Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
A NY Times Journalist vs. Freedom of Religious Conscience
A NY Times Journalist vs. Freedom of Religious Conscience
Jul 6, 2025 1:28 PM

A recent NY Times op-ed rang an alarm bell about the Supreme Court’s supposed preference for religion “over all other elements of civil society.” This betrays a terrible misunderstanding of what exactly the First Amendment protects.

Read More…

Earlier this week, Pulitzer Prize–winning New York Times journalist Linda Greenhouse came out of retirement on the opinion page of her former paper to warn Americans that their nation is now on the cusp of seeing religion “elevate[d] … over all other elements of civil society.” The “bold activism” of the Supreme Court, according to Greenhouse, has resulted in an America on the verge of a theocracy, with a High Court that understands civil society primarily through the lens of Protestant evangelical religion. This is a remarkable claim about a Court with only two Protestants, neither of whom is evangelical.

The case that Ms. Greenhouse has identified as the next vehicle for reshaping civil society with religion at it center is Groff v. DeJoy. Gerald Groff, the plaintiff in this case who is represented by my firm, First Liberty Institute, was a postal worker in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Mr. Groff, an evangelical Christian, believes that his faith requires him to honor Sunday as the Lord’s Day, and as a result his conscience does not allow him to work on Sundays. For several years, the U.S. Postal Service made modations for Mr. Groff, until 2016, when this abruptly stopped. Over the next several years, he endured mockery, hostility, and unjust disciplinary action because of his convictions until he finally resigned in January 2019.

Mr. Groff filed suit against the Postal Service, and both lower courts that heard his case applied a standard mentioned in a key case, TWA v. Hardison, which states that religious discrimination on the part of an employer is permissible if an modation for religious employees would cause “undue hardship” to the business. The Hardisoncourt ruled that the key phrase left undefined in the four corners of the relevant regulation meant more than a “de minimisburden” on the employer. The present Court’s “surely foreordained” rejection of the lower courts’ reasoning, according to Ms. Greenhouse, would represent a wild departure from established law and result in indirect discrimination against the nonreligious in the workplace.

Legal protection for religious freedom in the American system, Ms. Greenhouse argues, is historically oriented toward the vindication of minority rights, and a victory for Gerald Groff would signal the Court’s plete identification” with and “[capture] by” a political movement dedicated to granting evangelical religion a place of primacy in our shared life together as Americans and in the wider jurisprudence of the Court.

Ms. Greenhouse’s analysis of the case, the issues at play, and the ramifications of a victory for Mr. Groff is deeply flawed and construed with a remarkably uncharitable bias.

First, as a reporter and observer of the Court with more than 30 years of experience, Ms. Greenhouse is surely aware that the regulations and statutes relevant to this case are not the only provisions in federal employment law to use the phrase “undue hardship.” But to interpret this phrase as “de minimis burden” is wholly inconsistent with other areas of the law. Mr. Groff is not asking for anything extraordinary or for the present Court to invent a standard like the Hardison court did. He is merely asking that the same definition of “undue hardship” applied in cases involving the Americans with Disabilities Act be applied in this and similar cases. If religion is rightly understood as “nothing special,” as she claims, Ms. Greenhouse’s objection to consistent definitions across federal employment law must be anti-religious bias. To borrow the phrase that she herself used when she imagined the exclusively religious motives of the majority in the Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade: “There is no other way to understand” it.

Second, religious freedom in the American system is not and has never been reserved for a “religious minority.” Religious freedom is an absolute and, in the U.S. Constitution, an unqualified right. Free exercise attaches to all who find themselves under the jurisdiction of U.S. law—the religious and the nonreligious, minority and majority, citizen and noncitizen. Ms. Greenhouse cites the Court’s decisions throughout the COVID-19 pandemic as early evidence of the willingness of the Court’s majority to privilege religion over all other considerations. Given that the Constitution explicitly bars laws “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion without any enumerated or implied exceptions, it is difficult to see how these cases are evidence of a Court “captured” by anything but the words of the Constitution. This is hardly “bold activism.”

But, assuming for the sake of argument that the majority-minority status of an employee is relevant, the definition of “majority” is crucial to the understanding of “minority.” It is mon for evangelicals to hold convictions like Mr. Groff’s regarding sabbath observance. He is a minority within his own tradition. But, if Ms. Greenhouse is using the absolute number of Christians, Protestants, or evangelicals as the majority for her frame of reference (which she does not make clear), it is still important to define in what context these groups may be majorities or minorities.

Imagine that Mr. Groff worked in Portland, Oregon—America’s least-religious city—where evangelicals constitute only about 15% of a population dominated by atheists and agnostics. Would Ms. Greenhouse then find herself on the side of championing the rights of Mr. Groff as a religious minority? What if Mr. Groff was not an evangelical Christian but an Orthodox Jew living and working at a post office in the heavily Jewish Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York? His employer’s cruelty and intransigent refusal to modate his convictions would be equally egregious and, ultimately, illegal. In a society that is as expansive and pluralistic as the whole of America, with stark demographic variations from state to state and region to region, it is difficult to argue that a majority-minority distinction in a case such as this has much legal or theoretical significance.

Irrespective of how Ms. Greenhouse views the issues at play in Groff v. DeJoy, the current Court’s religious freedom jurisprudence, or the nebulous “movement in [American] politics” driving a particular e, the result that we are seeking for our client and for all Americans is that no one be forced to leave religious convictions at home when going to work. No person—religious or nonreligious—should be forced to choose between conscience and livelihood.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Acton University 2014 Speaker Spotlight: Ross Douthat
The core economic challenge facing the American experiment is not e inequality per se, but rather stratification and stagnation —weak mobility from the bottom of the e ladder and wage stagnation for the middle class. These challenges are bound up in a growing social crisis— a retreat from marriage, a weakening of religious munal ties, a decline in workforce participation— that cannot be solved in Washington D.C. But economic and social policy can make a difference nonetheless, making family life...
Why is the State of the Union Always ‘Strong’?
I have a can’t miss prediction: tonight, when President Obama gives his sixth State of the Union address, he will describe the state of the union as “strong.” Admittedly, predicting that the state of our union will be described as “strong” is about as safe a bet as you can make when es to politics. Over the last hundred years presidents have described the State of the Union (SOTU) in various ways — Good (Truman), Sound (Carter), Not Good (Ford)....
Evaluating Net Neutrality via Walter Eucken
On January 14, as Brad Chacos so perfectly put it for PC World, “a Washington appeals court ruled that the FCC’s net neutrality rules are invalid in an 81-page document that included talk about cat videos on YouTube.” Reactions have been varied. Joe Carter recently surveyed various arguments in his latest explainer. For my part, I mend the German, ordoliberal economist Walter Eucken as a guide for evaluating net neutrality, which as Joe Carter put it, “[a]t its simplest …...
Religious Liberty and the Loss of our Roots
If the American Founding got one thing right more than anything, it was mitment to a broad and liberal religious liberty. In 1790, President George Washington told a Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, “The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy; a policy worthy of imitation.” Currently, the country faces a number of threats to religious liberty and America seems to...
Presuming the Best
Kierkegaard once wrote, “The majority of men are subjective toward themselves and objective toward all others, terribly objective sometimes–but the real task is in fact to be objective toward one’s self and subjective toward all others.” In this week’s Acton Commentary, “Discounting the Unseen,” I explore our responsibility to presume the best of others, particularly with regards to what remains unknown or assumed about them. This is a significant task given our natural propensity to excuse ourselves and to condemn...
‘The Monuments Men:’ Art Matters
Robert M. Edsel’s The Monuments Men: Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves, and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History is a terrific book regarding a part of World War II history that few are aware of. One of Hitler’s goals was to amass great art for his personal collection, and to build a museum and a cathedral in Linz, Austria. What Edsel calls a “backwater of factories and smoke” would e, in Hitler’s vision, a cultural center to rival anything Europe had...
The Presidency And The Rule Of Law
In today’s Wall Street Journal, Senator Ted Cruz (R.- Texas) discusses the presidency of Barack Obama, on the heels of the president’s State of the Union address last night. Cruz takes the current president to task on a simple theme: the rule of law. Rule of law doesn’t simply mean that society has laws; dictatorships are often characterized by an abundance of laws. Rather, rule of law means that we are a nation ruled by laws, not men. That no...
A Challenge to ‘Work-Life Balance’
Upon the recent birth of our third child, I took a brief “vacation” from “work” (quotes intended). The time spent with family was special, joyous, and fulfilling, yet given the extreme lack of sleep, the sudden rush of behavioral backlash from Toddler Siblings 1 and 2, and a host of new scarcities and constraints, it was also a whole heap of work. Needless to say, when I arrived back at the office just a week later, I felt like I...
Pete Seeger, 1919-2014
Pete Seeger performing the Woodie Guthrie song “This Land is Your Land” at President Obama’s “We Are One” Inaugural Concert, January 19, 2009. Environmentalist, agent provocateur, leftist activist, recovering Communist and ardent redistributionist – all apply to the folksinger who died Monday in New York at the age of 94. Pete Seeger, for better or worse, answered to all of the above adjectives but it’s his legacy as a songwriter and performer for which this writer prefers to remember him....
Poverty, Development, and the Idealist
In the latest EconTalk podcast, Nina Munk, journalist and author of The Idealist: Jeffrey Sachs and the Quest to End Poverty, talks about how she spent six years following Jeffrey Sachs and the evolution of the Millennium Villages Project — an attempt to jumpstart a set of African villages in hopes of discovering a new template for development. Munk details the great optimism at the beginning of the project and the discouraging results after six years of high levels of...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved