This post highlights again the split between Obama and Clinton, the North American Religious Liberty Association and those of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union on this bill. For me at least is has been disappointing to see certain groups and politicians oppose this bill and heartening to see some go so far as to co-sponsor it.

Johnny,

Out of curiosity what has been the position of each of your mentioned parties to the bill?

Thanks

Clinton is a co-sponsor, Obama is opposing it. NARLA is supporting it and the ACLU & Americans United are opposing it along with the Human Rights Campaign and other groups. I don't know where McCain stands. In the video James Standish addresses the misconceptions people have of the bill.

Thanks Johnny,

I listened to the recording and did not hear a bill #. Do you know it?

H.R. 1445 and S.677

How likely is it that we'll see these bills pass considering how long they've languished? What effect does the presidential race have on this bill? Anyone?

Here's a former Adventist with an interesting post on the bill.

http://www.michaeldepaula.com/blog/default.aspx?id=66&t=workplace-religi...

Also interesting is this blast from the Spectrum blog past on this bill and Adventism in general.

The implications of this bill, highlighted by Michael De Paula, sound like the brand of "religious liberty" championed by the late D. James Kennedy, Pat Robertson, and the Christian Coalition. It is the majority looking, sounding, and lobbying like the persecuted majority.

As an educator, I could easily see provision being made for a state employed science teacher to refuse to teach evolution, and to claim the right to teach all his/her classes ID, on the grounds of "religious freedom," and violation of consciense. The legal support would be this bill.

Unless I'm totally misinformed, it sounds to me like the state is leaving the back door open for the church to walk through.

Thanks...

Frank

Frank,

The Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2007, H.R. 1431, was introduced into Congress on March 9th by Congresswoman McCarthy (D-NY) and Congressman Souder (R-IN). In what has become a rare occurrence at the intersection of religion and politics, the bill enjoys broad bipartisan support -- with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans joining as original cosponsors. A version of the bill will soon be introduced in the Senate and is expected to be an equally bipartisan effort. The bill aims to stem the growing tide of intolerance to people of faith in the American workplace.

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the number of claims involving religious discrimination rose 83% between 1992 and 2006.[1] By comparison, claims of racial discrimination and gender discrimination held roughly steady during the same period, and claims of age discrimination decreased substantially.

The Coalition for Freedom of Religion in the Workplace, a group comprised of 45 major religious organizations ranging from the American Jewish Committee through to the Southern Baptist Convention, from the Sikh American Legal Defense & Education Fund through to the United Methodist Church, enthusiastically supports the bill. James Standish, co-chair of the Coalition, states "far too many good people are arbitrarily forced to choose between their faith and their jobs. Americans don't accept bigotry in our media, in our schools, or in our government, and we certainly shouldn't accept bigotry against people of faith in our workplaces."

"In the last few years we've heard a lot of talk about religion in public life," notes Standish, "but of the attention was focused on symbolism. The Workplace Religious Freedom Act gives Congress a chance to refocus their attention from the divisive rhetoric over religious symbolism, to making a significant contribution to solving a very real problem faced by far too many Americans today."

From NARLA

Now there are good people opposing this bill. The post you're talking about is one view of this bill. Fortunately we also have more reasoned views accessible to us.

As our society becomes more and more secular, religious discrimination is becoming more and more prevalent. Some civil liberty groups are opposing this legislation. Indeed, you can tell a lot about the character of a bill by its sponsors within congress and boosters outside of congress.

I, like most, rely on policy groups to analyse legislation and its implications. The Seventh-day Adventist church devotes significant resources to legal issues (from courts to congress) concerning religious liberty. I have confidence in NARLA's analysis- far more than that of a former Adventist.

I would be very interested to hear from folks like Doug Morgan and Roy Branson who work within law and public policy to see if their analysis coincides with our own religious liberty group (and many, many others) or with the Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU and Americans United.

I'm no expert, but I don't think that history supports this statement.

"As our society becomes more and more secular, religious discrimination is becoming more and more prevalent."

That right wing meme about America is just not true. Compare now to the world of witch trials, Catholic/Protestant violence, open antisemitism (Henry Ford) and blue laws? Compare Sabbath work discrimination openness 100 years ago to today.

I'd say that in America, the less religious a region - the West - it tends to be pretty tolerant of religious rites, while the more religious - i.e., the South - is, speaking broadly, less understanding of religious deviance, like ours.

I'm not interested in comparing the ACLU and the ACLJ since I think that they both sometimes inflate church/state controversies just to get press and raise money, but I am interested to hear more from the good folks at NARLA in responding to objections. There is also the political reality of this, what are they willing to compromise on (i.e., hate speech), in order to protect hard working and worshiping Adventists?

The famous letter of Trajan, to Pliny the younger, in which Trajan says, it’s okay to kill Christians, but avoid using hearsay evidence, is an example of a secular man’s disregard of another’s religious beliefs. Secular people are interested in this life. They will do anything which promotes enjoyment or power in this world. The Bible symbolizes the secular man as the person with the mark in his hand. The religious person is the man with the mark in this forehead. They join together not for a common cause but against a common enemy- the righteous. The righteous expose the fraud of false religion and the heedless life style of secularism. It becomes expedient to exterminate the adversary of both.

The first amendment to the Constitution passed mainly because the diversity of religious groups prevented any one from holding the reins of power, as James Madison argued. Concentration of power in the secular, religious, or a coalition of both must be prevented if we wish to maintain Religious Liberty in this country.

Alex,
There is one blog that always give pretty reliable posts on religious liberty... Howard M. Friedman has a few posts on this bill and he say-

Opponents fear that the bill would allow nurses and pharmacists to refuse on religious grounds to refuse to assist with abortion procedures or fill birth control prescriptions. However the bill excludes from its coverage accommodation for religious beliefs that prevent employees from fulfilling the ''essential functions'' of their jobs. Other opponents fear that the bill will protect harassment of gay colleagues by conservative Christians who oppose homosexuality on religious grounds, though the law does not appear to override any existing prohibitions on such conduct.

From Religion Clause.
Don Byrd has some good posts on this also if someone wants to go through them.

Questions are always great and you're right- a lot of people are going around saying that religious liberty groups are compromising their principles in seeking to protect the freedom of their adherents over others rights. Yet that charge has been responded to again and again.

So I'd like to add a part two to Alex's question to the North American Religious Liberty Association (NARLA).
If it is correct that the objections raised by groups like the Human Rights Campaign result from a misunderstanding of the proposed law and not a flaw in the law itself,
1. Why has the NARLA and its allies not been able to counter that misinformation?
2. How receptive has the NARLA and its allies and, similarly, groups on the other side, been to talk of limiting the Workplace Religious Freedom Act to "religious dress and grooming, and time off for religious observance."? (source)