The Aspen Tradition

On July 28, 2025, the Office of Personnel Management issued sweeping guidance clarifying federal employees’ rights to display religious items, hold prayer groups during breaks, and engage in voluntary religious conversations aimed at persuading co-workers of the correctness of their beliefs.

(https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/265615/trump-administration-acts-to-protect-religious-expression-of-federal-workers)

Part of the broader “Project 2025,” this move claims to defend faith in government—but it’s really about stoking a narrative of Christian persecution that doesn’t hold water.

Project 2025 and the Myth of a ‘War on Christianity’

Project 2025 has become a catch-all label for policies rolled out under the banner of defending religious liberty. By framing every complaint as evidence of systemic “anti-Christian bias,” organizers manufacture a sense of siege. Yet:

• There is no statistical evidence showing widespread discrimination against Christians in federal agencies.
• Public servants of all stripes already enjoy First Amendment protections on and off duty.
• What’s new is the explicit green light to actively convert colleagues, once verboten, now celebrated.

This isn’t about safeguarding constitutional rights. It’s about painting complicated workplace interactions as part of a grand persecution narrative.

The Real Danger to Minority Faiths

On its surface, extending broad religious protections sounds inclusive. But for followers of smaller or less-understood traditions, this policy can backfire spectacularly:

• Forced Exposure: Minority believers might be “outed” in agencies where discretion was once their shield.
• Pretext for Retaliation: An employer looking for an excuse can zero in on innocent religious expression—like prayer beads or religious posters—and cite unrelated performance issues to justify dismissal.
• Peer Pressure: When Christian co-workers are empowered to openly proselytize, it can quickly feel less like an invitation and more like coercion.

What’s meant as liberty can become leverage. And those with beliefs outside the mainstream may pay the price.

A Silver Lining for Underrepresented Faiths?

Despite these pitfalls, there’s potential upside if implemented judiciously:

• More protections and open dialogue could foster genuine understanding of minority religions rather than ignorance.
• Official recognition of diverse practices may nudge agencies to include non-Christian holidays, dietary needs, dress codes, and prayer spaces.
• Hosting panels or cultural-religious fairs can humanize “the other” and reduce casual bigotry.

In a best-case scenario, these policies ignite a richer tapestry of faith expression—one that values difference rather than flattens it under a single dominant tradition.

How Overzealous Proselytizing Will Erode the Church

Experience shows that when faith groups lean on political muscle to push belief systems, they undermine their own spiritual credibility:

1. Declining Attendance Church participation has been falling steadily for decades. When congregations rely on policy mandates instead of personal conviction, many will simply walk away.
2. Cultural Clash Modern society largely embraces LGBT equality, women’s autonomy, racial justice, and reproductive rights. A Christianity tethered to political power struggles only drifts further from these core values.
3. Public Backlash Visible attempts to convert colleagues at work risk creating resentment and social media backlashes that taint public perceptions of the faith.

If Christianity can’t win hearts on its own merits, turning to government crutches is more a confession of weakness than a demonstration of strength.

The Spotlight on Intolerance and Hypocrisy

Mandating religious display and discourse will unavoidably surface deep inconsistencies:

• Conversations once confined to pulpits—about gender roles, sexual orientation, or racial hierarchies—may spill into lunchrooms.
• Posters of Bible verses on communal boards will invite debate on passages used historically to justify sexism, homophobia, or slavery.
• Microaggressions and coded language previously overlooked will come under fire.

This brutal transparency could be a catalyst for reform within religious institutions, or it could accelerate their fragmentation as toxic elements are exposed.

Faith That Stands on Its Own Merits

The acid test for any belief system is how it fares under unfiltered public scrutiny. True spiritual vitality doesn’t demand legal mandates—it thrives on voluntary commitment and personal transformation. History teaches that:

• Movements grounded in compassionate service outlast those propped up by political patronage.
• Beliefs that resonate authentically adapt with cultural progress.
• Dogmas unable to evolve with humanity’s moral arc fade into irrelevance.

Letting government do the heavy lifting for a faltering faith only postpones an inevitable reckoning.

Toward a Pluralistic Future

What survives this experiment of expanded religious expression will be the convictions that prove both plausible and life-affirming. The rest—nonsense or toxicity—will be cast aside. As minority traditions gain the chance to be heard, and majority religions face genuine marketplace competition, we may finally arrive at a more honest, equitable religious landscape.

The path forward demands vigilance:

• Agencies must guard against coercion and protect those of minority faiths from subtle retaliation.
• Religious communities should focus on authenticity and service rather than political fights.
• Society at large needs to uphold true freedom of conscience: the right to believe, to disbelieve, and to change one’s mind without fear.

In the end, robust spiritual liberty is not about privilege granted by policy, but about the strength of ideas that endure in an open, pluralistic arena.