A couple of discussions here focused on why the radical right has weaponized the legal interpretation of the free exercise clause. It has gone from a shield that defended religious practice to a sword that is now aggressively cutting through secular society and government to gain more political power and secular wealth for Christianity.
My discussion yesterday listed a few rule changes that the president is rushing to finalize before Jan. 20. Some of the rule changes hinge on the new weaponized free exercise clause. A good example is a proposed federal rule change that will allow religious groups to do work under a federal contract, paid for by tax dollars, and at the same time discriminate on the basis of religion against any potential employee working on the federal contract.
Thus, if a Catholic group or company gets a federal contract and people need be hired to do the work, the group or company can choose to hire and employ only Catholics and refuse to hire atheists, non-Catholics and even Catholics who they deem to be insufficiently Catholic. If a hired person is found to be unacceptable on the basis of the chosen religion, they can be fired for it.
Before this, religious groups could not discriminate against employees on the basis of religion. If this rule goes into effect, that kind of discrimination becomes legal.
Again, it is time to revoke all tax privileges for at least all American religious groups and companies that play politics. Maybe it is time to do that regardless of political involvement or not.
The rule change is referred to as Implementing Legal Requirements Regarding the Equal Opportunity Clause's Religious Exemption. A detailed description of it is at this link. The proposed rule change, Allowing Religious Exemptions for Federal Contractors, is summarized by ProPublica as shown below.
The federal description uses incredibly complex and needlessly verbose language. That is done to try to hide from the public what the rule change is intended to do. The ProPublica summary above states what the the rule change will do.
The federal description is at this link, which is a massive tome that almost no one will read. That is what the drafters intended. The people who are familiar with this beast are certain religious organizations who want federal contracts and the ability to discriminate against employees on the basis of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. Religious groups want to sink their claws into federal contracts and discriminate. That is a win-win for the religious folk and a lose-lose for taxpayers who oppose the use of their tax dollars to blatantly support religion.
Simply put, some religious groups do not want to hire or retain any stinking atheists or any nasty people of other religions. The paragraph quoted below below is one of many at the link to the federal rule change page. I think this paragraph actually says what the rule change will do. The core intent in the two core sentences are emphasized for clarity:
Some religious organizations have previously provided feedback to OFCCP that they were reluctant to participate as federal contractors because of uncertainty regarding the scope of the religious exemption contained in section 204(c) of Executive Order 11246 and codified in OFCCP's regulations. This proposal is intended to provide clarity regarding the scope and application of the religious exemption consistent with the legal developments discussed above by proposing definitions of key terms in 41 CFR 60-1.3 and a rule of construction in 41 CFR 60-1.5. Among other changes, this proposal is intended to make clear that the Executive Order 11246 religious exemption covers not just churches but employers that are organized for a religious purpose, hold themselves out to the public as carrying out a religious purpose, and engage in exercise of religion consistent with, and in furtherance of, a religious purpose. It is also intended to make clear that religious employers can condition employment on acceptance of or adherence to religious tenets without sanction by the federal government, provided that they do not discriminate based on other protected bases. In addition, consistent with the administration policy to enforce federal law's robust protections for religious freedom, the proposed rule states that it should be construed to provide the broadest protection of religious exercise permitted by the Constitution and other laws. While only a subset of contractors and would-be contractors may wish to seek this exemption, the Supreme Court, Congress, and the President have each affirmed the importance of protecting religious liberty for those organizations who wish to exercise it.
Based on that language, it seems that a religious group or company can win a bid for a government contract and engage in exercise of religion consistent with, and in furtherance of, a religious purpose. That sounds a church can use like tax dollars in furtherance of, a religious purpose, which seems to mean that the free exercise clause has obliterated the constitutional establishment clause. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.”
How can one distinguish mere free exercise of religious practice and belief from things, like profits from government contracts, that help establish and maintain religious activities? It really does look like free exercise has obliterated the establishment clause. That legal change would seem to be a key goal of American Christian nationalist ideology.
Are the Christian thought police coming? Seems so.
Also, one can reasonably ask, does this proposed rule represent the first regulation in modern times that can legally punish thoughts? For example, if a religious contractor finds out that an otherwise outstanding employee does not believe that any God exists and then fires that employee for that belief, does that firing amount to punishment for merely having that belief or thought?
It sure looks that way to me. If that isn't what this amounts to, then exactly what is it? Merely relying on the free exercise clause to practice Christianity as the Christian in charge sees fit? What would Jesus have to say about this? Did Jesus (or God) advocate discriminatory hiring and employment practices with or without the Pharaoh's tax dollars?
No comments:
Post a Comment