On Religion and the Protection of Choice

According to a report by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, most Americans change their faith at some point in their lives, and many do so more than once.

More than half of American adults have changed religion in their lives, a huge new survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found. And there is no discernible pattern to the change, just "a free for all," one of the lead researchers told CNN.

"You're seeing the free market at work," said Gregory Smith, a research fellow at the Pew Forum. "If people are dissatisfied, they will leave. And if they see something they like better, they will join it."

Many people switch because they move to a new community, and others because they marry someone of a different faith, he said.

Some don't like their ministers or pastors; some like the pastor at another church better.

And many people list more than one reason for changing, Smith said.

"The reasons people change religions are as diverse as the religious landscape itself," he told CNN by phone.

Read full story (CNN.com)

So if religion is something most people choose to engage in, and their religion isn't forced upon them, but rather freely decided upon in a "free market" environment, why is religion protected from discrimination along with race, color, gender, and national origin by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Those protected attributes other than religion are inherent and impossible, if not exceptionally difficult, to change. One's race, color, and national origin are set for life; one's gender is genetically mandated at birth, although outward manifestations can be altered through radical surgery and hormone treatment.

But religion is something completely different. No one is born a religion and unable to change it during their lifetime. Even if that statement doesn't pass one's "common sense" test, the Pew study's statistics show it clearly to be true. Religion, or, more specifically, one's religious affiliation is a conscious choice that everyone is free to make and change at any time.

Some individual attributes that employers can legally discriminate against and fire (or not hire) an individual based on include the employee's clothing, their education level, and their willingness to travel, just as a few examples. It's relatively easy to see why an employer should be able to let an employee go, or not hire someone in the first place, if the employee chooses to wear inappropriate attire, doesn't have the correct education, or declines to travel for a job that requires it.

If individuals can, and do, choose their religious affiliations and change them at will, why do we protect religion when other individual attributes, such as what we wear, what we know, and how far away from home we prefer to go, are not protected? Is what we believe so different from these when they can all be changed at will? Logically, it doesn't seem so.

In some sense, it almost appears as if religion is getting special treatment as the only choice given protection from discrimination.

But why should it matter what religious affiliation someone has when considering or retaining them as an employee? Because sometimes it makes a difference in how well, or even if, the employee fulfills his job responsibilities.

Case in point: healthcare workers whose religious beliefs trump their medical training when making decisions that can affect the health of their patients (e.g., this article in the Detroit News).

Suppose someone is hired as a pharmacist and, at the time of hiring, has no qualms about fulfilling prescriptions for emergency contraceptives. A short while later, he switches religions to one that opposes this practice and decides that he can no longer fulfill that responsibility.

I am no lawyer, but under the Equal Rights Act, I would suspect the pharmacist's employer would have a difficult time replacing him with someone who would fill the script.

But why is this situation different than when an employee decides that he doesn't want to travel any more, or is tired of wearing neckties, or fails to complete a mandatory educational requirement? All of these would be sufficient reason to fire the employee, as travel, dress, and education aren't protected attributes.

If I can choose my religion just as I choose what to wear, why is one protected and the other is not? Why are some of our choices permitted to be inspected and acted upon by employers while others are not? This is logically inconsistent, which seems like a significant chink in the armor of an otherwise good law.

Ultimately, one's choice of religion seems much more similar to one's other choices in life (e.g., where to live, what to wear, how much and what kind of education to get, etc.) than it is to one's personal attributes that cannot be changed (e.g., race, ethnicity, origin, and gender).

It is likely that those with strong religious beliefs will make claims that what one believes should be protected from discrimination. Fine...what about beliefs regarding clothing? One might believe that God says "life is sacred" just as someone might believe that ties are uncomfortable, yet only one of these beliefs can be acted upon by an employer.

In reading the above, some might accuse me of trivializing religion. Certainly not -- I would very much like to have my choice of clothing also be off-limits when discussing job security with my employer -- but a belief is a belief, and beliefs are not the same as permanent, unchangeable attributes that define who we are and for which we had no choice.

One can change one's religious convictions and affiliations; one cannot readily change one's race, color, sex, or national origin. So, again, why are all of these granted equal protection? So far, I fail to see a compelling reason.