As a Muslim American woman, I oppose Senate Bill S.2134 not because I oppose religious freedom, but because I cherish it. The greatest protection for every faith in America is that a government neither favors nor disfavors any religion. That principle has allowed people of every belief to flourish under one Constitution.
The First Amendment begins with a remarkable promise: government shall neither establish religion nor interfere with its free exercise. Those two protections are inseparable. Religious liberty survives only when the state remains neutral. Once a government begins creating official institutions organized around a particular faith, however noble the intention, that neutrality begins to erode.
Senate Bill No. 2134, filed by State Senator Jamie Eldridge and titled An Act promoting the civil rights and inclusion of American Muslims in the commonwealth, would establish an 11-member permanent state commission to promote the civil rights, inclusion, and civic participation of American Muslims. Its goals are well-intentioned. The constitutional question it raises, however, deserves far greater scrutiny: Should the government create a permanent body organized around a single religion?
Supporters argue that the commission would ensure Muslim voices are heard in the state government. But then Muslims already possess the same rights as every other citizen: to vote, petition elected officials, organize advocacy groups, speak publicly, and participate fully in civic life. Government does not need to create a permanent religious commission to hear from Muslims any more than it does for Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, or evangelical Christians.
Why American Muslims need to engage in cross-cultural conversations
The real issue extends far beyond this one bill. It is whether Massachusetts should establish the precedent that the state may create official institutions representing individual religions.
If one faith receives a permanent state commission, what principle limits the creation of others? Either every religious community will seek its own officially recognized body, blurring the constitutional line between church and state, or a government will decide which faiths merit such recognition and which do not. Neither outcome strengthens religious liberty. Both weaken the principle of equal treatment.
My concerns are also personal.
As a Muslim woman, I know Islam is not monolithic. Muslims disagree profoundly about theology, religious practice, family law, women’s roles, and the interpretation of Sharia. There is no single Muslim viewpoint, and no government-created commission could legitimately claim to represent the diversity of Muslim communities in Massachusetts, let alone the nearly two billion Muslims around the world.
As America Turns 250, Can Interfaith Leaders Help Heal a Divided Nation?
That matters because state commissions do more than offer advice—they confer legitimacy. A government-created body inevitably carries the appearance of official authority. Many Muslims, including women, reform-minded believers, and secular Muslims, may reasonably wonder whether such a commission reflects their voices or simply elevates one interpretation of Islam above others.
Government should never place itself in the position of deciding who authentically represents a religion. That is a theological question, not a governmental one.
The implications extend beyond symbolism. Public policy touching education, family issues, religious accommodations, or civil rights could increasingly be shaped through consultation with a body organized around one faith. Even if its recommendations are non binding, its existence gives one religion a formal place within the machinery of state government that others do not enjoy.
That is precisely why the Establishment Clause exists. America’s founders understood that religion flourishes best when it remains independent of state power, and government functions best when it does not become entangled in religious affairs. History repeatedly demonstrates that when governments begin organizing or endorsing religious representation, both religion and government suffer.
American Muslims Hail Abdul El-Sayed’s Senate Nomination as Landmark for Political Inclusion
Massachusetts, of all places, should appreciate this lesson. The Commonwealth’s own colonial history reminds us that government involvement in religion often produces exclusion rather than liberty. Over generations, America corrected that mistake by embracing equal protection and religious neutrality as constitutional ideals. Those principles should not be weakened today.
This debate is not about Islam. It is not about whether Muslims deserve respect or protection. We do, as does every other religious community. The issue is whether a government should establish permanent institutions organized around any religion.
As a Muslim American, I do not want my faith elevated by the state. I want it protected from the state. The same Constitution that safeguards my right to wear a hijab or not, to attend a mosque and practice my faith freely also prevents the government from endorsing religion itself. Those protections belong equally to every American.
Massachusetts should reject Senate Bill S.2134. The strength of religious liberty has never depended on creating government institutions for particular faiths. It has depended on treating every citizen equally while keeping the state neutral toward every religion. That principle has served the Commonwealth well for centuries, and it should continue to do so.
Opinions expressed by contributors in their writings are entirely their own, and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Views News Now.
Farhana Khorshed is a member on the Board for the American Muslim and Multifaith Women Empowerment Council, which aims to empower female leadership and promote religious freedom
