The federal government relies on data to understand inequality in America. Race, color, national origin, sex, disability and age are all tracked through major surveys that inform civil rights enforcement and public policy. One protected class, however, remains largely absent from that picture: religion.
That gap is not accidental. For decades, federal officials have avoided collecting religious identity data out of concern that doing so could blur the line between church and state or discourage people from participating in government surveys. The US Census, in particular, has not asked about religion since the 1950s, and Congress later prohibited the question on the decennial census altogether.
Those concerns were understandable at the time. Today, they deserve another look.
The absence of religious identity data has real consequences, especially for religious minorities. Without it, policymakers and advocates lack the evidence needed to identify discrimination in areas like housing, employment, health care and education. While federal surveys can document disparities based on race or disability, they cannot do the same when discrimination is rooted in religion.
Consider public schools. If Jewish or Hindu students experience disproportionate bullying or discipline, there is no national data system capable of confirming whether that pattern exists. If Sikh or Muslim workers face higher rates of workplace harassment, those experiences remain anecdotal at the federal level. The result is a system that struggles to see, let alone address, religious discrimination when it occurs.
The Religious Identity Data Inclusion Act, known as RIDIA, offers a careful and limited fix. The bill would allow people to voluntarily disclose their religious identity on certain federal surveys that already collect other demographic information. Participation would be optional, and the bill includes strong privacy protections.
Opponents often argue that collecting religious data threatens church-state separation. In reality, separation requires neutrality, not silence. The government already protects religious freedom in law and policy. To do that effectively, it must be able to see when people of different faiths, or no faith at all, are being treated unfairly.
Voluntary, neutral data collection is not an endorsement of religion. It does not favor one belief over another. Instead, it allows public institutions to evaluate whether they are living up to their obligation to treat everyone equally. When the government lacks this information, inequities are more likely to persist unnoticed.
Another concern is that asking about religion could reduce participation in federal surveys. History suggests otherwise. When the Census Bureau tested voluntary religion questions in the 1950s, response rates remained high. Today, independent surveys conducted by organizations like the Pew Research Center regularly ask about religious identity and achieve strong participation. The difference is not public willingness, but federal reluctance.
Independent research has helped fill some gaps. Pew’s Religious Landscape Study, for example, has documented the growing diversity of beliefs in the United States. But these surveys do not carry the same weight as federal data used to enforce civil rights laws or allocate public resources. Without official statistics, smaller religious communities remain statistically invisible, even when discrimination affects their daily lives.
RIDIA would not change the Constitution, nor would it mandate belief. It would simply give people the option to be counted, just as they already are across other protected categories. Inclusive America and a broad coalition of civil rights, interfaith and religious freedom organizations support the bill for that reason.
Protecting religious freedom requires more than principle. It requires evidence. When discrimination goes unmeasured, it often goes unaddressed. Better data would help ensure that religious neutrality is not just promised, but practiced.
Congress should support RIDIA as a practical step toward fairness. A country that values both religious freedom and church-state separation should also value the tools needed to protect them, for everyone.
Readers are invited to submit draft opinion articles relevant to Massachusetts residents to BINJ.News at opinion@binj.news. Submission does not guarantee publication.
