Why Does One Religion Get Two State-Recognized Holidays While Others Get None?

A quiet change in Washington law that is going into effect on July 27, 2025 just raised a bigger question.

I Almost Spun the Story Myself

I still remember the case quite well, even though it was nearly three decades ago when I first read it. The case was called Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, a case I call “the Santeria chicken sacrifice case.”

In that 1993 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Florida city’s ordinance banning animal sacrifice. While the law was framed as a neutral public welfare measure, the Court saw through it. It specifically targeted the Santeria faith and was ruled unconstitutional under the Free Exercise Clause.

That case stuck with me. Not because I endorse the practice of Santeria, but because it marked a clear stand for religious liberty, especially for beliefs that aren’t necessarily popular.

I thought about that case again this July when I came across a video on social media that was critical of the law and was claiming that Washington State had become the first in the country to officially recognize Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha, two of Islam’s most sacred holidays.

For context:

• Eid al-Fitr celebrates the end of Ramadan with morning prayers, acts of charity, and communal meals.

• Eid al-Adha, tied to the Hajj pilgrimage, commemorates sacrifice and includes the ritual sharing of meat with family, friends, and the poor.

Curious about the claims in the video, I looked into it. Sure enough, it was true. The state had passed an amendment to RCW 1.16.050 (via Senate Bill 5106), and it was signed into law back in April.

And I’ll be honest: I didn’t like it.

I thought the Governor and Legislature had lost their minds to push a progressive agenda that elevated Islam above other religions. Given the timing, it struck me as a political gesture, possibly aimed at capitalizing on public sympathy regarding the situation in Gaza or appealing to segments of the left that oppose Israel. It felt like virtue signaling at best, and religious favoritism at worst.

While I noticed that Washington law, specifically RCW 1.16.050(3), allows all employees, regardless of faith, to request two unpaid religious holidays each year, Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha are the only explicitly religious holidays named in the statute, which seemed to elevate Islam in a way that no other religion was recognized. While Christmas is also listed as a paid holiday pursuant to RCW 1.16.050(1)(l), I viewed it differently, given how thoroughly it has been secularized in American culture. In fact, there is substantial amount of case law supporting the idea that the Christmas holiday is widely treated as a cultural rather than a religious observance.

To me, it looked like special treatment.

I began asking around to see if anyone else had heard about the new holiday. Aside from my oldest sister, no one I spoke to had. I soon discovered that the story had received almost no media coverage, despite its historical significance (i.e. Washington becoming the first state in the nation to officially recognize Muslim holidays).

That’s when it hit me, the story wasn’t just about the law, it was about the lack of coverage. A textbook example of a media tactic known as agenda-setting by omission or agenda-cutting. It’s when the press doesn’t twist the facts, but simply chooses which facts they will elevate, and which ones they will ignore.

But then something unexpected happened.

As I further researched the law through the lens of some recent cases including two by the Supreme Court and one by the Court of Appeal for the 9^th Circuit, my perspective began to change.

Here’s what I found:

🔹 Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022)

• Facts: A public high school football coach, Joseph Kennedy, knelt to pray at midfield after games. The school district refused to renew his contract, citing Establishment Clause concerns.

• Ruling: The Court ruled in his favor, overturning the old Lemon Test favoring an approach rooted in historical practices and protections for individual religious expression.

🔹Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry (2025)

• Facts: Wisconsin denied tax exemptions to Catholic Charities because they provided primarily secular services.

• Ruling: The Court ruled that the state cannot penalize religious organizations for how they practice their faith, requiring denominational neutrality.

🔹 Hunter v. U.S. Department of Education (9th Cir., 2024)

• Facts: LGBTQ+ students sued over Title IX’s religious exemption, arguing it permitted federally funded religious schools to discriminate.

• Ruling: The Ninth Circuit upheld the exemption under the historical-practices test from Kennedy, finding that the carve-out doesn’t violate the Establishment Clause which allows religious institutions freedom to follow their beliefs based on long-standing traditions.

Taken together, these cases reflect a shift in how courts approach the Establishment Clause. No longer guided by rigid tests, the courts now ask whether government action aligns with the historical treatment of religion in public life.

Under this framework, recognizing Eid is not a constitutional violation, it’s a legally sound reflection of religious pluralism.

More importantly, I learned that for Washington’s 80,000 to 100,000 Muslims, taking Eid off has long been difficult, often misunderstood or denied by employers unfamiliar with the holiday. The law provides symbolic recognition and helps prevent unintentional discrimination. It doesn’t elevate Islam above other faiths, it simply attempts to put Muslim observances on equal footing.

The more I studied it, the more I came to see the law as fair, legally sound, morally grounded, and aligned with my Christian responsibility to love my neighbor as myself, regardless of whether we share the same faith.

My Conclusions No Longer Fit the Story I Wanted to Tell

At that point, I considered scrapping this article altogether. It didn’t match my initial assumptions, or what I imagined my readers might expect.

But doing that would have been its own kind of omission.

And that brings us full circle to the tactic I set out to expose: Agenda-Setting by Omission. It doesn’t distort the facts, it simply withholds them. It shapes perception not by what it says, but by what it refuses to say.

And in this case, it’s not just what the media did. It’s what I almost did, too.

Final Thoughts: What We Don’t Hear Matters

While I still find it odd how little coverage this law received, I no longer see the story as one of religious favoritism. It’s a story about fairness, and a cautionary tale about how easily we can slip into the very patterns of manipulation we aim to expose.

I had pie charts and critiques ready to go. But they’re no longer the point.

The truth is, I almost omitted this story once it stopped fitting my narrative, and that would’ve been dishonest.

Had I done that, even with good intentions, I would have undermined the purpose of this blog.

I’m grateful I kept digging.

That’s why it’s important to resist knee-jerk reactions, and instead pause, reflect, and ask better questions.

If this post helps you do that, then maybe it did what it was meant to do.