ILLINOIS DABBLES WITH RELIGIOUS RIGHTS

In Illinois, state senators have been considering a bill that would bar state and local governments from interfering with a person's right to practice religion. The need is questionable for such a state law, which is modeled on a 1993 federal law that was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the case of the 1993 law, the Supreme Court said Congress wasn't permitted to expand on the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion. But, the court said, states could pass laws to ensure religious rights.

Why?

The First Amendment, often considered the bedrock of liberty in America because it also protects free speech and the right of assembly, has exerted a strong influence in the development of this nation. Efforts to minimize the protections of this amendment or to exert more influence than necessary -- as in certain church-state issues such as religious displays on courthouse lawns or the use of public buildings for worship services -- have been handled by federal courts without the need for state-court intervention.

More than that, laws such as the proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Illinois that purport to expand on the First Amendment always seem to find a way to add new limits of some sort. For example, the proposed Illinois law would permit restricting certain religious practices if a "compelling government interest" could be shown. Who wants government deciding which practices to permit and which have some compelling government interest?

The First Amendment has been a model unparalleled in any other country. It would be better if Illinois didn't fiddle with it.