Today’s unsettling political development comes from Massachusetts, where lawmakers are considering legislation that would establish a permanent state commission focused specifically on residents who practice Islam.
The proposals, H.3351 and S.2134, are titled “An Act promoting the civil rights and inclusion of American Muslims in the commonwealth.” At first glance, that sounds like a standard civil-rights measure intended to address discrimination and improve representation. The problem is that several provisions go far beyond documenting bias or advising the state on equal treatment. They would give a government-created commission an unusually active role in advancing the interests of one religious community.
The commission would consist of 11 members appointed through various parts of the state government. Its responsibilities would include conducting research on issues affecting Muslims in Massachusetts, informing public officials and private organizations about those issues, encouraging cooperation among Muslim groups, and serving as a liaison between those groups and government agencies.
Some of those duties are broad enough to be either symbolic or open-ended. A commission that gathers information about discrimination, health-care access, education, or employment could serve a legitimate public purpose. But the bill’s language is not always limited to those areas. It also calls on the commission to promote unity among Muslim organizations and encourage collaboration and joint activities.
That raises an important constitutional question. It is not normally the state’s role to organize, strengthen, or unify a religious community. Government may protect people’s right to worship and ensure that religious minorities are treated fairly, but actively fostering cooperation among religious organizations risks crossing the line between protecting religious liberty and supporting religious activity.
Another provision would have the commission act as a liaison between government, private interest groups, and the Muslim community. Again, the purpose matters. A state body may communicate with religious communities about discrimination, public safety, social services, or civil rights. But creating a permanent government structure devoted to representing one faith requires careful scrutiny. The same concerns would arise if Massachusetts created a comparable commission exclusively for Christians, Jews, Hindus, or members of any other religion.
The most controversial language directs the commission to “identify and recommend qualified American Muslims for appointive positions at all levels of government, including boards and commissions.”
That provision is especially troubling. Public appointments should be based on qualifications, experience, judgment, and the lawful pursuit of equal opportunity. A state commission should not recommend candidates because they belong to a particular religion. Even when the goal is greater representation, government officials must avoid making religious identity a qualification for public office.
The Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office and bars the government from establishing or officially favoring a religion. Supporters of the legislation may argue that recommending qualified Muslims is not the same as requiring a religious test. Even so, the state would still be creating an official body whose duties include identifying people for government service partly on the basis of their faith. That is a serious issue and deserves more attention than it has received.
The legislation has not moved quickly. Its progress through the Massachusetts Legislature has been limited, and similar proposals have stalled in the past. That makes passage far from certain. Still, slow movement does not eliminate the underlying concern.
Civil-rights protections should apply equally, and the government has a legitimate responsibility to address discrimination against Muslims. But protecting a religious minority is different from creating a permanent state commission empowered to promote religious organizations, foster unity within a faith community, and recommend members of that faith for public appointments.
The constitutional standard should remain consistent regardless of which religion is involved. A commission designed to advance Christianity within state government would immediately face intense criticism. A commission focused on Islam should be evaluated under the same principles. Equal treatment requires one rule for everyone, not different standards depending on which religious group benefits.