Religion Is The New Identity Politics: Massachusetts Wants Muslims Placed In Gov

For years, Americans have been told that government should never discriminate against someone because of religion.

That principle is worth defending.

A Muslim should not be denied a government job because he is Muslim. A Christian should not be denied one because she is Christian. A Jew, Hindu, atheist or anyone else should be judged according to qualifications, character and ability -- not religious identity.

But Massachusetts lawmakers are considering something very different.

Legislation currently before the Massachusetts Legislature would create a permanent government commission devoted specifically to people who practice Islam. And buried among its responsibilities is a provision that deserves far more attention than it has received.

The proposed commission would be tasked with identifying and recommending "qualified American Muslims" for appointed positions throughout government, including boards and commissions.

That raises an obvious question:

Why should the government be helping people obtain government appointments based upon their religion?

Sometimes the easiest way to understand a policy is simply to change the group involved.

Imagine Texas creating a permanent Southern Baptist Commission.

Imagine its members being appointed by the governor, attorney general and legislative leaders.

Then imagine state law explicitly instructing that commission to identify qualified Southern Baptists and recommend them for positions throughout government.

Would progressive activists celebrate that as "inclusion"?

Would civil-liberties organizations shrug?

Or would we immediately hear warnings about Christian nationalism, the separation of church and state and religious influence over government?

The reaction would almost certainly be explosive.

Yet when the religion involved is Islam, the same concept is presented as diversity and civil rights.

That double standard should concern everyone, regardless of his or her views about Islam.

Supporters have named the legislation the "Act promoting the civil rights and inclusion of American Muslims in the Commonwealth." The commission would study Islamophobia and discrimination, advise government bodies about policies affecting Muslims and serve as a liaison involving issues important to Muslim communities.

Protecting people against genuine religious discrimination is entirely legitimate.

But protection from discrimination and government-sponsored advancement are not the same thing.

The bill goes considerably further than telling Massachusetts agencies not to discriminate against Muslims.

It proposes an 11-member permanent commission with members selected by powerful state officials. The commission could hold hearings, recommend policies, request information and assistance from state agencies, establish offices subject to appropriations and employ a paid executive director.

And it would specifically recommend Muslims for government appointments.

That is where Massachusetts enters very different territory.

Government's role should be to guarantee that the doors are equally open -- not to begin sorting citizens into religious identities and creating official machinery to ensure particular groups are represented inside government.

This is also part of a much larger transformation in American politics.

Identity politics began with the argument that institutions should pay greater attention to representation based upon race, sex and ethnicity. It subsequently expanded into sexual orientation and gender identity.

Now religion is increasingly becoming another identity category through which government can organize citizens.

That progression should make Americans uncomfortable.

Once government accepts the principle that particular religious communities deserve official institutions dedicated to increasing their representation and influence, where exactly does that principle end?

Should there be a Catholic Commission?

An Evangelical Commission?

A Jewish Commission?

A Hindu Commission?

A Mormon Commission?

A Sunni Commission and a Shiite Commission?

Should each one identify members of its religious community for government appointments?

At some point, government stops viewing Americans primarily as individual citizens and begins viewing them as members of competing identity blocs, each requiring its own representation, bureaucracy and political influence.

That is a dangerous direction for a pluralistic society.

America's great religious-liberty principle was never supposed to mean that every religion receives a proportional share of political power.

It means government doesn't impose religious tests and doesn't punish citizens for their faith.

Article VI of the Constitution famously prohibits religious tests for federal office. The broader American ideal is that a citizen's religious affiliation should neither qualify nor disqualify him from public service.

The Massachusetts proposal turns that logic in a troubling direction.

Instead of government saying, "We don't care what religion you practice; show us whether you're qualified, "government begins asking whether particular religious groups have enough representation -- and establishes institutions designed to help correct the perceived imbalance.

Once that mindset takes hold, merit can gradually become secondary to identity.

And every group inevitably begins asking the same question:

What about us?

This isn't merely a social-media rumor.

House Bill H.3351 was reported favorably out of committee in December 2025 and referred to the Massachusetts House Ways and Means Committee, where it remains as of August 17, 2026.

The Senate version contains the same striking mandate regarding Muslim appointments.

The legislation has not become law, and that distinction matters.

But the fact that such a proposal has advanced at all shows how deeply identity-based thinking has become embedded in modern government.

The danger of identity politics has always been that equal treatment eventually gives way to demands for preferential treatment -- and that society becomes divided into groups competing for official recognition, representation and influence.

Massachusetts is now showing us what happens when that philosophy moves into religion.

A government that starts categorizing its citizens according to faith and helping particular religious communities gain representation is crossing a line Americans should think very carefully about.

Because if religious identity becomes the next great political spoils system, the question will no longer simply be whether Muslims deserve a seat at the table.

It will be which religion government decides needs the next one.