[SendShaqtoIraq]

Again, it does NOT say they cannot participate in religious activities. It says:

a) Prohibited Activities- An approved national service position under this subtitle may not be used for the following activities:
...Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization, consistent with section 132.

As I said before, that just means they can’t use these activities as their service requirement. They can participate in as much religious activity as they want as long as they don’t try to say that is what they are doing for their time.

I still think it’s bullcrap, though.

[Freepmanchew]

Again, it does NOT say they cannot participate in religious activities. It says:

It says per section 132, and section 132 speaks of activities that are disallowed under the legislation. Hence the activities listed in amendment 132A of the bill, which OV listed in his article that you pasted in your comment.

[OneVike]

For anyone who may think this legislation is not unconstitutional. You would fail to take in consideration the legal right of every citizen in the United States to freely practice their religious beliefs. I do agree that it cannot interfere with the duties they are assigned. But courts have upheld the rights for free religious expression even in the workplace as long as they do not interfere with anyone else ability to properly carry out their task.

Here is what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), say on religious freedom at the workplace. You will see that the language in the legislation that Obama signed into law is not only unconstitutional, but it goes against the very laws put forth by the EEOC.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964
(“Title VII”)
prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII also requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless to do so would create an undue hardship upon the employer. This means that:

* Employers may not treat employees more or less favorably because of their religion.
* Employees cannot be required to participate -- or refrain from participating – in a religious activity as a condition of employment.
* Employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
* Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees.
* Employers may not retaliate against employees for asserting rights under Title VII.3

Now you may say that proselytizing at work is still not allowed. Wrong, this is what the EEOC has to say about sharing ones faith.

What kind of guidance is available to deal with workplace proselytizing?

Although the law is developing in this area, some guidance is available. An employee has a right to engage in religious conduct to the extent that it is not an undue hardship on the employer. Harassing another employee is likely to be an undue hardship. Recall, however, that harassment is a fairly high - but not impossible - standard. So, while the line between permissible proselytizing and workplace harassment is blurry, important factors that bear on the analysis include

* the pervasiveness of the proselytizing
* its impact on coworkers (e.g., harassing them) and work performance (including profitability)and
* the capacity and willingness of the employer to take steps to accommodate the aggrieved parties, such as by moving the proselytizing employee and the offended employee to different work stations.

The Supreme Court, and lower courts have routinely upheld the language of the EEOC regulations on Freedom of religion in the workplace. It is very clear that this legislation is unconstitutional in the way it is written.

We will just have to wait and see if they continue to follow the precedent set or rule otherwise. The real question is, "Will the court do what it did with McCain's unconstitutional campaign finance reform, and let it stand also. Regardless, I can see this going to the Supreme court.