The People for the American Way last year had an article up called 12 Rules for Mixing Religion and Politics by Peter Montgomery.
Rule Six is as you can see is " Government has a right to demand that religious institutions and individuals comply with reasonable regulation and social policy " .
They then go on to give a little history including the fact that they backed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was passed in 1993. In fact you can look at the statement and testimony of their President at the time in this transcript starting on page 52 where the Reverend Buchanan pushed for the COMPELLING Strict Scrutiny test. I spent some time reading that tonight before by chance I came upon these new articles .
"Reasonable" does not sound like the compelling interest test , but more like some form of intermediate scrutiny where the government goal must be "important" .In fact the Government goal has to be more than just " legitimate " or as some might call it " reasonable" to survive
Strict Scrutiny is when the government's purpose must br vital or "compelling," and the law must be shown to be "necessary" as a means to accomplishing the end. This requires proof that the law is the least restrictive or least discriminatory alternative. If it is not, then it is not "necessary" to accomplish the end. .
Rule Six to reflect what the the People for the American Way once backed should perhaps read " Religious institutions and individuals have a right to demand of Government to prove their interest is compelling and there is no alternative than to restrict their religious rights."
That sort of reads different of course , but I think its much more in line with the legislation they lobbied for in the early 90s.
I bring this up because of this article of theirs I just read Circuit Court Rejects Attack on Contraception Coverage.
I am not going to get into the corporate argument that is there since I think I have addressed that a good bit elsewhere. But at the end they reference another People for the American Way piece written a week by t . See Circuit Court Rejects Attack on Contraception Coverage where it was said :
Several months ago, People For the American Way Foundation released 12 Rules For Mixing Religion and Politics, a publication designed to generate conversation on how to create and sustain a civic space reflecting our nation's Constitution and the values of respectful discourse. One of those rules states:
Just where to draw the line is a question where reasonable people can disagree. The requirement to provide certain health insurance for your employees – not for yourself, but for people you hire in a business you place in the public stream of commerce – seems a reasonable one.
Again that is not the Restoration Act language or it's three prong test.
So is People for the American Way having second thoughts about legislation they once passed ? If so why and are there other " interest " perhaps at influence. If that is the case then who watches the "watchdogs" .