David Waters helpfully describes the persistent tension between Free Exercise and Establishment Clause concerns. His context is the rule barring public school teachers in Oregon from wearing religious attire – a regulation suddenly being debated now that leaders of the Sikh community are asking the Governor to veto the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act. That policy, they argue, effectively prohibits those of the Sikh faith from serving as teachers.
They may have a point. The problem is, that law governing teacher attire is already in place! The new bill – which marks a significant step forward, not backward, in workplace religious liberty – only leaves the teacher issue unchanged. Michael Peabody, editor of religiousliberty.tv, e-mails to question the Sikh protest:
SB 786 leaves this existing provision alone yet provides religious people with the ability to wear religious garb in other workplaces that unreasonably prohibit religious garb. Employers can make a determination that such dress may violate occupational safety standards however it will expand rights for those who are often discriminated against due to their religious garb.
SB 786 is an expansion of rights not a contraction.
Waters may be correct that this debate offers a good example of the "classic religious liberty battle", but it may offer an even better example of a longstanding political conflict: that between the perfect and the good.
