take action.

The measure was sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Peter Kinder, R-Cape Girardeau, and would require state or local officials to demonstrate a "compelling state interest" to enforce laws affecting religion. Following an unpopular 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision, government must merely show a "rational basis" for a regulation to be constitutional under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.

More exceptions

University of Missouri law professor Carl Esbeck said the Missouri bill is largely similar to RFRA laws in other states, except that it carves out more exceptions than is typical for such measures.

Kinder's bill specifically states that religious belief cannot be invoked as a defense for injuring another person, carrying an illegal weapon, refusal to pay child support, violating someone's civil rights or failure to obtain medical treatment for a child with a life-threatening condition. The measure allow would allow the Department of Corrections to continue to enforce restrictions necessary to protect the safety and security of inmates.

Esbeck, an expert in First Amendment religious issues, said he doubts the bill, if signed into law, will have a significant impact on church and state relations. However, he foresees it heading off litigation over free exercise disputes by forcing officials to use more discretion in enacting regulations that could impact religion.

"The chances are accommodations that don't hurt anyone will probably be made that otherwise would be stiff-armed," Esbeck said.

It could also provide additional protections for adherents of emerging faiths who sometimes receive less government consideration than those who belong to more established denominations, Esbeck said.

Though the bill would hold government to the highest constitutional standard concerning religious issues, it wouldn't bar regulations shown to be necessary. To achieve its compelling state interest, however, government would have to pursue methods that aren't unduly restrictive under the circumstances.

The Rev. Dr. Clayton Smith of Centenary United Method Church in Cape Girardeau said the bill at the very least would affirm the constitutional protections Americans already enjoy.

"I think there are rare cases when the exercise of religious might need government restriction for the good of the commonwealth," Smith said. "But we have such great religious freedom in this country."

Groups representing various religious faiths pushed for the bill during the recent legislative session.

Gary Markenson, executive director of the Missouri Municipal League, said federal law already greatly limits the extent to which local governments can impose zoning regulations on churches, mosques and other religious institutions.

Some potential problems

He said the Missouri bill potentially could cause some problems for cities on certain issues, such as enforcement of noise ordinances, safety regulations or dress codes for public employees. However, he said, no city officials have expressed concerns about the bill to his group, which took no official stance on it.

On the whole, Markenson doesn't see the bill having a substantial impact as evidenced by committee testimony from proponents who struggled to cite examples of where a state or local law in Missouri unjustly infringed on religious practice.

"My thought is religious freedom is here, and we don't need to restore it," Markenson said. "Supporters had a terrible time coming up with reasons for this bill because we do have religious liberty. It is not threatened."

The bill is SB 12.

mpowers@semissourian.com

(573) 635-4608