"Congress shall make no law prohibiting the Free Exercise of Religion...."

The Freedom of Religion Restoration Act of 1993, or RFRA—a landmark enactment designed to insure the future of religious liberty in the United States—was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 16. The act was supported by a broad coalition of over 50 organizations including Catholic, Jewish and Mormon groups, as well as the ACLU, and easily passed in both the Senate and the House. Ironically, RFRA was precipi­tated by a court case involving sacramental use of peyote cactus. But Native American activists charge its passage doesn't do anything to ensure Indians' exercise of their religious rights, Meanwhile, some adherents of the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church, or Rastafarians, who consider marijuana essential to the practice of their religion, see the prospect of a new legal door opening for protected use of herb.

RFRA was drawn up in response to a 1989 Supreme Court decision, Oregon Employment Division v. Smith, which ruled against two Oregon men seeking unemployment benefits they had been denied after being fired for ingesting peyote in a Na­tive American Church ceremony. RFRA is widely seen as having tremendous legal implications for persons requesting religious exemptions of all kinds—especially those who have lost in court as a result of the Smith decision, which lowered an im­portant legal standard.

Bill Clinton, upon signing RFRA, stated, "More than 50 cases have been decided against individuals making religious claims against government action since that decision was handed

down. This act will help to reverse that trend.... What this law ba­sically says is that the government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone's free exercise of religion."

As RFRA's title implies, the act simply restores, by codifying into federal law, the strict constitutional interpretation of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom, as set forth in federal cases prior to the Smith ruling. As stated in RFRA: "Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of reli­gion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person

(1) is in furtherance of a com­pelling government interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest." [emphasis added]

This "compelling interest" test was abandoned in the Smith case. While RFRA restores the "compelling in­terest" test, it leaves open the ques­tion: Does the government have a "compelling interest" to prevent the religious use of psychoactive drugs like peyote and marijuana?

Native Americans and Peyote

The history behind RFRA is fraught with irony, righteousness and hypocrisy.

While Congress was prompted to act by negative public reaction to the legal precedent set in a peyote case, Native rights are unlikely to be assisted in any meaningful way by RFRA, which was introduced by Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Al­though the act appears to overturn the Smith ruling, it is not clear whether the court would actually rule differently in a sim­ilar case involving peyote.

The Amish (who may no longer be forced to hang electric lights on horse-drawn buggies) and Jews and Hmong (who may prevent states from performing autopsies in violation of their be­liefs) clearly have cause for celebration. American Indians, how­ever, can only look to a long legacy of desecration of their sacred sites and rights, and hope to hold on to what few religious lib­erties they have left. Ironically, the framers of the US Constitu­tion and the Bill of Rights were greatly influenced by the success of the Great Law of Peace of the then-populous and powerful Iro­quois Confederacy. This ancient tradition still unites the Mo­hawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca and Tuscarora Na­tions in respect for the Creator and one another.

Suzan Shown Harjo, an eminent Native activist of Cheyenne/Hodulgee-Muscogee heritage and director of the Morningstar Foundation in Washington, DC, has no illusions about the state of Native religious rights in the US. Harjo claims RFRA's legislative history "specifically excludes Indians" from its benefits. She charges that the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, which lobbied for RFRA, "did not stop some negative Senate language, which covered everyone except Native people."

Her argument is supported by testimony given just prior to the vote by Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI): "There is the Senate committee report accompanying ¡RFRA] which indi­cates that Native American worship at sacred sites on federal land will not be protected by the act.... We have a long history of government oppression to correct when it comes to the religious freedom of Native Americans.'

"So RFRA doesn't do jack shit for us and that's why we need the Native American Free Exercise of Religion Act," says Harjo. "Our religious free­dom has never been a priority in America, and the persecution of our religions and the desecration of our religious sites has been a priority in America." NAFERA, recently intro­duced in the Senate by Inouye, would provide the broad protections de­manded by indigenous leaders, in­cluding sacred land rights, prisoner access to spiritual leaders and the right to use peyote in a Native cere­monial context. None of these are mentioned in RFRA.

"Seeing Native peoples as different and not human beings is not a recent phenomenon," says Tonya Cannella Frichner, an Onondaga and president of the American Indian Law Alliance in New York. Such attitudes date from "different popes issuing orders to Christianize the `savages.' Native peo­ple don't have large, ornate buildings. The Earth is our church, our altar. From the European per­spective. land is something to be owned and developed, wild and untamed. It wasn't wild and untamed to us." Frichner says she had contacted Rep. Stephen Solarz (D-NY), who introduced the original version of RFRA in the House, to discuss Native rights. "He didn't want to hear about it."

Prior to Clinton's signing of the bill, Harjo faxed the White House "and told them it was essential that a provident statement must be made, just very simply that the religious freedom agen­da isn't finished until it's concluded for Native peoples too." In his prepared (but not spoken) remarks, Clinton obliged by stat­ing that he looked forward to the time when Congress would send him such legislation. Meanwhile, ritual use of peyote and protection of sacred sites from government and corporate rape is still not written into any federal law.

Prisoners and Paradoxes

Prisoners almost lost out as well. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) proposed

an amendment to RFRA that would have denied all federal prisoners the strict scrutiny standard guaranteed by the act to litigants in religious freedom cases. -[L]ast year...we had...49,939 civil cases brought by prisoners," Reid stated on the Senate floor on October 16. "The prison­ers brag about how many lawsuits they file.... Inmates are litigious by nature.... Some man said he was in prison for child abuse because it was his religion." Reid buttressed his position with a letter signed by all 50 state prison directors. collec­tively responsible for 834,000 incarcerat­ed persons. But the amendment was de­feated 58-41, with the help of a letter from Attorney General Janet Reno. The story of RFRA is replete with para­doxes. Smith defendants Alfred Smith and Galen Black, both members of the Native American Church, were working as drug abuse counselors with a rehabilitation or­ganization when they were fired for ''mis­conduct." The peyote underpinnings of RFRA were not lost on the New York Times, which wrote, " first found it hard to rouse public con­cern about a case involving hallucino­genic drugs." -

Finally, it is significant that the Supreme Court chose to abandon the es­tablished "compelling interest" test in a case involving both Native rights and drug use.

Marijuana Legalese 101

Carl Olsen, a white Rastafarian and direc­tor of the fledgling Iowa NORML, is re­sponsible for more federal cases request­ing religious exemptions for marijuana than anyone else. In 1978 he was busted with 100 pounds, in 1979 with one pound and in 1980 for importing 21 tons of pot. In these cases, and in a separate civil law­suit filed against the DEA, Olsen asserted that his faith exempted him from the mar­ijuana laws, and that he was distributing the ginja to other practitioners of the Coptic Church.

Olsen's defense did not succeed. But, he notes, "the only people who've been suc­cessful in taking an argument about sacramental use of controlled substances through the courts basically have been the Native American Church and the Cop­tic Church." Olsen is preparing to file a new civil case in federal court. The key to his strategy can be found in Justice Scalia's majority opinion in the Smith case: If the 'compelling interest' test is to be must be applied across the board, to all actions thought to be reli­giously commanded.... Any society adopt­ing such a system would be courting an­archy.... The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally re­quired religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind—ranging from compulsory military the payment of taxes...drug laws, see, e.g., Olsen v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 279U.S.App.D.C. 1, 878 F.2d 1458 (1989)...

Olsen explains: "RFRA overturned that decision, and ]Scalia] said if that were to ever happen it would open the door to a constitutionally required exemption for me to use marijuana. How are they going to dodge that? I'm asking them to create an exemption and they can define it...just tell me where and when I can use it and I'll do that." Jah has smiled on Olsen be­fore. Due to an administrative error, he was let out of prison early after serving only two years of a five-year sentence. As in many decisions, the particular judgment rendered in the Smith case is not nearly as revealing as the opinions of the Justices.

Justice Blackmun. in his dissenting opinion in the Smith case joined by Jus­tices Brennan and Marshall, found that the defendants shouldn't have been de­nied unemployment benefits—but also found that the government has an interest in controlling substances which people may claim to be "sacraments." Blackmun wrote:

Almost half the states, and the Federal Government IDEA] have maintained an exemption for religious peyote use.... Al­lowing an exemption for peyote use would not necessarily oblige the State to grant a similar exemption to other religious groups.... Some religions...might not re­strict drug use to a limited ceremonial context, as does the Native American Church. See e.g., Olsen, ("the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church...teaches that mari­juana is properly smoked 'continually all day"). drugs such as which there is sig­nificant illegal would be diffi­cult to grant a religious exemption with­out seriously compromising law enforce­ment efforts.

After all, Rasta might suddenly become the most popular religion in America.