The NJ Senate Judiciary Committee held public hearings on the proposed "NJ
Religious Freedom Act" today (S-321).

Those who presented testimony were the bill's Assembly Sponsors (Singer,
Weingarten) and several religious groups (in support), and the National Trust
for Historic Preservation, Preservation New Jersey, the Advocates for New
Jersey History, Professor Christopher Eisgruber, NYU Law School, and, by
letter, the NJ League of Municipalities and the NJ Historic Trust (in
opposition).

Committee members questioned the sponsors on the concerns expressed by the
history community -- zoning and historic preservation regulations governing
historic houses of worship, as well as health, safety, and building code
enforcement against religious congregations, among others.  Although the
sponsors said that it "was never the bill's intent" to exempt or excuse
religious organizations or individuals from this kind of regulation, in fact,
there is nothing in the bill that even suggests that more liberal line of
thinking -- not even in the legislative notes that follow the text of the
bill.

In light of the concerns that were raised by the opponents, the Committee has
suggested that language be inserted in the bill that would address those
concerns. It expects to send out the proposed language to all the hearing
participants within the week, and has put the amended bill down for
reconsideration at a meeting in the near future.

A representative from the National Trust who was at the hearings said that at
least NJ appeared to be somewhat thoughtful about the zoning and historic
preservation implications -- in contrast to Congress on the federal RFRA.
There is no guarantee that this thoughtfulness will prevail, however.

If the Committee can't arrive at "acceptable" language (a very difficult
task), maybe, just maybe, it will fail.

There are now 4 states around the country who are wrestling with this type of
legislation -- each one having language identical to the other.  Interesting,
huh?  Now, who do you suppose is the wizard behind the curtain . . .?

Mary Krugman