Note: This is the opinion of the writer and not necessarily of the Kentucky New Era. Let the community know your opinion about this topic and others by submitting a "Letter to the editor."

Rep. John Tilley, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, will soon be given the opportunity to show his constituents in Christian and Trigg counties how he views religious freedom. House Bill 279 “The Religious Freedom Act” will be presented to his committee sometime within the next two weeks.

You may be scratching your head wondering why this is an issue. After all, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution already guarantees us religious freedom. The Establishment Clause guarantees us that there will never be an established, preferred American religion (denomination). In the Founding Fathers’ minds, the Free Exercise Clause guaranteed that basic Biblical principles and values would be present throughout public life and society. Both clauses restricted the actions of the federal government, but neither restricted the actions of citizens.

To understand why HB 279 is important to our way of life in Kentucky, we must become familiar with two terms that explain how religious freedom cases are handled before the courts: strict scrutiny and rational basis. Strict scrutiny was the legal standard for all religious freedom cases prior to 1990. The government first had to prove that there was a “compelling interest” and then once proved, it could use only the “least restrictive means” to protect that interest. In other words, an issue had to have an undeniable basis for action before government could act to curtail religious freedom. Rational basis means the government only has to have “a reason” to restrict religious freedom.

In the early 20th Century, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed and established strict scrutiny as the legal test that issues had to pass before government could restrict religious freedom. But in 1990 the court downgraded the protection of religious freedom when it ruled that government only needed “a reason” to limit religious freedom. This became known as the rational basis standard. Congress responded to the court’s decision in an overwhelming way in 1993 by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.                                                                    

RFRA restored the original strict scrutiny standard, which meant the federal government had to prove it had an authentic “compelling interest” before it limited anyone’s religious freedom.  That meant that once again the burden of proof fell upon the federal government and not the citizen.

It now is up to each state to reestablish the Strict Scrutiny standard for all matters regarding religious freedom. Twenty-six states have done so. The Kentucky legislature has not.

Unfortunately, the Kentucky Supreme Court decided on Oct. 25 to use the rational basis standard instead of the strict scrutiny standard when it interpreted the Zook et. al. vs. the Commonwealth of Kentucky case. This involved nine Amish men who would not display the required orange triangle on their buggies. They appealed the court to allow them to use an alternate method that would not violate their strongly held religious beliefs.

Justice Mary Noble wrote the majority opinion. The majority concluded “the statute is presumed constitutional unless there is no rational basis for  (the statute.)” Thus the majority upheld the decision to restrict religious freedom.

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Will T. Scott explained, “Employing a rational basis standard renders inconsequential Kentucky’s free exercise guarantee in that virtually any asserted government interest could justify laws ... substantially burdening individuals’ religious liberty.”

The Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision selected rational basis as the test to use when deciding religious freedom cases. It is now up to the legislature to act to re-establish the strict scrutiny test as the basis for deciding religious freedom cases that come before state and local courts in the commonwealth.

We are your cheering section, Rep. Tilley. Do the right thing. Your constituents expect it. Please allow the Religious Freedom Act to come out of committee and be voted upon by the whole House and then sent to the Senate.

Constituents can express their opinion to Tilley by calling the legislative message line at 800-372-7181. The receptionist can also copy a message to House and Senate leadership.

WILLEE COOPER is a former teacher and military spouse. A Hopkinsville resident, she is past president of the Kentucky Federation of Republican Women. Her column runs on the first and third Friday of each month. Reach her at willeecooper@gmail.com.

(1) comment

Reddit

Even as a firm atheist I can get behind the legitimacy of this bill. I do not believe that if the laws had not been ammended that we would be allowing horse drawn buggies in traffic without safety devices because anyone in the area can attest to the danger of running up on a buggy in the dark at highway speeds is still dangerous even with flashing lights and reflectors. The Amish deserve the right to believe as they will but just BECAUSE they are highly religious does not earn them a higher level of respect or extra rights than a person lacking faith should receive. It is funny how no matter how logically absurd a thought or action is, if it is tied to religion(particularly christianity) it garners automatic respect and it become a strict taboo to point out how humorous it actually is. If you are reading this and cannot make the connection in your mind then the google the gospel of the FSM or read about Russell's teapot.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.