Federal Employee Religious Speech Memo

Yesterday, the federal Office of Personnel Management issued a memo (full text) to heads of federal departments and agencies on Protecting Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace.

I saw this matter flagged earlier this week. It did not seem at first blush to be too problematic. The ability to express religious beliefs at the workplace is a given. This would include something like a sign on your desk or a religious portrait on your office wall. 

The memo also said one or more employees should be allowed to engage in individual or communal religious expressions and that employees can engage in conversations on religious topics “including attempting to persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views, provided that such efforts are not harassing in nature.”

The thing that gave me pause was the specific emphasis on the ability to proselytize at the workplace. I figured that employees would have a right to talk about religious matters. 

There is that "harassing" limit. Still, emphasizing it seemed to me to be akin to the government encouraging it. And, enforcing the harassment rule can be difficult, especially if a person is hesitant to complain.  

The new policy notes:

“During a break, an employee may engage another in polite discussion of why his faith is correct and why the non-adherent should re-think his religious beliefs. However, if the nonadherent requests such attempts to stop, the employee should honor the request,” the memo added. “An employee may invite another to worship at her church despite being belonging to a different faith.”

I do not know how you necessarily prevent that sort of thing. Do you tell employees, who can talk about their beliefs about various matters (religious and non-religious), not to talk about religion? 

I still am wary about so much emphasis that proselytizing would seem to be normal at work. The workplace is not a great place for that sort of thing. 

Stephen Colbert covered this in his monologue (clearly finding the whole thing a problem) and flagged that promoting religion over history has caused difficulties. I appreciate him covering something that many people are not aware of. 

He also argued that the memo had a Christian bias, though it cited something that referenced a Jewish object (mezuzahs). As noted by The Hill, "The memo, first reported on by Fox News Digital, follows Trump’s executive order on anti-Christian bias, which aims to protect Christians from religious discrimination."

The Freedom From Religion Foundation strongly opposes the new policy. For instance, they flagged that there will be inherent pressure when a superior communicates with an underling, including (to cite an example provided by the government) inviting them to religious services. 

An explanatory appendix specifically cited as an example that a supervisor may post a handwritten note inviting each of his employees to attend an Easter service at his church. Purely voluntary!  

There is also this sort of thing:

Examples of how religious expression may be directed at members of the public include: “A park ranger leading a tour through a national park may join her tour group in prayer. A doctor at a Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital may pray over his patient for her recovery. A receptionist in a doctor’s office at a VA Medical Center may pray with a co-worker in the patients’ waiting area.”

The ranger example sounds like the "praying coach" case, where a public employee engaging in prayer with students was framed as a matter of private speech. The phrasing is opaque. It would be more blatant if the park ranger led the group in prayer. 

People do have the right to pray at work, including Muslims who have personal obligations to do so multiple times a day. The waiting area example, however, potentially interferes with unwilling listeners. Listeners who are unlikely to complain. 

A doctor praying over a patient seems acceptable, though some patients might not want to be prayed over. This emphasizes my concern that this policy encourages as much as it neutrally states what is allowed. Anyway, is there really much of a problem now if a doctor decides to pray for a patient, unless (maybe) they do so in an excessively showy way?  

FFRF worried that atheists would not be protected because a policy to protect "religion" and not all beliefs and communication might not cover atheism. We should be wary about certain beliefs being disrespected. 

Still, I think the law recognizes that atheism is protected as a matter of religious freedom. The freedom of religion includes arguments that religion itself is wrong. People who do not believe in any sort of god also belong to various religions, including Unitarian-Universalists. Some Jews practice Jewish rituals and follow kosher rules while being atheists. 

Atheism has in the past been generally protected under the "religion" rubric. Nontheistic ethical societies have been treated as religions for tax breaks and other purposes. If people could not talk about atheism, try to convert, welcome people to meetings, and distribute atheistic materials, it would be discriminatory. Be sure that some will make sure that it is known.

My immediate reaction was that this memo had a gratuitous character. It was a way for the Trump Administration to show they were religious (likely interpreted by many supporters as "Christian") friendly. I still think that in some ways.

The coverage, however, makes me concerned about certain aspects of the memorandum. It has an evangelical Christian bias, especially as it is likely to be applied by this Administration. 

Religion is a touchy subject. It should be carefully handled. Those currently in power are not the sort of people I trust with doing so wisely.