Published: 2025-12-05
Last Updated: 2025-12-05
You are here: /blog/former-us-government-policies-part2
Freedom of Expression is not a right that people would often hinder. However, as a government worker the person seeking services must view the worker as neutral, fair, and unbiased. There can not be a perception that a religious stipulation is a requirement for receiving services. This means that a government workers religious beliefs must remain muted while at work in order not to offend or discourage those seeking services or in need of help from even filling out an application.
In the 1990s less than 10% of the population identified as not a Christian. However, most of these surveys assumed that all persons in the household were of the same religion, or of the religion of the interviewee. After 2010, at least 29% of the entire U.S. Population identifies as atheist, meaning not believing that there is evidence of a religious entity present. This varies it can mean they don't participate in any known religion, they don't believe in the concepts of a known religion, they don't believe or participate in Abrahamic religions but are open to other contexts, or that they completely discredit the existence of any multi-dimensional entity. In contrast agnostics have some belief in a spiritual context but don't know what it is and don't care either way. They don't feel it has any impact on the context of their lives.
While this number seems high to religious people, it is even higher in specific population groups. Closer to 60% to 90% and nearing 100% in some groups, of certain populations identify as atheist. This is approximately 90 to 112 million people in the USA when considering a standard error.
Government workers often focus on economics, socialization, or criminal justice. The population often views religious programs as an acceptable option for socialization but that it can not be made a requirement. The feeling is mutual, and religious organizations often feel that their programs should not be a government requirement if the people don't actually want to be there and aren't open to a religious context of their socialization or rehabilitation requirements. In places, where religious programs are the only available program, the people can often request an exemption on religious grounds. They don't have to explain what their religion is, only that they do not want to participate in a specific religious program.
Religion is often seen as something private, and not something people want to express publicly. Those that do have a public expression requirement must comply with laws on non-harassment. The people often view that they should not be discriminated against on religious grounds and that they should not be harassed.
Faith based initiatives are seen as not required for participation. Its normally seen as funding for government assisted marketing in expressing their own religion.
These are mostly no. They take too long, most jobs take 2 weeks or less to train for, and most licensing board don't actually have enough experts for adequate due process in job loss, licensing loss, or to even provide an adequate assessment of performance between two workers.
While the states continue to complete their licensing programs its viewed as for people with the following conditions:
The newer context of professional responsibilities is lawsuits. Even Microsoft jump in on this trend, adding a $75,000 warranty per computer licensed with a professional license. This can include data loss depending on the lawsuit, because data recovery for a storage drive can cost $2k to $5k for a fairly simple recovery.
A worker who offers services in a professional marketplace does not require licensing. Doctors, nurses, and lawyers have shown support for this trend indicating that school and a state license can be a requirement but that school, workplace training or even after school jobs in high school can certify a worker as competent to avoid lawsuits and responsible in providing adequate services.
Drivers licenses are also categorized in this context. Viewed as needed when driving someone elses car like a work vehicle or rental car, or when learning how to drive for the first time. Car insurance has also been asked to be converted to a road tax and for grants to be available for total loss of a vehicle by a driver with no liability, this includes insurance companies who don't pay the full cost of the vehicle or offer a replacement vehicle that is a near duplicate of the wrecked vehicle.
Driving is likely the most obvious reason for background check and licensing. With future policy requests, the people have asked that the majority of drivers be unlicensed but still carry an ID or passport card and that drivers found to be at fault in an accident be required to have a license and insurance for 2 years at a minimum. The people don't find it reasonable to be licensed for more than 2-3 years after an at fault accident because an at fault driver will often end up in another accident before the end of a 10 year period. If they learn how to drive better, they find it a violation of due process to be reminded they were a bad driver for a period of more than 4-5 years.