The Oregon Legislature recently passed a bill that broadens religious freedom in the workplace, which is a good thing. Employers must now allow their employees to wear certain clothing, grow beards, and take time off for religious practices. In a society where it's easy to be a Christian, but not so easy to be anything else, this is good news. But for some inexplicable reason, this bill exempts public schools. And this is just discrimination.

Oregon Sikhs are particularly unhappy because their religion requires them to wear a turban. But if they do this in Oregon, they can't teach. Similarly, some Muslim women wear the hijab as an expression of their faith. A Jew may wear a yarmulke or Hasidic attire. Presumably, no person who chose to do these things on the basis of faith could teach in Oregon.

The spokesman for the state Department of Education, Jake Weigler, says that the "concern that a public school teacher would be imparting religious values to their students outweighs that teacher's right to free expression." This is a curious—and easy—defense, given that Christian teachers are not duty-bound by their faith to dress in a particular way. If all Christians were required by their faith to wear a crucifix, would they be barred from teaching? Can a teacher wear a crucifix to class, then? It is an obvious statement of faith, yet I somehow doubt that the majority religion is considered to be a threat in our schools.

Sikhs or members of any other religion are not in our schools to teach their religion. They are there to teach their subject, whatever that may be. The same goes, hopefully, for Christian teachers. No one should be there to proselytize. Certainly, however, if a Sikh is teaching, and they dress like a Sikh, people will notice. It is likely that the students will ask questions and discover that this person has a different world view. But aren't our kids there to learn other points of view? To learn to think for themselves? Apparently, it depends on whom you ask.

The primary issue here is one of conformity. Many people automatically assume that exposure to a new idea that is "outside the mainstream" is somehow dangerous. Why? What makes new ideas so horrible? If your kid discovers that there are Sikhs in the world, does that mean they will automatically convert? (So what if they did?) This is the same argument that anti-gay folks use, actually:  the mere knowledge that gay people exist—or worse, actually knowing a gay person—will somehow cause children to become gay, as though making that choice was the same as choosing between Coke and Pepsi. It just doesn't hold water.

The teachers aren't the only ones expected to conform, however. A lot of people want their kids to conform and behave and think the "right" way. If their kids are exposed to a new idea, they might actually agree with it. It could broaden their mind. They might reassess some things. They might explore. And this possibility scares the heck out of some people.

Why is it so scary? If we as parents are not secure in ourselves and in our own beliefs, then we need validation from others that our beliefs are correct, that they are "right." And if our own children don't validate our beliefs, we may see this as a betrayal. Many bad parent-child relationships grow from this seed. Our children cannot be held responsible for our own self-esteem or insecurities. We have to let them be who they are and to follow their own hearts and minds. Yet, there are still fearful parents who wish that "different" people would just stay away from them and their kids, because they represent "new" or scary ideas.

For example, a federal court recently ruled against a Texas school district in the case of Adriel Arocha, a Native American boy. His parents filed suit because the school required that Adriel cut his hair, which he wears long for religious reasons. The school district is appealing the decision, and no doubt a lot of tax dollars will be wasted because the school district refuses to provide an exemption to an arbitrary rule that serves no real purpose except to drive home the message:  conform to the mainstream. Your religion doesn't belong here. You don't belong here.

Although we espouse freedom of religion, we live in a country where most people automatically have time off for a Christian holiday, but taking time off for another religious holiday can be difficult. Whether you're religious or not, we are inundated with a Christian perspective all the time. Christmas and Easter are wonderful and fun holidays, but they are not meaningful to everyone. Many Americans probably can't even name a Jewish holiday other than Hanukkah, much less a Sikh holiday.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with holding the Christian perspective. Christians should be free to practice their religion. But they aren't the only ones. Everyone else deserves the same rights.

The drive to conform is as old as man, but we must heal our fear of the "other." If another perspective about God or spirituality feels threatening, then that is an invitation to look deeper within yourself. Why does it feel threatening? Are you worried that your beliefs will be invalidated? How secure are you in your beliefs? How secure are you in yourself? Our fears are our messengers. They will teach us all we need to know to heal ourselves, but we have to listen. And we have to be willing to see the turban or the hijab or the yarmulke for the gift that they are.

Originally published 7/16/2009

Related articles:

• Who is right?
• We are One, but our opinions divide us
• Stuck in judgment ruts
• Why integrity matters