The fallout from last week’s attack on a church in St. Paul, Minnesota, by anti-ICE protesters continues to ripple in the political waters as the Department of Justice began rounding up the perpetrators this Thursday. Worshippers at the Cities Church were stunned as the protesters made a show of purposely interrupting their service, in essence, trampling on their religious liberty. Following the incident, the church put out a statement saying: “[A] group of agitators jarringly disrupted our worship gathering. They accosted members of our congregation, frightened children, and created a scene marked by intimidation and threat.”
“Listen loud and clear,” wrote Attorney General Pam Bondi on social media, “WE DO NOT TOLERATE ATTACKS ON PLACES OF WORSHIP.” It didn’t take long before the FBI executed arrest warrants for three people allegedly involved in the melee: Nekima Levy Armstrong, allegedly a key organizer, was taken into custody along with Chauntyll Louisa Allen and William Kelly – though all three were subsequently released.
At issue is whether the mob violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which was originally designed for use at abortion clinics, but may also apply to this case. Legal analyst Jonathan Turley made the point that:
“While it is undoubtedly true that the FACE Act is best known as a bar on protesters targeting abortion clinics, it expressly extends to targeting churches, making it a federal crime to ‘prohibits the use or threat of force and physical obstruction that injures, intimidates, or interferes with a person seeking to … exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.’”
Whether this is a violation of the law appears to depend upon one’s politics. As Mr. Turley wrote, “One would think that a mob action against a church would be something that would transcend political divisions as a grotesque and chilling act. If you thought that, you do not know Keith Ellison.” Ellison serves as Minnesota Attorney General and has taken the position that “Chanting cannot be a crime; it’s freedom of expression.” Ellison made this assertion to former CNN commentator Don Lemon, who oddly just happened to be in the church that morning. Could it be that the protestors wanted him there for the record and to make sure their disruption received as much press as possible?
Religious Liberty and the Mob
America’s founders were clear about their intentions regarding religious liberty. Yet the tension between this aspect of the First Amendment and another – free speech – appears to be at issue here. For many people, a red line is drawn concerning the circumstances and the venue where the disruption occurs. A place of worship is not the same as a public park when it comes down to it, and the protesters may have made the mistake of thinking that disrupting a worship service was no big deal.
