Utah Legislation: Free public exercise of religion bill OK'd
February 1, 2007
Send this news item to a Friend
Sign-up for Daily News Updates
February 1, 2007
A government agency would have a hard time justifying any law or action that impeded a person's religious practices, under a bill passed by the Senate on Wednesday.
But opponents say the proposal is unnecessary and will only result in lawsuits that could now be avoided by applying existing law.
Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, has pushed his free exercise of religion bill because he became enraged when a student wearing a T-shirt with the Mormon slogan CTR (Choose the Right) was sent home from junior high.
He laments those who avoid saying "Merry Christmas" or singing of religious songs on government land.
"There isn't really in the public forum any freedom of religious expression," Buttars said.
The bill is similar to laws passed in 13 other states and will not allow prayer in schools or the display of the Ten Commandments on government property. But the legislation would require the state to handle lawsuits for impeding religious freedom.
The legislation requires the government to show "by a preponderance of the evidence" that its action furthers "an important government interest."
Buttars acknowledges the bill would give extreme religious groups a legal forum to push the boundaries of acceptable practices. His legislation will protect not only CTR shirts but devil worshiping shirts, too.
But Buttars did agree to tone down his bill at the request of the attorney general's office and Utah college administrators. The Senate amended the bill to reduce the level of evidence required of the government. The initial bill said the state must show that its action is "essential to further a compelling government interest." The bill now includes the less stringent "preponderance of the evidence" requirement.
That didn't satisfy Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake City, the chief opponent to the proposal.
"I really wonder if this bill is necessary," he said.
McCoy, an attorney, said the student should have a right to wear a CTR shirt and that problem could be handled by explaining a person's constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion. He believes the bill goes too far.
"This is a situation where a little finesse can solve the problem, instead of what I consider a fairly monumental change in the way the law will operate," he said. "My fear is we are giving a trump card to religious practices."
He said any group that fits the definition of a religion could challenge every state law, except for the criminal or penal code, which Buttars exempted from the bill. So if a religion had a problem with a zoning law or child welfare laws, they could challenge the state.
McCoy's argument did not sway his colleagues. The vote was 26-3.
