By Douglas V. Gibbs
In America, we have developed an unhealthy dependence on legal precedent. Instead of grounding our freedoms in the self‑evident, God‑given rights the Founders recognized, we increasingly allow unelected lawyers, elevated to the status of judicial elites, to redefine those rights from the bench. Over time, the public has been conditioned to believe that a judge’s opinion is the true measure of legality and morality, as if the Constitution itself were secondary to the interpretations of those who wear black robes. As a result, people now look to court rulings to validate or condemn their actions, and when no legal consequences follow, it becomes an open invitation for others to repeat the same behavior.
Religious liberty resides at the very root and foundation of the American Story. Christianity is not just some decorative ideal. Religious freedom has historically been viewed as a necessity born from a long history of tyranny and conflict. The early colonists braved the crossing of the Atlantic Ocean for the ideal that government has no authority over the soul. The Founding Fathers inherited that memory, understanding that a free people cannot exist when government or ideology claims jurisdiction over conscience.
While natural rights like speech, press, assembly or the right to keep and bear arms are important, the first clause in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights begins with the freedom of worship. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Founding Fathers placed religious liberty first because it is the fountainhead of all other liberties. If the state can command your conscience, it can command anything.
From that principle flows the reality that churches are not public venues. They are private institutions. They are voluntary associations of believers. They are outside the realm of government precisely because they are not arms of the state. A church is not a park, a courthouse, or a community center. It is a private body gathered for a sacred purpose at a place that belongs to a private owner. They are the Lord’s House. The Constitution shields The Church from governmental interference not as a courtesy, but as a recognition of jurisdiction. Caesar has no authority to rule over the sanctuary in the same way they have no authority to rule your every action inside your own home.
Historically, the United States has traditionally been extraordinarily careful about keeping government out of church governance, doctrine, membership, and worship practices. Even eccentric churches have experienced government protecting their autonomy. Today, we see the wisdom of that practice – if government can dictate how one church must operate, then it can dictate how all churches must operate. And if private groups – activists, mobs, or ideological opponents – could force their way into a church’s internal life, the First Amendment would be meaningless.
Worship is a public good, shaping the culture and the public’s view of moral self-governance. While churches remain private institutions, freedom of worship also requires freedom from coercion, whether by the state or by private actors trying to impose their will – which creates a balance that has made the United States uniquely stable in its religious diversity. America does not demand uniformity, or for churches to mirror the culture or particular movements. Sanctuaries are not public squares open to ideological pressure. They are individual and independent congregations assembling according to their own convictions, trusting that a free people, guided by conscience rather than compulsion, honors the sanctity of the churches around the country and uses the moral foundation provided by Faith to build a stronger nation.
With the understanding that religious freedom is among the bedrock principles of the United States, it makes the recent intrusion by somewhere between 20 and 40 anti-ICE agitators into a St. Paul church extremely alarming. The fact that a journalist, Don Lemon, entered the sanctuary alongside the mob and actively engaged with the congregation raises serious questions about the boundaries of press freedom and the integrity of religious liberty. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential rights, but like all rights, they do not extend to actions that violate the rights of others. The First Amendment does not enumerate any kind of authority for anyone to storm a private religious service, antagonize worshippers, or interfere with the free exercise of faith.
The Trump administration’s DOJ has moved quickly seeking arresting some of the perpetrators, but progressive judges have battled with prosecutors, refusing to sign warrants for the arrests and challenging the charges. Harmeet Dhillon recently stated that the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ is currently investigating several attacks on houses of worship, including synagogues. Dhillon has obtained several convictions in such cases in the last year. In August of 2025, if you recall, there was a fatal shooting attack on the Annunciation Catholic Church in Minnesota leading to the death of two children and injuries to 19 others, and a month later in Michigan a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon) meetinghouse was torched after a man rammed his truck into the front wall and opened fire on the congregation – the attack led to the death of four church members.
“We are grateful that the Department of Justice acted swiftly to protect Cities Church so that we can continue to faithfully live out the church’s mission to worship Jesus and make him known,” Jonathan Parnell, the St. Paul church’s lead pastor said in a statement.
“The freedom to worship God without fear of violence and intimidation is a fundamental right that defines who we are as Americans,” the attorneys representing the church said. “True North Legal and Cities Church are grateful that the Department of Justice is committed to upholding that freedom and is holding the agitators who invaded the church accountable.”
It is critical that the intrusion by the agitators does not go unpunished. As stated earlier, churches are not public venues. They are private institutions gathered for a sacred purpose, and the Constitution secures religious freedom precisely because they are not open to ideological intrusion. The moment we treat a sanctuary as if it were a public square – open to disruption, protest, or political theater – we erode the very principle that has allowed diverse faith communities to flourish in this country.
The concern here is not merely about one incident or one individual. It is about precedent. If a journalist can enter a church uninvited, participate in a disruptive mob, antagonize the pastor and congregation, and then claim immunity under the banner of “press freedom,” what prevents future activists from doing the same? If such actions carry no legal consequences, then the right to worship freely becomes a hollow promise. If people like Don Lemon gets away with his horrific participation with mobs invading a church, how long before people begin to act upon calls by people like Kathy Griffin to make a list of their political enemies – presumably so that those people can be rounded up later once their ideology once again ascends to political power? Or, act upon ramblings of ideologues like a Chicago nurse reportedly fired after describing how it is his opinion that ICE agents can bleed out and urging healthcare organizations to terminate MAGA workers.
The Department of Justice is currently investigating a disruptive protest of a Democratic congressman speaking at a Jewish temple by a left-wing activist group. The congressman, Tom Suozzi (D-NY) was one of the seven Democrats to vote for a bill funding DHS, the agency that executing immigration law falls under.
The danger is not hypothetical. When society begins to treat religious gatherings as fair game for ideological confrontation, the moral foundation of the nation begins to crack. Natural rights depend on mutual respect and legal boundaries. If one group’s claimed “right” becomes a weapon used to trample another’s, then rights cease to be rights at all. It is then that they become tools of coercion.
The United States has long recognized that the sanctuary is off‑limits to both governmental interference and private disruption. That tradition must be upheld. If the St. Paul intrusion is allowed to stand without accountability, it signals to the country that religious liberty is negotiable, conditional, or secondary. And once that message takes root, the erosion of natural rights will not stop at the church door.
Protecting the free exercise of religion is not merely about defending a building or a congregation. It is about defending the principle that conscience is beyond the reach of mobs, media personalities, and political agendas. If we fail to uphold that principle now, we may find that the freedoms we take for granted have all quietly slipped away.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
