SalviaDave wrote:
Does this not trample all over our right to freedom of religion and the practice there of?
When you speak of rights, I assume you mean constitutional rights.
The rights spelled out in the constitution are not held to be absolute. One has freedom of speech, but one is not allowed to say anything. One has freedom of religion, but one is not allowed to practice it in just anyway they choose. One has the right to life and liberty, but one can be arrested and jailed.
Nothing in the constitution is absolute. If it were, the Supreme Court would have a lot less to do.
The US government has claimed -- successfully in the courts -- that they no longer have to demonstrate a compelling state interest to negate a religious practice. The SCOTUS bought that argument, saying in essence that religious freedom was fairly limited.
The RFRA was passed after that which reestablished the compelling state interest test, but this is a piece of legislation that could be repealed at any time, should it become to inconvenient for those in power. Keep in mind that the two entheogen-using groups which legally use sacraments in the US -- the UdV and the NAC -- are both protected under the RFRA, and the courts have said that their use is
not protected absolutely by the constitution. (In fact, the RFRA was passed in response to the SCOTUS saying that the NAC could legally be prohibited from using peyote.) With a stroke of the pen both groups could be made illegal fairly easily.