Massachusetts, a state long dominated by progressive politics, is now flirting with legislation that edges disturbingly close to establishing a state-favored religion under the guise of inclusion.
.
The controversy centers on companion bills H.3351 and S.2134, which would create a permanent commission on the status of people who practice Islam, with a mandate that includes efforts to elevate Muslims to higher public office. As reported by Western Journal, the measure is wrapped in the benign-sounding title An Act promoting the civil rights and inclusion of American Muslims in the commonwealth, language that might initially suggest just another exercise in identity politics from a deep-blue state.
Yet beneath the surface, the proposal raises profound constitutional concerns that should alarm anyone who still believes in the First Amendments prohibition on government entanglement with religion.
Under the bills, an 11-member commission would be appointed by various state officials, all of them Democrats in todays Massachusetts political landscape, to address issues related to Islam and the status of Muslims in the state. The structure itself is not the core problem; states routinely create advisory bodies to address the concerns of various communities. The danger lies in the specific powers and purposes assigned to this commission, which go well beyond neutral civil-rights protections and veer into explicit religious favoritism.
The text of S.2134, which outlines the commissions duties, is where the trouble becomes unmistakable. The commission is tasked with a series of objectives that, taken together, blur the line between protecting individual rights and promoting a particular faith tradition. Some of the language is so nebulous that it is either meaningless bureaucratic filler or a vehicle for state-sponsored religious preference.
One provision directs the commission to undertake activities designed to enable the commonwealth of Massachusetts to realize the full benefit of Muslims in regard to their unique talents and cultural heritage. That phrase may sound innocuous, but it is either a bullet point in search of a coherent thought or enabling religious discrimination in favor of Muslims through a mishmash of foggy verbiage. There is little middle ground between empty rhetoric and a state-sanctioned effort to privilege one religious group over others.
Another mandate calls on the commission to inform the public of issues affecting Muslims, which again could be read as either harmless outreach or a charter for state-sponsored pro-Islam propaganda. When the state begins to single out one faith community for special public-relations treatment, it risks crossing from neutral governance into ideological promotion. Conservatives who have watched progressives invoke separation of church and state to marginalize Christian expression in public life will recognize the double standard immediately.
The most troubling language appears in point No. 3 of the commissions duties, where the state sets out to foster unity among the American Muslim community. That raises an obvious question: Its the goal of the state government to foster unity among the American Muslim community? Since when? The state has no legitimate role in shaping the internal cohesion, spiritual life, or religious practice of any faith community, and this sounds suspiciously like a mosque-and-state partnership from the same people who want you to believe a wall should exist between church and state.
Point No. 4 is hardly less problematic, as it envisions a permanent state commission acting as a liaison between a specific religious group and government and private interest groups. Since when has a permanent state commission acting as a liaison between any religious group and government and private interest groups been remotely constitutional? The First Amendment was designed precisely to prevent government from entangling itself with religious institutions in this way, whether through endorsement, coordination, or preferential access.
The most blatantly unconstitutional provision is point No. 5, which directs the commission to 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 not subtle. It is an explicit call for the state to use religious identity as a criterion for public appointments, elevating one faith group as a preferred recruiting pool for government positions.
The U.S. Constitution could not be clearer on this point. Forget about what a board determines is necessary and appropriate for a Muslim: The First Amendment prohibits any law respecting an establishment of religion, and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution specifically states that no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. Creating a government-backed body whose job includes recommending candidates on the basis of their religion is, in effect, a religious test by another name. Thats an explicit call for a religious test, and just because its a pseudo-autonomous government body doesnt make it any better.
Defenders of the bill might argue that it is stalled and therefore not an imminent threat. It is true that the legislation is currently languishing in committee, with the last recorded action in January, when it was referred to the Massachusetts Senate Ways and Means Committee, and that similar measures have been proposed in the past and also stalled. Yet anyone familiar with the trajectory of progressive policymaking in deep-blue states knows that bad ideas rarely die; they are reintroduced, repackaged, and advanced incrementally until they become law.
Given the ideological tilt of Massachusetts politics, it is not difficult to imagine this measure eventually crossing the finish line. The lefts growing alliance with Islamist interests, at home and abroad, has already blurred the line between commies and Islamists to the point as to defy distinction, with the key difference being that at least the Supreme Court has the authority to strike down religious-based committees designed to bake Islam into state government. The courts may ultimately be the last line of defense if state lawmakers insist on pushing this experiment in religious favoritism.
The hypocrisy is glaring. If MAGA lawmakers ever tried to do this for Christianity, it would set off klaxons all over the media. As it should. Yet the fact that this proposal has attracted so little national scrutiny underscores a familiar reality: if it werent for double standards, the left and their enablers would have no standards at all. A conservative-backed commission to foster unity among Christians and pipeline them into public office would be denounced as theocracy; a Democrat-backed commission doing the same for Muslims is marketed as inclusion.
Supporters of religious liberty and limited government should not be lulled into complacency by the bills slow progress or its deliberately vague language. Yes, the terminology of the proposed legislation may be vague, and yes, the bills are moving glacially to the extent theyre moving at all but the unconstitutionality still screams out for immediate redress if this nonsense, heaven forfend, ever becomes law.
The core issue is not whether Muslims, or any other group, deserve equal protection under the law they do, as individuals, like every American. The issue is whether the state may constitutionally create a permanent, religion-specific apparatus to promote one faith communitys interests and candidates, a proposition that runs directly counter to the founding principles progressives so often claim to revere.
Login