Topic: Religion
The Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2007 The Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2007 is sure to undermine religious liberty and possibly even the First Amendment.by Chuck Angier
(Libertarian)
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Recently I was asked to contact my Congressmen urging them to support HR 1431, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2007. The intent of HR1431 is to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with respect to religious accommodation in the workplace. Though honorable in intent, I fear it is more likely to achieve the opposite.
Unfortunately, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 created a huge bureaucracy to "protect" rights already afforded under the Constitution. Had we abided by the law of the land in the first place, the act would have been unnecessary. Instead, it has probably done more harm than good and at great cost to the national treasury.
HR1431 determines that "an employer has committed an unlawful employment practice under this title by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to the religious observance or practice of an employee". As with most obscure legislation, 3 questions arise:
What is a "religious observance or practice"?
What is a "reasonable accommodation"?
Who decides?
It becomes painfully obvious where the danger of this legislation lies. These three questions make the law unenforceable, so a lot of lawyers will enrichen themselves trying to enforce it, putting added burden on our legal system, employers and yes, even employees. In a more likely scenario, a government bureaucrat will make the call sticking a foot in the door of religious freedom and undermining the First Amendment.
Forcing an employer to accommodate Sunday keepers and Sabbath keepers appears reasonable, but who draws the line there? What if a Muslim demands Sharia foot-washing accommodations? How is that any different than Sabbath keeping or Sunday keeping? Who decides?
What about multiple daily prayers to Mecca? How do you do that while (as an example) controlling an aircraft in crowded skies? What is the "reasonable accommodation" in that case? Who decides?
And finally, what about the employer? What are his or her rights?
As a Christian, I think rather than suing my employer, I would set a much better example by humbly walking away from an uncomfortable situation, while at the same time thanking my employer for the opportunity he has afforded me.
I am convinced that passage of this amendment will do more harm than good for religious freedom. We need less government in our lives not more. As long as we continue to ask government to fix our problems, less government will never happen.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 12 thumbs so far
2008 Chuck Angier, all rights reserved.
Published: Thursday, February 28, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, February 28, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Chuck Angier only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Chuck Angier is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
You make an outstanding point. As long as people look to the state to solve their problems, the state can never truly shrink. In which case, it becomes imperative to ask if people really are comfortable with being real individuals and bearing responsibility for their actions.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Chuck Angier, all rights reserved.