I was disappointed to hear that Sen. David Burns, R-District 6, withdrew LD 1340 because of his concern that media criticism and misinformation had prevented the possibility of a fair hearing.

The bill is crucial to protect the religious freedoms of those living in Maine.

Up until the 1990s, the Supreme Court had applied a strict standard of interpretation to the First Amendment, thereby protecting religious freedom in the United States. But the Court began to make rulings that did not protect the rights of citizens to freely practice their religion.

As a result, Congress passed a law called the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” that restored the strict standards that protected the free exercise of religion without government intervention. That bill was passed by a unanimous vote in the House and a 97-3 vote in the Senate, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has since ruled that the law applied only to the federal government. Thus, 18 states have since passed their own RFRA laws to protect religious freedoms in their own states. That such a law was not able to receive a fair hearing in Maine is sad.

Religious freedom has always meant that people of faith have the right to practice their faith in the public square, not just behind the four walls of a church, as long as they are not harming others.

Religious freedom has always meant that people of faith have the right to speak their convictions, both from the pulpit and in the public square.

Religious freedom has also always meant that people have a right to not support the lifestyles of those they disagree with without being threatened with legal action, fines, imprisonment and bullying.

Should a Muslim or an Orthodox Jew be required to sell pork or ham in their stores? Should a gay-owned bakery be required to make cakes decorated with Bible verses speaking of homosexuality as a sin? And should a Christian bakery be required to make a cake in celebration of the wedding of a same-sex couple if their religious convictions are not in agreement with that?

Up until recently, the answer would have been no; and the Constitution says no. Those are basic freedoms, and if we lose these, we will lose all our freedoms eventually.

Without an RFRA in Maine, all of the above scenarios are possible. The RFRA proposed by Sen. Burns was reasonable and did not involve discrimination. It simply restores and protects religious freedom. That is extremely important to every citizen of Maine.

I strongly support an RFRA to restore those rights in Maine.

I will do everything I can to support the reintroduction and passing of LD 1340.

And, I will seek to inform the misguided media and legislators in Maine as to the crucial importance of passing an RFRA in Maine that protects my right to exercise my religious faith without government censure and persecution.

Daniel Pearson is pastor of the First Baptist Church of Rumford.