¹ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “What You Should Know about COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws,” updated March 14, 2022, https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws#L; Lisa Nagele-Piazza, “EEOC Updates Guidance on Religious Accommodations for COVID-19 Vaccines,” SHRM Employment Law (blog), March 7, 2022, https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/coronavirus-eeoc-updates-guidance-religious-accommodations.aspx.

² Phil McCausland, “Religious Exemptions to Vaccine Mandates Could Test ‘Sincerely Held Beliefs,’” NBC News, September 5, 2021, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/religious-exemptions-vaccine-mandates-could-test-sincerely-held-beliefs-n1278514; Kira Ganga Kieffer, “Perspective: Doubters’ Push for Religious Exemptions from Coronavirus Vaccination May Not Work,” Washington Post, September 20, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/09/20/doubters-push-religious-exemptions-coronavirus-vaccination-may-not-work/; Jon Healey, “Citing Religious Beliefs to Avoid the COVID-19 Vaccine Could Cost You Your Job,” Yahoo!, September 23, 2021, https://www.yahoo.com/now/citing-religious-beliefs-avoid-covid-110005732.html; Laurel Demkovich, “What Really Counts as a Religious Exemption to the COVID-19 Vaccine? Employers Are Trying to Figure It Out,” The Spokesman-Review, September 23, 2021, https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2021/sep/23/what-really-counts-as-a-religious-exemption-to-the/; Andrea Hsu and Shannon Bond, “Getting a Religious Exemption to a Vaccine Mandate May Not Be Easy. Here's Why,” NPR, September 28, 2021, https://www.npr.org/2021/09/28/1041017591/getting-a-religious-exemption-to-a-vaccine-mandate-may-not-be-easy-heres-whyf.

³ See, for example, Sullivan, Winnifred Fallers, The Impossibility of Religious Freedom (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005)Google Scholar; Wenger, Tisa Joy, We Have a Religion: The 1920s Pueblo Indian Dance Controversy and American Religious Freedom (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hussein Ali Agrama, “Sovereign Power and Secular Indeterminacy: Is Egypt a Secular or a Religious State?” In After Secular Law, ed. Winnifred Fallers Sullivan, Robert A. Yelle, and Mateo Taussig-Rubbo (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2011), 181–99; Thomas, Jolyon Baraka, Faking Liberties: Religious Freedom in American-Occupied Japan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ The tendency to focus narrowly on judicial opinions has been most pronounced among law professors, of course, but scholars of U.S. religions have often followed suit. Works, primarily historical in approach, that emphasize judicial decision-making include Mazur, Eric Michael, The Americanization of Religious Minorities: Confronting the Constitutional Order (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gordon, Sarah Barringer, The Mormon Question: Polygamy and Constitutional Conflict in Nineteenth-Century America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002)Google Scholar; Sehat, David, The Myth of American Religious Freedom (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011)Google Scholar; Green, Steven K., The Third Disestablishment: Church, State, and American Culture, 1940–1975 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The emphasis on judicial opinions is particularly pronounced in the area of pedagogy. Based on a quick perusal of the syllabi posted to the websites of the American Academy of Religion (AAR) (https://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/resources/syllabi/) and the Center for Religion and American Culture (https://raac.iupui.edu/teaching/young-scholars-in-american-religion-syllabi/), it is striking how many of them equate the study of “religion and law” with a close consideration of Supreme Court opinions. The AAR site, for example, includes five syllabi with titles akin to “Religion and Law,” and four of them consist almost exclusively of reading Supreme Court case law. Winnifred Fallers Sullivan notes the trend to over-emphasize religion clause jurisprudence in her incisive afterword to a volume I co-edited, where she describes judicial opinions as “very seductive as texts—short and self-contained and almost irresistible to the critical cultural eye.” She suggests that “we [scholars of religion and law in the United States] have learned how to do close reading of judicial opinions,” but warns that we may have learned this skill “a little too well.” Winnifred Fallers Sullivan, “Afterword,” in Religion, Law, USA, eds. Joshua Dubler and Isaac Weiner (New York: New York University Press, 2019), 284. At the editors’ invitation, contributors to that volume focused their essays on specific case studies, which in most cases they took to mean particular court cases and judicial opinions. As Sullivan puts it, the volume offers a rich introduction “to the postseparationist and postsecularist understanding of the conjunction of religion and law, as seen from US religious studies” but maintains a relatively sharp focus on the law of the liberal state. Sullivan, “Afterword,” 283. Much of Sullivan's own trailblazing work has relied on close, critical readings of judicial opinions, albeit buttressed by deep and far-reaching engagement with scholarship from a wide range of fields. See, for example, Sullivan, Winnifred Fallers, Paying the Words Extra: Religious Discourse in the Supreme Court of the United States (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Center for the Study of World Religions, 1994)Google Scholar; Sullivan, Winnifred Fallers, The Impossibility of Religious Freedom (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005)Google Scholar; Sullivan, Winnifred Fallers, Prison Religion: Faith-Based Reform and the Constitution (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sullivan, Winnifred Fallers, Church State Corporation: Construing Religion in US Law (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. But Sullivan has also been consistent in her calls to U.S. religion scholars to think more broadly and capaciously about what constitutes law and legal materials and, even more pointedly, to think beyond the framework of the liberal state and its law. See, for example, Oraby, Mona and Sullivan, Winnifred Fallers, “Law and Religion: Reimagining the Entanglement of Two Universals,” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 16, no. 1 (2020): 257–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In this article, I maintain an interest in the regulatory power of the liberal state but aim to expand our understanding of the sites where we locate that power.

⁵ In Sincerely Held: American Secularism and Its Believers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2022), Charles McCrary similarly attends both to the realm of judicial decision-making and to the bureaucratic power of administrative agencies.

⁶ Jonathan Z. Smith, “God Save This Honorable Court: Religion and Civic Discourse,” in Relating Religion: Essays in the Study of Religion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 376.

⁷ James T. Richardson, “Scientology in Court: A Look at Some Major Cases,” in Scientology, ed. James R. Lewis (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 287–88; Hugh B. Urban, The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011), 156.

⁸ United States Internal Revenue Service, “‘Churches’ Defined,” https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-religious-organizations/churches-defined.

⁹ On the role of the “church” in U.S. law, see Sullivan, Church State Corporation; also, see my discussion of the “Religious Organization” later in this article.

¹⁰ On the FBI as arbiter of U.S. religious life, see Sylvester A. Johnson and Steven Weitzman, eds., The FBI and Religion (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2017).

¹¹ James Dennis LoRusso, Spirituality, Corporate Culture and American Business: The Neoliberal Ethic and the Spirit of Global Capital (Bloomsbury Academic, 2017); Elizabeth Anderson, Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don't Talk about It) (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017); Ilana Gershon, Down and Out in the New Economy: How People Find (or Don't Find) Work Today (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2017); Melissa Gregg, Counterproductive: Time Management in the Knowledge Economy (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2018); Sarah Jaffe, Work Won't Love You Back: How Devotion to Our Jobs Keeps Us Exploited, Exhausted, and Alone (New York: Bold Type Books, 2021); Kristy Nabhan-Warren, Meatpacking America: How Migration, Work, and Faith Unite and Divide the Heartland (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2021); Carolyn Chen, Work Pray Code: When Work Becomes Religion in Silicon Valley (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022).

¹² Kathi Weeks, The Problem with Work: Feminism, Marxism, Antiwork Politics, and Postwork Imaginaries (Durham, NC: Duke University Press Books, 2011), 8.

¹³ Kathryn Lofton, Consuming Religion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017), 208.

¹⁴ On schools, see, for example, Steven K. Green, The Bible, the School, and the Constitution: The Clash That Shaped Modern Church-State Doctrine (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012). On prisons, see Sullivan, Prison Religion; Joshua Dubler, Down in the Chapel: Religious Life in an American Prison (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2013); Brad Stoddard, Spiritual Entrepreneurs: Florida's Faith-Based Prisons and the American Carceral State (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2021). On the military, see Ronit Y. Stahl, Enlisting Faith: How the Military Chaplaincy Shaped Religion and State in Modern America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017).

¹⁵ Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1964).

¹⁶ Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

¹⁷ Michael D. McNally, Defend the Sacred: Native American Religious Freedom beyond the First Amendment (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2020).

¹⁸ Law professors have tended to describe the EEOC's definition of religion in uncritical ways that overstate its internal coherence. See, for example, Raymond F. Gregory, Encountering Religion in the Workplace: The Legal Rights and Responsibilities of Workers and Employers (Ithaca, NY: ILR, 2011). Debbie Kaminer is more attentive to the contradictions and tensions in the law of workplace accommodations, but she focuses more on the employer's obligation to accommodate than on the legal definition of religion. See, for example, Debbie N. Kaminer, “Title VII's Failure to Provide Meaningful and Consistent Protection of Religious Employees: Proposals for an Amendment,” Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law 21, no. 2 (September 2000): 575–631; Debbie Kaminer, “Religious Accommodation in the Workplace: Why Federal Courts Fail to Provide Meaningful Protection of Religious Employees,” Texas Review of Law and Politics 20 (Fall 2015): 107–56.

¹⁹ There is a great deal of scholarship on state-level Fair Employment Practices legislation, but most of it focuses on race-based discrimination with very little attention to matters of religion. For example, see Paul Burstein, Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics: The Struggle for Equal Employment Opportunity in the United States since the New Deal (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985); Paul D. Moreno, From Direct Action to Affirmative Action: Fair Employment Law and Policy in America, 1933–1972 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1997); Stuart Svonkin, Jews against Prejudice: American Jews and the Fight for Civil Liberties (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), especially chapter 4; Andrew Edmund Kersten, Race, Jobs, and the War: The FEPC in the Midwest, 1941–46 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000); Martha Biondi, To Stand and Fight: The Struggle for Civil Rights in Postwar New York City (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003); Anthony S. Chen, The Fifth Freedom: Jobs, Politics, and Civil Rights in the United States, 1941–1972 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009).

²⁰ 110 Cong. Rec. 1528-29 (1964).

²¹ In 1967 testimony before a Senate subcommittee, the Chair of the EEOC reported that the commission had received over sixteen thousand charges since the Commission began its work. More than 60 percent were related to race, one-third to sex, 3 percent to national origin, and only about 1 percent to religion. See RG 403, Office of the Chairman Records of Chairman Stephen Shulman 1966–1968, Box 5, National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, MD.

²² “Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Religion,” 31 Fed. Reg. 8370 (1966).

²³ Naomi W. Cohen, Jews in Christian America: The Pursuit of Religious Equality (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992); Jonathan D. Sarna and David G. Dalin, eds., Religion and State in the American Jewish Experience (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997); Lofton, Consuming Religion, 208–11.

²⁴ New York State Commission against Discrimination, “Memorandum of Law: Observance of Religious Holidays,” August 18, 1955, Series 19280, Box 10, Item 1, “Sabbath Observers, vol. 1,” New York State Division of Human Rights Executive Subject and Correspondence Files, New York State Archives, Albany, NY.

²⁵ “Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Religion,” 31 Fed. Reg. 8370 (1966).

²⁶ New York's State Division of Human Rights took parallel steps at the same time to expand protections for Sabbath Observers at the behest of the same groups, who pursued a coordinated legal advocacy strategy at the national and state levels. At the state level, for example, see correspondence from the Commission on Law and Public Affairs and other Jewish advocacy groups to the New York State Division of Human Rights in Series 19280, Box 10, Item 2, “Sabbath Observers,” New York State Division of Human Rights Executive Subject and Correspondence Files, New York State Archives, Albany, NY.

²⁷ “Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Religion,” 29 C.F.R. §1605 (1967).

²⁸ George G. Harrer to Stephen M. Shulman, June 7, 1967, RG 403, Office of the Chairman Records of Chairman Stephen Shulman 1966–1968, Box 7, “Religious Discrimination,” National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, MD.

²⁹ Gretchen Saam to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, June 7, 1967, RG 403, Office of the Chairman Records of Chairman Stephen Shulman 1966–1968, Box 7, “Religious Discrimination,” National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, MD.

³⁰ See, especially, Dewey v. Reynolds Metal Co., 402 U.S. 689 (1971), which invalidated the EEOC's 1967 Guidelines and suggested they might be unconstitutional.

³¹ 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j).

³² As evidenced by its later compliance manuals, the EEOC was keenly aware of this problem. See, for example, the EEOC's 1986 Compliance Manual for Investigators in the Field, which explains that, because section §701(j) “states only that an observance or practice must be ‘religious,’” the Commission must look elsewhere (than the section defining religion!) for a definition of religion (§628.4[b][1]).

³³ On “belief” as a key category for First Amendment jurisprudence, see Sarah Imhoff, “Belief,” in Religion, Law, USA, eds. Joshua Dubler and Isaac Weiner (New York: New York University Press, 2019), 26–39.

³⁴ Legislative History of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), 712.

³⁵ Nelson Lichtenstein, State of the Union: A Century of American Labor, rev. and exp. ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013), 61.

³⁶ It was also the case that many, though certainly not all, Sabbath Observers refused to pay union dues, opting instead to direct an equivalent sum toward religious charities of their choice.

³⁷ Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977).

³⁸ Hardison, 432 U.S. at 79, 81.

³⁹ Hardison, 432 U.S. at 84.

⁴⁰ EEOC Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Religion, 29 C.F.R. § 1605.1 (1980).

⁴¹ EEOC Dec. No. 71-779, CCH EEOC Decisions (1970).

⁴² EEOC Dec. No. 71-2620, CCH EEOC Decisions (1971). There is a long history, of course, of state authorities policing the boundaries of Black religious life and challenging the legitimacy of Black religious practices. See, for example, Sylvester Johnson, African American Religions, 1500–2000: Colonialism, Democracy, and Freedom (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015); Judith Weisenfeld, New World A-Coming: Black Religion and Racial Identity during the Great Migration (New York: New York University Press, 2016).

⁴³ United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965); Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970).

⁴⁴ Seeger, 380 U.S. at 165.

⁴⁵ Seeger, 380 U.S. at 176.

⁴⁶ For a longer genealogy of “sincerely held religious belief” as a standard under U.S. law, see McCrary, Sincerely Held.

⁴⁷ EEOC Dec. No. 71-779, CCH EEOC Decisions (1970).

⁴⁸ Robert Wuthnow, After Heaven: Spirituality in America since the 1950s (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998).

⁴⁹ Robert Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 227–28. Also see McCrary, Sincerely Held, 188.

⁵⁰ Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart, 221.

⁵¹ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Interpretive Manual: A Reference Manual to Title VII Law for Compliance Personnel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (May 1972), “Section 472: When Is a Conviction ‘Religious?’” 361.

⁵² Hearings before the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Religious Accommodation: Hearings Held in New York, NY, Los Angeles, CA, & Milwaukee, WI, April–May, 1978 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979).

⁵³ Hearings before the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 340.

⁵⁴ Hearings before the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 327. Note that the written transcript of this oral testimony included scare quotes around the word religious in much the same way that critical scholars of religion often style it today. Was the sarcasm obvious to those who were listening?

⁵⁵ Clauston Jenkins, Executive Assistant to the Chancellor, North Carolina State University, to Ms. Marie D. Wilson, Executive Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, November 1, 1979. Guidelines on Discrimination because of Religion: Comments, Volume I. EEOC Archives, Washington, DC.

⁵⁶ Guidelines on Discrimination because of Religion: Comments, Volume II. EEOC Archives, Washington, DC.

⁵⁷ Richard V. Salvino, Manager—Equal Employment Policies, The Timken Company, to Ms. Marie D. Wilson, Executive Secretariat, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, December 12, 1979. Guidelines on Discrimination because of Religion: Comments, Volume II. EEOC Archives, Washington, DC.

⁵⁸ Guidelines on Discrimination because of Religion: Comments, Volume I. EEOC Archives, Washington, DC.

⁵⁹ Guidelines on Discrimination because of Religion: Comments, Volume II. EEOC Archives, Washington, DC. The handwriting on this last statement is somewhat illegible. The letter writer is either concerned about ritual love making to mules or males. It looks like they initially typed “male” and then crossed out the “a” and handwrote a “u” to make “mule.” But it could also be the other way around.

⁶⁰ In their discussion of “Sheila-ism,” Robert Bellah and colleagues warn of the civic dangers associated with each American imagining themselves to be an idiosyncratic religion unto themselves. See Robert Bellah et al., Habits of the Heart.

⁶¹ The shift from Sabbath Observance to Idiosyncratism in the EEOC's guidelines parallels a similar shift in the history of conscientious objection that led to the Supreme Court's Seeger and Welsh decisions. In the first part of the twentieth century, conscientious objector status was reserved for members of historic “peace churches.” The Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1958 broadened the category to encompass anyone whose objections to war were grounded in their beliefs “in relation to a Supreme Being.”

⁶² EEOC Dec. No. 79-06, CCH EEOC Decisions (1983); Slater v. King Soopers, 809 F. Supp. 809, 810 (D. Colo. 1992).

⁶³ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination (January 15, 2021).

⁶⁴ Duran v. Select Med. Corp., No. 08-cv-2328-JPM-tmp, 2010 WL 11493117, at *5-6 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 19, 2010).

⁶⁵ Seeger, 380 U.S. at 173.

⁶⁶ See, for example, Sullivan, Impossibility of Religious Freedom; Rosemary R. Hicks, “Between Lived and the Law: Power, Empire, and Expansion in Studies of North American Religions,” Religion 42, no. 3 (July 2012): 409–24; Finbarr Curtis, The Production of American Religious Freedom (New York: New York University Press, 2016); Tisa Wenger, Religious Freedom: The Contested History of an American Ideal (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2017); McCrary, Sincerely Held.

⁶⁷ As with the protections against religious discrimination, the exemptions for religious organizations have a longer history at the state level. For example, as early as 1944, members of the New York State War Council Committee on Discrimination in Employment decided that their work would not apply to “fraternal, charitable, educational, or religious association[s] not organized for profit.” See Minutes, New York State War Council Committee on Discrimination in Employment, February 23, 1944, Series A4278, Box 1, New York State War Council Committee on Discrimination in Employment Minutes and Investigations, New York State Archives, Albany, NY.

⁶⁸ Title VII, § 702(a), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a).

⁶⁹ Legislative History of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), 849.

⁷⁰ Legislative History of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), 1250.

⁷¹ Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014).

⁷² Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012); Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrisey-Berru, 591 U.S. ___ (2020).

⁷³ Micah Schwartzman, Chad Flanders, and Zoë Robinson, eds., The Rise of Corporate Religious Liberty (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016); Kathryn Lofton, “Corporation as Sect,” in Consuming Religion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017), 197–219; also see Sullivan, Church State Corporation, on how the figures of the church and the corporation have haunted U.S. law as rival sovereigns to the state, often serving as co-regulators of individual conscience. For a religious history of the corporation, see Amanda Porterfield, Corporate Spirit: Religion and the Rise of the Modern Corporation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018).

⁷⁴ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination (January 15, 2021), https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination.

⁷⁵ EEOC, Compliance Manual, C.1 [emphasis mine].

⁷⁶ EEOC, Compliance Manual, C.2.

⁷⁷ On the ways conscience claims in the healthcare arena have privileged institutions over individuals, see Ronit Y. Stahl, “Conscience,” in Religion, Law, USA, eds. Isaac Weiner and Joshua Dubler (New York: New York University Press, 2019), 40–58. On the ways Free Exercise jurisprudence can serve as a disciplinary mechanism for religious claimants, see Finbarr Curtis, “Exercise,” in Religion, Law, USA, eds. Isaac Weiner and Joshua Dubler (New York: New York University Press, 2019), 59–72.

⁷⁸ EEOC, Compliance Manual, C.1.

⁷⁹ Curtis, Production of American Religious Freedom; Lofton, “Corporation as Sect”; Wendy Brown, In the Ruins of Neoliberalism: The Rise of Antidemocratic Politics in the West (New York: Columbia University Press, 2019).

⁸⁰ As a descriptive matter, it has never been so easy to distinguish religious and commercial activity, of course. This has always served more as a legal fiction, a normative valuation of what sorts of religious activity were worth protecting. For historical studies of religion's entanglement with the commercial, see, for example, Nicole C. Kirk, Wanamaker's Temple: The Business of Religion in an Iconic Department Store (New York: New York University Press, 2018); Daniel Vaca, Evangelicals Incorporated: Books and the Business of Religion in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2019). On the challenge of distinguishing religious and secular corporations, also see Isaac Weiner, “Secular Corporations, Religious Subjects,” Canopy Forum (May 21, 2021), https://canopyforum.org/2021/05/21/secular-corporations-religious-subjects/.

⁸¹ Winnifred Fallers Sullivan, “Religion Naturalized: The New Establishment,” in After Pluralism: Reimagining Religious Engagement, eds. Courtney Bender and Pamela E. Klassen (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010), 82–97; Winnifred Fallers Sullivan, A Ministry of Presence: Chaplaincy, Spiritual Care, and the Law (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014).

⁸² See, for example, Hicks, Douglas A., Religion and the Workplace: Pluralism, Spirituality, Leadership (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Miller, David W., God at Work: The History and Promise of the Faith at Work Movement (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lambert, Lake, Spirituality, Inc.: Religion in the American Workplace (New York: New York University Press, 2009)Google Scholar; Brian J. Grim and Kent Johnson, “Corporate Religious Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion as Covenantal Pluralism,” in The Routledge Handbook of Religious Literacy, Pluralism, and Global Engagement, eds. Chris Seiple and Dennis R. Hoover (London: Routledge, 2021), 228–40.

⁸³ James Dennis LoRusso describes the workplace spirituality movement, and more specifically the discourse of bringing your “whole self” to work, as a strategy of neoliberal governance in “Towards Radical Subjects: Workplace Spirituality as Neoliberal Governance in American Business,” in Spirituality, Organization, and Neoliberalism: Understanding Lived Experiences, eds. Emma Bell et al. (Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2020), 1–26.

⁸⁴ Weeks, Problem with Work; Jaffe, Work Won't Love You Back.

⁸⁵ See the website of the Religious Freedom and Business Foundation at https://religiousfreedomandbusiness.org/.

⁸⁶ On the dissolution of the boundary between personal and work life, see Gershon, Down and Out in the New Economy.

⁸⁷ Moreton, Bethany, To Serve God and Wal-Mart: The Making of Christian Free Enterprise (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 126CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Historian Nelson Lichtenstein argues that Title VII's emphasis on individual civil rights inadvertently undermined the power of organized labor and its emphasis on democratic norms and group solidarity. See Lichtenstein, State of the Union.

⁸⁸ On the ways that tech workers find religious meaning through work, see Chen, Work Pray Code.