Supreme Court ruling for evangelical postal worker is good news in our multifaith US | Opinion

The recent unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision, Groff v. DeJoy was not the most important religious case on which the court has ever ruled.

Still, the justices’ affirmation of the importance of individual religious freedom gives Americans a new chance to grasp the significant changes in our nation’s religious landscape over the past 60 or 70 years. If, as a result, Americans gain a better appreciation of the many faith traditions now followed in the U.S., that would be good news.

That hope may sound ephemeral, but let’s not dismiss it immediately. Rather, let’s put the decision in historical context and see if we can better understand and appreciate the range of religious choices we Americans have — and should have.

The suit described plaintiff Gerald Groff as “an evangelical Christian who believes for religious reasons that Sunday should be devoted to worship and rest.” Ian Millhiser, a senior correspondent for Vox, summarizes the case this way:

“The Groff case involves a postal worker who wanted to be exempted from working on Sundays because of his religious beliefs. (Although the post office typically does not deliver mail on Sundays, the postal service contracted with Amazon in 2013 to deliver Sunday packages.) The post office claimed that this worker’s request could not be accommodated because he worked in an office with only a few employees, and exempting one of these employees from Sunday work would place too much of a burden on the other workers, who would have to pick up his Sunday shifts.

“The Supreme Court, however, did not resolve whether this particular request for a religious accommodation should have been granted. Instead, it sent the case back down to the lower courts to reevaluate this request in light of the court’s newly announced, more pro-worker rule.”

So we can expect many court challenges from people asking lower courts now to outline specifically what constitutes too heavy a burden on employers.

Religious liberty affirmation is encouraging

This affirmation of religious liberty gives us a chance to recognize the dozens and dozens of faith traditions (including none) to which Americans now pledge allegiance. After all, even if our neighbors don’t follow the religion with which we’re most familiar, they’re still our neighbors. And religion has played a central, but shifting, role here since before the U.S. became a nation.

Indigenous residents of this land, of course, had (and have) their own spiritual practices. But then European invaders arrived, imagining they were going to help save the souls of “savages” by converting them to Christianity. (You can find the term “merciless Indian savages” in the Declaration of Independence.)

If Indigenous people are called savages, what more accurate term might describe the imperious Europeans who were following the pope’s 1493 “Doctrine of Discovery” as they uprooted ancient cultures and tried to convince natives that they were sinners in the hands of an angry (Christian) god? “White supremacists.”

Since then, the story of religion in what’s now the U.S. has been complex. The American court system has added to that complexity and confusion in various ways, including in the previous decision that the Groff case has undone. Still, the courts are required to make sure that Americans can practice their religions without invasive government mandates or other interference.

I found it intriguing and encouraging that, as the Religion News Service reported, the Groff ruling is also popular with Americans of non-Chistian faith traditions because it protects their rights, too.

There’s still much to negotiate about time off requests based on religious practice. But it’s now clear to everyone that religion still matters in the U.S.

So this would be a good time for Americans to learn about when and why not just Christians but also Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Baha’is, Jains, Sikhs and American followers of other faith traditions might ask an employer for a religious accommodation to the work schedule — and when. For Passover? For Ramadan? For Vaisakhi? For Ridván? (You could look those up.)

The U.S. still has an opportunity to show the world what it looks like to live in religious harmony in a multifaith country. That’s been a goal of the Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council since its founding in 1989. Because the Groff decision keeps that hope alive, our frustrating Supreme Court, in this limited circumstance, deserves some applause.