E/CN.4/1999/58/Add.1 page 17 gaining ground among the non-Asian population. “Marginal” religions such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, the Seventh Day Adventists and the Assemblies of God, are also accepted in the society, no doubt because some minorities which in the past suffered from intolerance and discrimination have with time become figures in the landscape of religion and belief which the public have got used to and familiar with. As far as Scientology, on the one hand, and atheism, on the other, are concerned, the situation also appears to be satisfactory. 47. If the situation as a whole is thus good, there are still difficulties in some places and at some levels, difficulties which can be interpreted in different ways. The Special Rapporteur proposes to examine them below, but making a distinction between the group of minority communities and marginal religions, on the one hand, and Scientology and atheism, on the other. 48. The difficulties most often mentioned concern discrimination at the workplace (such as dismissals, non-respect for religious practices especially in the case of Seventh-Day Adventists - and problems connected with so-called “religious” dress - especially in the case of Sikhs). They also concern places of worship, particularly as regards obtaining permits for building, renovation and use for different purposes (particularly in the case of Buddhists, Hindus, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hare Krishna, Mormons outside Utah, etc.), and even isolated attacks on religious buildings. 49. As far as permits for places of worship are concerned, one of the main factors emphasized by the representatives of these communities is the Supreme Court's decision in the Smith case, which affects above all communities in a minority position. For example, it seems that because of zoning regulations, the authorities have discretion in taking decisions, and it would be difficult to identify religious or non-religious reasons as the grounds for any particular refusal. This situation is said to be prejudicial for the communities, the Smith case having established that for neutral laws of general applicability, the authorities are no longer obliged to demonstrate a compelling interest unless the law is specifically targeted at a religious practice. This situation was confirmed by the justices of the Supreme Court consulted by the Special Rapporteur. According to Douglas Laycock, a professor at the University of Texas Law School, who based his view on a 1993 survey which concluded, first, that 43 per cent of Americans said they had a very negative or negative opinion of “fundamentalists” (a term which was not defined) and, secondly, that 80 per cent of them had negative opinions about sects or minority cults, there is a sort of low-level hostility and insensitivity in society (manifesting itself in particular in the difficulties regarding employment and places of worship mentioned above), also on the part of officials in their capacity as simple citizens with regard to certain minorities who might be regarded as fundamentalists, sects or minority cults. Because of the highly decentralized nature of the United States federal system, isolated pockets of intolerance can be found among officials acting on their own initiative. But in general, according to Douglas Laycock, it is found that there are hundreds of different isolated conflicts between secular norms, governmental regulations and religious views and practices that from the dominant secular standpoint seem idiosyncratic. These difficulties can be interpreted as being the result of a sort of secularism which has pervaded the legislation and which is characteristic of an elite who are for the most part