TESTIMONY OF DR. RICHARD LAND
PRESIDENT
THE ETHICS & RELIGIOUS LIBERTY COMMISSION
SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION

BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYER–EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

November 10, 2005

Good morning, I am Dr. Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. As you are aware, the Southern Baptist Convention is the nation’s largest non-catholic denomination, with more than 16 million members worshipping in more than 43,000 autonomous churches in the United States. The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission is the official Southern Baptist entity charged by the Southern Baptist Convention to speak to our nation’s moral, cultural, and religious liberty issues.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this committee this morning about the importance of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2005 to Southern Baptists and to all people of faith. The Southern Baptist Convention believes strongly in the principle of religious liberty for all Americans of all faiths, as well as those who espouse no faith. We believe that God has given this freedom to mankind, and that therefore, we have a duty to respect and ensure that freedom.

As recognized by the Founders of this nation, freedom of religion is not merely the right to believe what we want, but the right to act in conformity with those beliefs. This is reflected in the historical record of the debates about the First Amendment which show that the Framers rejected a proposed First Amendment text which would have protected freedom “of conscience” for our text that protects “free exercise.”

Given the great amount of time people spend in the workplace, it makes sense and is consistent with fundamental American values that, more than 30 years ago, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was amended to require employers to accommodate the religious needs of employees in the workplace unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. It is tragic that this protection of the rights of Americans of faith has been eviscerated by the federal courts over the years and that the ability of religious Americans to have their religious needs accommodated in the workplace relies upon the benevolence of one’s foreman, shop steward, or human resources leadership.

The Workplace Religious Freedom Act is not designed to revolutionize federal law, it simply seeks to reinstate the protection Congress put in place years ago and the courts have eroded.

WRFA is supported not only by most Southern Baptists, but by as broad and diverse a coalition of faith communities and organizations you could assemble—conservatives and liberals, Catholics, Jews, Evangelicals, Protestants, Sikhs, Muslims, and others. WRFA has also brought together a remarkably diverse set of bipartisan congressional sponsors. What unites us all is the simple principle that we will not prejudge particular faiths or practices, but wish to put a legal standard in place which says—so long as a religious accommodation will not adversely affect third parties, whether that third party is the employer, co-worker or clients/customers of the employer, the employee’s religious needs should be accommodated at work.

This principle unites people of diverse faiths because we all have challenges to our religious observances, and this is truly one of those situations where we protect our own by protecting everyone. The Sikh ought to have his faith-mandated requirement to wear a turban accommodated just as the Baptist who wishes to dress modestly. The Adventist and Orthodox Jew ought to have their work schedule accommodated for their holy day just as the Catholic, Protestant, or evangelical Christian who wishes not to work on Christmas or Good Friday. The computer scientist who is suddenly assigned to a military contract which conflicts with her faith-informed pacifist beliefs ought, ideally, be accommodated with a reassignment just as a laboratory technician ought to be accommodated to not have to work on an embryonic stem-cell research project over her religious objections.

An array of criticisms have been asserted against WRFA, some from representatives of the business community who warn against it being unduly burdensome on employers, and some who warn of WRFA imperiling civil rights of one sort or another. What all these criticisms have in common is that they are entirely hypothetical and speculative. I believe business can accommodate the needs of people of faith without experiencing any measurable negative effects. Indeed, it is my conviction that a business that shows a genuine concern for the personal and spiritual lives of its employees is going to be a more productive company because its employees will be happier and more fulfilled.

Hopefully, a business will accommodate the religious needs and convictions of its employees voluntarily, and I am gratified to know that most go to considerable length to do so. But I know that some businesses are less responsive to their employees in these regards. In these cases, some guidelines seem imperative. Both the employer and the employee need to know what is expected of them and each other. H.R. 1445 provides some very reasonable guidelines to help both the employee and the employer understand their responsibilities to each other in the accommodation of the employee’s faith requirements in the workplace.

I know this approach works. WRFA has been “road tested” in New York State, which several years ago updated its state religious accommodation law to track the text proposed in H.R. 1445. As attested to in a letter to this Subcommittee from New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, that state’s WRFA statute has not proven to either burden businesses or imperil civil rights. We believe the results at the national level would be the same.

I appreciate the opportunity to share my convictions and express my support for this legislation. I will be pleased to make myself or my staff available to work with you or to answer any questions you may have, now or in the future.