An Urgent need for an RFRA Amendment

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 is a United States federal law aimed at preventing the creation and use of legislation that substantially burdens a person’s free exercise of religion.  The Act states that “the Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” Even if a law is considered to be “neutral” with regard to religion it may, by its application, conflict with the religious duties of certain groups or individuals.

What many Adventists do not realize is that the Seventh day Adventist Church was one of many religious groups that advocated for the passage of the RFRA legislation in 1993. This is due to the fact that Seventh day Adventists from the mainstream G.C. SDA Church have been actively and successfully opposing any threat of Sunday Law legislation in the United States.

However, the RFRA federal law only prevents the U.S. government (as much as possible) from burdening a person's religious convictions or religious observances, but it does not protect citizens, groups, pastors or churches from the same threat of lawsuits initiated by private parties, whether individuals or corporations.

Seventh day Adventists, as U.S citizens and workers, are now protected by the federal RFRA law, with regard to Sabbath worship since this it will stop the U.S government from demanding that SDA employees work on Sabbath. The SDA Church advocated and supported this legislation in 1993 for fear of future persecution, but now this ecclesiastical organization has become something very different from the so called remnant church of God; instead of being a victim of persecution it has become a religious persecutor.

For those who do not  know what is taking place, the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference has been initiating civil lawsuits, as a private party, against many Adventists (Adventist groups and churches) that are faithful to their religious convictions and using the name of their faith, yet are not members of the SDA mainstream organization. These civil, but cruel persecutions, have continued from 1986 to this day, and the uncertainty about how or when the 1993 RFRA law can  be applied as a defense has facilitated their victory in many courts.

The prosecutions began with small groups and churches in order to form legal precedents. This has allowed the General Conference to successfully sue larger and larger Adventist bodies. All these prosecutions have led to persecution: the confiscation of property, costly fines, and imprisonment for those who felt they could not conscientiously give up the name “Seventh-day Adventist”. As Adventists they believe it is a divinely ordained name and a public testimony of their faith and identity.

The RFRA legislation, and thus the Constitutional Clause of Free Exercise, only seems to protect the "official" SDA members from the government, but it cannot protect the liberty of conscience of those Adventists who are being sued by that private party, the G.C. Corporation of SDAs, which (notably) includes all its membership as plaintiffs in its lawsuits, and uses the tithes that it receives from these members to initiate and pay for these lawsuits without their knowledge or consent.

Today, anyone who publicly teaches the Gospel of Christ, the Three Angels' Message of Rev 14, or any other message under the names "Adventist" or "Seventh day Adventist" (or even "Seventh Day" in the peculiar case of "Creation Seventh day Adventists") will be threatened and sued sooner or later by the G.C. Corporation of Seventh day Adventists if they persist in obeying the dictates of conscience and rejecting their authority.

The limitations of the current RFRA law can also affect individuals of other faiths and beliefs. If they use, in good conscience, certain names related to their faith or identity that have been, or will be trademarked by other religious corporations or individuals for private use, the RFRA cannot protect them.  The RFRA does not consistently protect private parties' religious convictions from other private parties in regard to "neutral laws" like intellectual property laws, only from the government.

The RFRA does not protect private parties' religious convictions from other private parties in regard to "neutral laws" like intellectual property laws, only from the government. 

Therefore, in order to address the potential inequity resulting from a non-uniform application of the RFRA in private-party lawsuits, it is necessary to request that Congress clarify – once and for all – the intent, application, and scope of this Act.

Specifically, it is necessary that there be agreement on whether or not the nature of the plaintiff in a lawsuit, whether a private citizen, a corporation or the United States Government, has any bearing whatsoever on the potential burdens that may be placed on an individual’s religious duties. A few States have been forced to create their own version of the RFRA, due to the ambiguity and injustices facilitated by the current federal version. 

To sign the RFRA petition click here 

Dear friend, whether you are an Adventist or non-Adventist, a Christian or a non-Christian, thank you for signing this RFRA petition and being a supporter of justice and religious liberty for all.