State RFRA Conf - reply to Marci

[Nicholas Miller]

        I think perhaps that Marci Hamilton misunderstands the central goal and
focus of the Georgetown state RFRA conference.  It is not meant to be a
debate regarding the "goodness" or "badness" of state RFRAs.  Rather, it
accepts the fact that state RFRAs are with us, presently in a few states and
probably more in the years to come, and it will attempt to assess the impact
and effect of these statutes.  If our intent were to debate the merits or
worth of such statutes, we would have chosen different presenters.

        As things stand, while the majority of the presenters are in favor of state
RFRAs, not all are.  But once again, because the issue is impact and not
merit, I think the balance is justified.  If we had chosen a more
contentious list in regards to the worth of RFRAs, the conference may have
lost its focus.  When a discussion is polarized as to some marginally
related, secondary issue, there is often a tendency to stake out more
extreme positions on the main issue than one would adhere to under more
reflective conditions.  While such encounters may make for lively debate and
good theater, the long term use and impact of the resultant product may be
minimized.

        A conference that debates the merits of state RFRAs has its own purposes,
certainly.  It is just a different kind of conference than the Council on
Religious Freedom is sponsoring.


        Nicholas P. Miller, Esq.
        Executive Director
        Council on Religious Freedom
        (301) 294-8766