There is no such thing as religious neutrality.  Everybody has a “religion” they operate from and there is a stark contrast between how some of the early settlers of America responded when sickness was among them and how most of current America responded to Covid.  Some of the early settlers of America responded by seeking God and asking the question, “is there a way we have offended You?”  During Covid, there was NO National Day of Prayer called to seek God.  Instead, there was a mad rush backed by billions of federal dollars to see how fast we could get “the vaccine.” 

In a business I formerly worked in, they incentivized taking the vaccine.  The business actually paid employees to take it and put up many banners around their plant that said, “Be a hero. Get the shot.”  The primary vaccine was produced by Pfizer.  Sadly, Pfizer was a sponsor of the 2023 Grammys where “Satan worship” took place.  Though the performance was theatrical in nature, I believe it truly was Satan behind the secular humanist movement that sought to turn solely to science (as botched up as it was) rather than our Creator. 

I have no problem with a private employer incentivizing an employee to do what they believe is best for them and in turn what is best for the business where they fund the payroll.  However, if private employers are free to incentivize the taking of a vaccine which many of us disagree with, employers should also be free to incentivize that which many of us believe is good for us, namely, participation in practices that aid in building our faith.  Certainly, the account given on the homepage of this website about George Washington Carver demonstrates the value of faith to becoming a great asset to a business.  As Psalm 1 declares about the person who “delights in the law of the Lord,” “whatever he does he prospers.” 

I have always said that I am a different person because of my love for brownies and rice crispy treats.  At First Baptist Church in Brewton where I grew up, people of the church would bring brownies and rice crispy treats for “youth choir snacks.”  This incentivized me to participate in youth choir and being part of choir brought me in church more where I heard The Word of God.  The Bible says, “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.”  As it takes a seed a long time to bear fruit, continuing to hear the Word of God eventually produced in me worship for the Lord Jesus and spiritual fruit in helping others and building His Kingdom.

It is obviously not illegal for an employer to incentivize an employee participating in educational development since every application I have ever filled out asks questions about educational background.   In other words, there is no prohibition of discrimination (“To make a difference in treatment or favor”) based on education in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Why then should an employer not be able to incentivize spiritual development by asking questions about one’s spiritual developmental background and what an applicant is currently doing to further develop themselves spiritually?    

My position is the following:  I believe it is clearly federal government overreach to tell the people who fund the payroll in a business what things they cannot consider when making hiring decisions, as was the case in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  However, I also want to be somewhat pragmatic.  If we want to keep Title VII applicable to private employers, can we AT LEAST keep it to characteristics such as race, skin color, and national origin, which have no bearing on moral character.  This would encompass amending the law to remove the components that involve choice, such as religion and now gender since in the 2020 Supreme Court Case Bostock V. Clayton County, the gender component of Title VII was expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Be assured, sexual orientation is used as a cover for homosexual practice.  A person might not be able to help who they are attracted to but practicing homosexuality is a choice they make that is indicative of their moral character, or more explicitly, contrary to the calling of a follower of Jesus to deny oneself.  The same applies to identifying yourself differently than the gender you were born with. 

Common sense tells me that in the context of a law designed to bring “equal opportunity,” a differentiation should be made between characteristics that involve choice and characteristics that do not involve choice.  My position may also encompass amending Title VII to address two different employers, that is, government employers and private employers.  At present, the two types of employers are lumped together in the same law.  Again, people with common sense know there should be a distinction between the two as we currently have in the way public schools are free to operate and in the way private schools are free to operate.  Much more liberty should always be given to those entities in the private sector.   

Our private employers serve as the economic engines of America.  Yet we have incurred an unfathomable amount of federal debt which I believe to be at least in part from a weakened workforce brought about by employers not being able to hold employees accountable to hardly anything because of the probability of fighting endless litigation based on Title VII (Chik-fil-a settled out of court at least a dozen times due to Title VII).  Considering this reality, coupled with the fact that many people share in my belief that the greatest enemy in America is our own moral corruption, would you stand with me in the position I have set forth?

It can be at least a beginning point to loosening the shackles of the federal government on our lives and restoring the freedom of “we the people” to value faith in God, not just in our religious institutions but also in our everyday lives, including the place where we spend most of our time, that is, the workplace.