Religious Freedom Restoration Act

747 Words3 Pages

Mohammed Hadi
US government
Patricia A Crouse
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act has been signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993. Since that time the bill has become a controversial issue for many dissented. It has had a deal of amendments, the last of which was approved in March, 2015. The main goal of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is to provide the liberty of exercise of any religion. It refers to all the religions, however it can be considered the most proper for religions of Native Americans. The religion of Native Americans presupposes that land is a sacred thing, and certain ceremonies should be held only in particular areas. One more ambiguous issue connected with the Native American …show more content…

That is the reason why this act has its own peculiarities in many states. For example, Religious Freedom Restoration Act of Indiana which was approved in March, 2015 has raised a wave of protests. The gist of the law is that government should not interfere in any businesses of citizens, or organizations which are related with practice of any religion. The opponents of the bill claim that this law justifies LGBT discrimination. And it should be pointed, their fear is not groundless. The evidence of this can be the case which has happened in a small town of Indiana. A family couple of pizzeria owners refused to serve the same-sex couple, explaining that it contradicts to their religion. Soon after this case the couple was forced to close their pizzeria because of lack of guests, however it was their decision, that could not be influenced by any state authority. In my point of view, the government actually should take some measures in order to not discriminate any citizens. Nevertheless nowadays, it is obvious that according to the regulations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of Indiana it is difficult to strike a balance between religious freedom with protection of civil rights and civil liberties. In accordance with the First Amendment, “free exercise” means a freedom to practice any religion, including less mainstream ones and no religion at all ("What Does "free exercise" of Religion Mean under the First Amendment?").The government is also forbidden to establish state churches or to refer one religion over another. However, once again, despite the fact that all the religions are under protection, they still be under one up to that moment when they become dangerous for the society on the whole, and to its professors, in