Commission will use “practice of Islam” to pick government appointees.
In 1833, Massachusetts became the last state in the country to ‘disestablish’ its church and separate church and state. In 2026, Massachusetts legislators are proposing to ‘reestablish’ Islam as a state religion with the power to propose laws and pick government officials.13 out of 40 State Senate Democrat members backed a bill calling for a “permanent commission on the status of people who practice Islam”. The title of Bill S.2134 ‘An Act promoting the civil rights and inclusion of American Muslims in the commonwealth’ may appear innocuous, but the bill creates a quasi-government body, not for an ethnic or racial group, but for a religion, that will take government and private funding, propose legislation, recommend Muslims for government positions and “foster unity” and cooperation among Islamist groups.
The government commission will, among other things, use its government access to “identify and recommend qualified American Muslims for appointive positions at all levels of government, including boards and commissions”. This amounts to a government-created body making “the practice of Islam” into a religious test for government office, something that is completely illegal and would never be tolerated from a Christian government commission using the “practice of Christianity” as a test for recommending its members and allies for appointed office.
Under Chapter 3 of its general laws, Massachusetts has permanent commissions on the status of various groups, women, black people, LGBTQ, the disabled, grandparents, and Latinos, but not for any specifically religious group. There was a temporary commission on antisemitism, which was shut down and the legislative rider that created it made no mention of the commission being created specifically for a religious, rather than an ethnic group.
So I reached out to the Massachusetts ACLU, the American Humanist Association and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, three organizations that had been very involved in lawsuits and campaigns over church and state issues to see whether they objected to a ‘permanent commission’ to advance the ideological and religious aims of a particular religious group.
The ACLU and AHA did not respond, however RFRF Senior Policy Council Ryan Jayne warned that “Section (d)(5) of the bill states that the Commission will “identify and recommend qualified American Muslims for appointive positions at all levels of government, including boards and commissions, as the commission considers necessary and appropriate”. This is entirely unacceptable for a taxpayer-funded body because it shows a clear denominational preference for public office, raising serious concerns under the First Amendment and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.” Certainly the ability of the “practice of Islam” commission to put forward religious appointees for government positions involves an inherent religious test for holding public office.
As Jayne notes, Article VI does state that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” It’s hard to square that with creating a commission limited to one religious group and having it propose appointments.
The Islamic commission will however also propose “legislation to combat Islamophobia”, a unique case of a specifically religious group getting government funding to propose legislation.
Ryan Jayne of RFRF, while arguing that “anti-Muslim bigotry” is a problem, also noted that “the bill uses but does not define the term ‘Islamophobia.’ This creates a risk of the commission conflating genuine animus against Muslims with criticism of Islam, which is protected speech under the First Amendment and would be inappropriate for the government to censor or oppose.” Defining ‘Islamophobia’ also requires defining ‘Islam’.
Bill S.2134 raises all sorts of major problems, beginning with its creation of a government religious commission on the “status of people who practice Islam”. It is not clear how Massachusetts exactly intends to define the “practice” of Islam. There are two branches of Islam and various groups like the Nation of Islam or the Ahmadis who claim to practice Islam, but whose religious beliefs Muslims reject. If Bill S.2134 becomes law, the Massachusetts government will have to determine who is or isn’t actually practicing Islam. It will also have to deal with potential discrimination complaints from groups like the Ahmadis whose “practice” of Islam is rejected by Islamists and would likely be barred from this commission.
Sen. Jamie Eldridge, the leading proponent of the “Practice of Islam” bill lists laudatory quotes about the bill from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), an unindicted co-conspirator in funding Islamic terrorism which endorsed the attacks of Oct 7, and a Boston mosque patronized by a terrorist, implying the Islamist group is a driving force behind the bill. --->READ MORE HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment