SMSgt. Oscar Rodriguez, USAF. Courtesy of Oscar Rodriguez
“I consider it an indispensable duty to close this last solemn act of my Official life, by commending the Interests of dearest Country to the protection of Almighty God, and those who have the superintendence of them, to his holy keeping.”
—GEORGE WASHINGTON
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
— ABRAHAM LINCOLN
Our Military
Silence filled the nondescript auditorium at Travis Air Force Base as two men dressed in military uniforms stood facing one another. The men waited for the distinct music to commence, each holding the edges of an unfurled American flag. As the trumpet-laden chorus broke the silence, the servicemen folded the flag before an audience gathered to celebrate the retirement of Master Sergeant Chuck Roberson from the 749th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron.
Hearing his cue, Master Sergeant Oscar Rodriguez took three resolute steps toward the front of the room to deliver his speech.1 Oscar had written his now-famous rendition of the standard flag-folding speech during his thirty-three-year tenure in the United States Air Force. His oration had received wide praise from elected officials like Democratic congressman John Garamendi, who complimented the speech in a handwritten note, and fellow servicemen like Chuck Roberson, who asked Oscar to perform it at his ceremony. “God bless our flag. God bless our troops. God bless America.” Oscar had declared those closing words more than one hundred times before. He intended to do the same today.
SMSgt. Oscar Rodriguez, USAF. Courtesy of Oscar Rodriguez
Just before beginning his speech—this time at the request of the retiring Roberson—a uniformed airman approached Oscar. Three other servicemen in the front row leaned forward to observe the encounter, seemingly in anticipation. “You’re not going to do this are you?” the airman asked Oscar.2 In a split second, two other airmen from different corners of the room hastily rose, bolted to the stage, and surrounded Oscar.
A bit puzzled by the interruption, Oscar nevertheless started speaking. His booming voice rang out, “Our flag is known as the Stars and Stripes.” In an effort to silence Oscar, the surrounding men firmly pressed their hands against his chest and pushed him toward the exit.3 Struggling to remain at the front, Oscar continued speaking—his voice now taking a more urgent tone—but he could not resist the shoving of the airmen, who succeeded in evicting Oscar from the stage. As they corralled and expelled Oscar, he could be heard shouting the second line of his celebrated speech: “The union consists of white stars on a blue field, symbolic of a new constellation. Each star represents one individual state and together they stand united indivisible.”4
Why was Rodriguez removed from a retirement ceremony whose honoree requested that he give a speech he had given dozens of times before? The answer provided by Oscar and Chuck is sure to disturb any believer in the First Amendment: he was removed because he planned to mention the name of God.
Master Sergeant Oscar Rodriguez loves this country and served it valiantly. From a young age, he shone with patriotism. “When I was a child, during baseball games, one of the most emotional parts of that was the national anthem,” he told the First Liberty Institute.5 “I would always try to hide my tears from my brothers because I knew that many men died for that freedom to be able to have a hotdog and watch a baseball game.”6
Oscar dreamed of serving his country, and for more than three decades he did just that, but not without cost. In exchange for his service, “his reward was bankruptcy,” Democratic senator Mary Landrieu announced from the Senate floor.7 In 2002, after more than twenty years as an Air Force reservist, the Air Force gave Oscar just eight hours’ notice that he would be activated abroad for an entire year.8 With no time to prepare for the abrupt change, Oscar left his construction business in the hands of his wife and daughter. Although his family tried tirelessly to save the company, they could not. The Rodriguez family’s income fell by 80 percent, and their house went into foreclosure.9 Oscar told CBS News, “I lost the bids for my construction projects. I lost my savings. I lost my credit. My credit history—it’s in shambles.”10 His daughter remembered, “It was hard seeing my mom. I mean seeing her stressed and seeing her cry—it hurts a lot.”11
Master Sergeant Oscar Rodriguez. Courtesy of First Liberty Institute
The hardship Oscar had endured as a result of his service made the betrayal at Travis Air Force Base all the more troublesome. “I have given more than three decades of service to the military and made many sacrifices for my country.” Oscar told First Liberty.12 “To have the Air Force assault me and drag me out of a retirement ceremony simply because my speech included the word ‘God’ is something I never expected from our military.”13
As a Christian and a fierce defender of our civil liberties, I too was surprised. In fact, I gasped out loud when senior counsel for the First Liberty Institute, Jeremy Dys, told me about Oscar’s assault. I told Oscar’s First Liberty attorney, Mike Berry, that what made his case most surprising is that it occurred in a military setting, where there is a strong, Christian, conservative strain. “Not anymore,” Berry immediately interjected. “I can only say that eight years has done a lot of damage.” He told me that if you graphed religious suppression in the military in the past three to four years, it would be shaped like a hockey stick with the number of incidents taking an almost vertical trajectory upward.
Oscar’s forcible removal from Chuck’s retirement ceremony came after an overt effort to impede Oscar from attending the ceremony altogether. After hearing about Oscar’s invitation to attend the ceremony, Lieutenant Colonel Michael Sovitsky told Chuck to disinvite Oscar, citing the fact that Oscar, who had previously served on the Travis Honor Guard Team, had been released for “misconduct” many years ago—a fact that First Liberty attorneys rightly point out is irrelevant.14 Oscar is now a private citizen, as deserving of First Amendment rights as any other U.S. citizen, and Sovitsky’s request was an unfounded pretext for silencing Oscar, who had a sterling thirty-three-year record in the Air Force. Not wanting to defy his commanding officer, Chuck informed Oscar about the situation.
“The commanding officer wants me to tell you not to come,” Chuck said.
“Well, what do you want?” Oscar asked. “This is your retirement. You only get to retire one time. Let’s make this about you.”
“If it were up to me, I would have you there,” Chuck replied.
Chuck had previously told Oscar that it would be the highlight of his retirement ceremony to have Oscar deliver the speech, so both men resolved to make it happen. Chuck and Oscar knew that Sovitsky did not have the authority to bar Oscar from the ceremony. He was not an installation commander, and only someone with that title could keep someone off the base. Even so, Chuck and Oscar did not want to cause trouble, so they made several efforts to assuage the problem.
They suspected that the disinvitation request had something to do with the religious references in Oscar’s speech. Oscar had served in Sovitsky’s unit before and was well aware of Sovitsky’s disdain for Oscar’s speech. In fact, Oscar had performed a flag-folding speech one month earlier, and when Sovitsky heard the speech, he was very upset, allegedly remarking, “Oscar is never to do that in my unit.” Unlike the official Air Force flag-folding script, Oscar’s speech made reference to God.
Chuck made several efforts to contact higher authorities and approve Oscar’s speech. He offered to put a warning on the door of the auditorium, telling attendees that the word “God” might be mentioned at the ceremony. He likewise offered to allow offended individuals to leave during those parts of the ceremony. Having received no response, Chuck told Oscar to come to the ceremony, and if he heard his unique flag-folding music begin to play, that would be his cue to give the speech. Chuck put Oscar’s name on the seating chart, placing him in the very front row as a distinguished speaker, and when that familiar music rang out, Oscar knew it was his time to speak.
While Sovitsky did not have the authority to bar Oscar from the base, he did have the authority to remove someone if they were being disruptive. This was the rationale Sovitsky used in the aftermath of the assault. He claimed that Chuck had never actually invited Oscar to attend, according to Oscar’s attorney. Chuck immediately contested that, saying that he had not only invited Oscar, his name was on the official guest list. “That the Air Force would do this to me, as it’s my retirement, I was very embarrassed and humiliated in front of all my family and friends,” Chuck said.15
Oscar echoed Chuck in a First Liberty video, calling it “one of the most humiliating experiences . . . To even imagine that I would be removed while the American flag is being unfurled and opened—the flag which represents freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press . . . it’s horrifying.”16 And to compound the situation, Mike Berry, Oscar’s attorney, added, “They took glee in doing this to him. They were waiting for this opportunity.”
Following Oscar’s removal, he filed a complaint with his congressman, and Senator John McCain demanded that the Air Force conduct a full and thorough investigation into the matter. When First Liberty approached Oscar about taking legal action, he was very frustrated about what had happened but was uncertain about whether to pursue litigation. After taking the weekend to think about it, Berry said, “[Oscar] realized what happened was really wrong. This shouldn’t happen to anybody, and [he realized] ‘if I don’t do something, I’m letting this perpetuate.’ ” Berry sent a letter to the Air Force on Oscar’s behalf, seeking an apology. “All we’ve ever wanted out of this is to make things right. No one is interested in going to court,” Berry explained.
The Air Force did not apologize, but it did release a statement reaffirming its commitment to the First Amendment: “Air Force personnel may use a flag folding ceremony script that is religious for retirement ceremonies . . . The Air Force places the highest value on the rights of its personnel in matters of religion and facilitates the free exercise on religion by its members,”17 Its release was carefully timed and conflicted with the Air Force’s 2005 mandate requiring use of an official, nonreligious speech.18 Acknowledging the conflict, an Air Force release stated, “The Air Force acknowledges the AFI [Air Force Instruction] does not reflect the current policy . . . We acknowledge that the Air Force Instruction should have incorporated the supplemental guidance.”19 Convenient.
The Air Force conducted an internal review of Oscar’s case and maintains that Oscar was not removed because of his religious script but for “not being a planned participant of the ceremony/not on the retirement script, and previous misconduct.”20 The IG report makes vague references to previous “misconduct” while Oscar was in the honor guard without citing specific examples. Moreover, the report even acknowledges Sovitsky’s concern that Oscar would not use the approved Air Force script for retirement speeches, which makes no religious reference, and would instead use his personal script, which closely mirrors the approved script but makes reference to God.21 Vague “misconduct” appears not to have been Sovitsky’s only motivating factor.
Aside from Rodriguez’s personal story, two excerpts from the IG report stand out to me as troubling:
On a military installation, to maintain good order and discipline, the commander also has the authority to preserve dedicated military facilities for activities consistent with their intended function.22
How is Oscar’s widely hailed retirement speech—celebrated by a sitting congressman and praised by the military community—inconsistent with the “intended function” of a retirement ceremony? The report goes on:
Although Mr. Rodriguez is a civilian, not subject to a military commander’s direct command authority, he is not free to exercise his right of freedom of speech whenever, wherever, or however, he chooses, in contravention of substantial military interests.
How is a harmless speech making reference to God at the personal request of a retiring serviceman “in contravention of substantial military interests”?23 The report does not provide an answer. First Liberty continues to fight for Rodriguez’s First Amendment rights and is now suing the Air Force for unlawfully withholding the results of one of its two investigations into Rodriguez’s removal.
It is perplexing to see hostility toward faith take hold in our military of all places when you consider that so many of the rank and file are people of faith. Berry said it’s because the military is increasingly becoming “politically correct and risk averse.” Those ascending the ranks in a given branch hide their faith. “They’re afraid,” Berry told me. “These loud outsized voices on the outside [are] threatening to sue them just for having a Bible on their desk.”
Indeed, a court-martial convicted United States Marine Corps lance corporal Monifa Sterling for posting a Bible verse on her computer after a supervisor removed it and put it in a trash bin.24 A trial court and appeals court ruled against Sterling, and the Supreme Court chose not to review the case.25 “The climate of political correctness did not arise ‘suddenly,’ ” Berry pointed out to me. “It’s been a steady onslaught. It mirrors what we observe in our culture. The military rewards those who don’t take risks—and thus don’t make mistakes—and go along with the political current. The problem with this is when government officials begin to sacrifice our constitutional rights at the altar of political correctness.”
Religious suppression in the military has potentially far-reaching consequences, and not just for those who seek to practice their faith freely. A full 66 percent of active duty servicemen identify as Christian.26 With this in mind, Berry said, “If we are worried about national security, national defense, our ability to keep and maintain a strong, resilient, ready military, then we have to worry about recruiting.” This means creating a hospitable environment where servicemen and -women are free to practice their faith. Berry continued: “If you create a culture in the military that is hostile to people of faith, that chills their religious expression, then those people are eventually going to get the message ‘We are not welcome here.’ ” And this is the disturbing trend that Berry has witnessed firsthand in his efforts to defend religious freedom. He said, “I can’t tell you how many mothers and fathers across the country who have said, ‘I served . . . I loved serving in the military and I love my country, but I could never let my son or daughter join the military having seen what it’s become. Why am I going to send my kids to do something that no longer represents my values?’ ”
But military-related restriction on religious liberty is just one example in a long and growing list of infringements. Religious liberty is under attack in all aspects of American society: the workplace, the school, the courts, and even in the home. A survey of First Liberty Institute’s cases described in the pages to come—many of which had successful outcomes for the plaintiffs—reveal attacks on religious liberty in all these settings and a disturbing and ever-increasing hostility toward people of all religious faiths.
Christians, in particular, face a rather disturbing picture both at home and abroad. As CNN reported, an Open Doors USA survey found that 2015 “was the most violent for Christians in modern history, rising to ‘a level akin to ethnic cleansing,’ ” with 7,100 Christian faith-based killings worldwide, a 3,000-victim increase from the year prior.27
A 2016 LifeWay Research survey noted a reflective hostility toward Christians in the United States, with 63 percent of Americans noting that “Christians increasingly are confronted with intolerance in America today”—up a full 13 percent from just three years ago.28 Although the survey noted a dramatic increase in Americans’ recognition of Christian persecution, the survey also revealed a smaller but substantial increase of religious persecution generally, with 60 percent noting that “religious liberty is on the decline in America,” up 6 percent in three years.29 The shocking stories that follow help make an anecdotal case that faith is under attack.
Our Places of Worship
Rabbi Yaakov Rich leads a small congregation in the bottom floor of his son’s North Dallas home in a neighborhood called Highlands of McKamy. Because Orthodox Judaism prohibits travel on the Sabbath, members of Congregation Toras Chaim have to walk. The rabbi’s home in North Dallas is the only place close enough for congregants to reach by foot. Every Saturday, Rabbi Rich’s congregation would walk down Meandering Way in their reverent holy day attire, past the mezuzah (a piece of parchment with the Shema, one of the essential Jewish prayers) in a small case mounted on the doorframe at the entrance to the redbrick home, and into their place of worship, where about two dozen white folding chairs sit behind a matching table that prominently displays a large Torah.30
Bothered by Rabbi Rich’s congregation, an angry neighbor spearheaded a lawsuit, claiming that the meeting infringed on the residential-only restrictive covenant in the neighborhood. At a prior residence, the lead plaintiff had sued a neighbor for putting up a fence that obstructed his view of the country club.31 Rabbi Rich’s religious practices would be his next target.
Although Congregation Toras Chaim was aware of no complaints during its three years of worship in a neighboring community, a small group of neighbors in Highlands of McKamy listed several frivolous-sounding complaints, including needing to stop for a blind person and a woman pushing a stroller crossing the street and the claim that it looked “odd” and “unusual” when congregants left the religious meetings.32 The lead plaintiff also initiated a separate lawsuit against a neighbor and member of Congregation Toras Chaim “for erecting a ceremonial structure called a sukkah in his driveway, for the weeklong harvest festival of Sukkot,” calling the symbol “unusual” and an “eyesore, according to the Dallas Observer.33
The lead plaintiff claimed to have no problem with Orthodox Judaism; rather, as the Dallas Observer noted, the homeowners’ complaints were “ostensibly grounded in secular complaints.”34 But therein lies the problem of so many of these religious liberty cases. As in Oscar Rodriguez’s case, the suppressor can disguise his objections to certain language or actions by citing unrelated concerns—Oscar Rodriguez’s “misconduct” or Congregation Toras Chaim’s bothersome traffic pattern—when in fact those are a mere pretext for the real motive: religious suppression. In Rabbi Rich’s case, subsequent events would suggest that anti-Semitism was at play, if not on the part of the lead plaintiff, then certainly from others in the community.
As Rabbi Rich fought for his right to freedom of worship, he became the target of anti-Semitic hate crimes. The mezuzah was ripped from his door. Cars drove by with passengers shouting obscenities. And then there was the horrific moment when Rabbi Rich’s son interrupted his religious gathering to alert him that a large swastika had been smeared across the trunk of his Honda.35 But Rabbi Rich did not give in to the threats, and he won the case against his neighbors in Collin County District Court. Although the neighbors and homeowners association claimed that the members of Toras Chaim had violated the community’s bylaws, the court ruled that religious liberty laws protected the congregation.36 Congregation Toras Chaim prevailed, only to be sued by the city of Dallas on the grounds that the congregation had violated onerous regulations regarding sprinkler systems and parking requirements.37
First Liberty attorney Justin Butterfield told the Dallas Observer that if plaintiffs succeeded in shutting down Rabbi Rich, it would “effectively end Orthodox Jewish practice in the community.”38 Butterfield warned, “If they can shut this small Orthodox Jewish congregation down, they can shut down the prayer meeting, the Bible study, even the person who just has some friends over for dinner.”39 While Rabbi Rich and Congregation Toras Chaim are the target today, it could be your congregation tomorrow.
The Workplace
Alexia Palma, a thirty-two-year-old Guatemalan immigrant, loved working at her local health clinic in inner-city Houston. In keeping with her Catholic faith, her job—which she described as “my American dream come true”—allowed her to help the vulnerable.40 Part of her job entailed teaching several courses, including a lesson about contraception, a practice that violates her Catholic faith.41
Alexia was committed to always putting her faith first, even when it wasn’t easy. God had been there for Alexia when she endured a difficult childhood. “I never had a stable home, but there was always one place I called my stable home, and that was the Church . . . it’s the only true home I’ve ever had,” Alexia told First Liberty, growing teary-eyed as she expressed her love for the Church.42 Her faith saw her through abuse and likewise saw her through thoughts of suicide.43
To avoid violating her Catholic faith, Palma asked her employer if she could show a video instead of her personally teaching about contraception. The company agreed, and for a year and a half there were no problems. Alexia would play the video for the class and a nurse would answer any questions students might have.44
But when a new supervisor joined the company, she demanded Alexia not only teach the course herself but also attend mandatory training at Planned Parenthood. “I immediately informed them that I was being accommodated for my religious beliefs and the only reason I had ever been close to Planned Parenthood was outside praying,” Alexia told LifeSite News.com.45 Alexia offered her new supervisor several compromises, like having the course taught by another employee who had eagerly volunteered to fill in, but the supervisor refused. The supervisor’s refusal was in line with the company’s alleged pattern of isolating Christians: forbidding talking about God during breaks, barring religious items from desks, and now actively forcing an employee to violate her conscience.46
Alexia told First Liberty, “I began to cry. I told them, ‘I’m sorry, I can’t do that. My faith comes first.’ ” Despite having an excellent work performance, the company fired Alexia over her religious objections even though her previous accommodation affected less than 2 percent of her job.47 Thanks to First Liberty’s efforts, Alexia won a settlement payout from the company.48 But she was nonetheless faced with a grueling choice that no American should face: “choosing between their faith and their job,” according to First Liberty senior counsel Jeremy Dys.49 “She chose her faith and was fired because of it.”50
The School
On any given fall Friday night at Bremerton High School, in Bremerton, Washington, assistant football coach Joe Kennedy could be found taking a knee at the 50-yard line. Alone on the field, he would quietly kneel and pray to God, thanking him for this opportunity to win or lose. Coach Kennedy carried on this tradition for seven years with no complaints.51 Some of the players took notice over time and asked if they could join their coach at the midfield marker. The former Marine Corps gunnery sergeant turned coach would say, “This is a free country. You can do what you want.”52
After each game at Bremerton High, students from both teams would gather around Coach Kennedy, who started delivering what one player described as a “postgame speech.”53 “He didn’t say ‘under God’ or anything involving religion,” the player pointed out to the Daily Signal, the news platform of the Heritage Foundation.54 Coach Kennedy neither forced nor encouraged students to participate. Rather, it was an organic movement of students supporting a coach they loved. It became somewhat of a postgame tradition. “During the game we’re enemies, but then he would bring us together like we’re one big family,” one student said.55 Another player described it as “just magical.”56
But Bremerton High School demanded Kennedy end the seven-year tradition, ordering him not to even bow in silence privately after the players left the field. The demand was confounding, especially considering that another assistant coach was permitted to recite a Buddhist chant at the very same fifty-yard line.57 In an effort to stand up for religious liberty after the homecoming game—and surrounded by players from both teams and members of the community, who huddled around him in support—Kennedy knelt at midfield in defiance of the order.58 After encircling their coach, the team enveloped him in a bear hug before cheering and pointing up in unison.
Because of Kennedy’s refusal to sacrifice his First Amendment rights, the school suspended him despite his many years of service and glowing reviews from fellow coaches and players. Sitting by Coach Kennedy, one player shed tears over the decision, saying, “I was going through some troubles at home with my dad and [Coach Kennedy] helped me. Sat me down. Talked to me about how it was going to get better no matter what. I wanted him there because he was there for me.”59
But in August of 2017, the Ninth Circuit dealt an appalling blow to Kennedy’s First Amendment rights when they held that “when Kennedy kneeled and prayed on the fifty-yard line immediately after games while in view of students and parents, he spoke as a public employee, not as a private citizen, and his speech therefore was constitutionally unprotected.”60 First Liberty did not seek monetary damages or extraordinary accommodation. Berry said, “All we’re asking is for Coach Kennedy to be reinstated and for the school to allow him to continue to pray alone at the 50 yard line after the game.”61
As First Liberty considers their options, the faith community maintains hope that the Ninth Circuit will be rebuked by the Supreme Court, as they so often are, with an 88 percent reversal rate in 2016.62 In the meantime, Fox News’ Todd Starnes sums up the status quo in America quite well: “Welcome to the America that was fundamentally transformed by President Obama and his activist judges. It’s a nation where football players can take a knee to disrespect the flag, but a coach can’t take a knee to pray to the Almighty.”63
The Church
It seemed like an ordinary Sunday for Vintage Church lead pastor Rob Wilton. Standing before his Metairie, Louisiana–based evangelical congregation, Wilton began to preach the word of God to the bustling tent of believers until he was interrupted by Jefferson Parish officials. The police issued Wilton a criminal summons, taking his fingerprints right there in front of his entire congregation while the rest of his staff was threatened with “physical arrest.”64 Wilton’s crime? Using microphones and amplification equipment that exceeded 60 decibels, equivalent to the sound of a typical conversation or a dishwasher.65
Doing his best to comply with the city’s demands, which had been prompted by the complaints of a neighbor, Wilton hired sound technicians and resisted using any amplifier equipment. But his best efforts proved insufficient. Wilton’s Sunday service was again interrupted when six police vehicles pulled up, and seven law enforcement officials, including the sheriff, entered the church.66 Wilton quickly told the men that he had avoided any use of amplifier equipment, but the officers demanded to inspect the premises, finding only unplugged and idle equipment.67 Wilton was nevertheless issued a second summons for noise above 60 decibels.
Pointing to a glaring double standard, First Liberty attorney Justin Butterfield told Charisma News, “The parish allows lawn mowers and jackhammers starting at 8 a.m. on Sunday while placing the burdensome restrictions on the church.”68 Litigation is ongoing as the church that provided hope to so many in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina fights to keep its doors open.69
The Home
It was a peaceful November evening at Mary Anne Sause’s apartment in Louisburg, Kansas, but it soon turned into “one of the worst nights of my life,” in her words.70 Sause, a retired Catholic nurse, lived by herself and grew nervous when she heard loud banging on her door. Unable to see through her broken peephole, Sause—a rape survivor—feared letting in the two men, who did not identify themselves.71 They left, only to return and demand entry again. Realizing finally that the two men were police officers, she obliged and let them inside. When they asked why she had not let them in initially, Mary Anne handed the men a pocket Constitution.72 “That’s just a piece of paper . . . doesn’t work here,” the men replied.
Mary Anne would provide a disturbing account of what happened next in the lawsuit she would file: The officers offered no explanation for being there and said that Mary Anne should prepare to go to jail. Mary Anne asked for the reason, and one officer answered, “I don’t know yet.”73 Mary Anne asked if she could pray, and with the consent of one officer she got down on her knees and prayed to God. The second officer took notice and demanded she “get up” and “stop praying.” She complied, but the officers charged her with “interference with law enforcement for refusing to open her door” and “disorderly conduct.”74
In June of 2017, the Tenth Circuit dismissed Sause’s case, finding that even if the officers violated Sause’s First Amendment rights, the police officers are barred from liability due to a special protection called qualified immunity.75 First Liberty’s Jeremy Dys stated, “No one should face the prospect of being arrested for praying in their own home.”76 A simple response to a complaint that Sause’s radio was too loud devolved into a grave issue of religious infringement in the most intimate of places: the home.77
The cases that First Liberty takes on are numerous and increasing, and should be worrisome to people of faith. Stories of religious infringement from First Liberty alone could fill the entirety of this book. In October of 2016, amid the waning days of the presidential election, I heard about one of First Liberty’s cases during a sermon at my own church. In a sermon titled “America’s Hope” by Dr. Stephen Rummage of Bell Shoals Baptist Church, Rummage advised the congregation to “vote based on policies not personalities,” placing the sanctity of human life and religious liberty as the two paramount issues for Christian voting. At the time, the likelihood of the only pro-life candidate in the presidential race, Donald J. Trump, winning the presidency seemed dim, if you listened to the pundits. Without mentioning any specific candidates, Dr. Rummage reminded us, “Don’t lose sight of God’s sovereignty.” My family and I left the sermon revitalized, knowing that God would guide the hearts and minds of our citizens in the right direction. I kept my sermon notes in my laptop case for the remainder of the 2016 election. Before walking on set at CNN to argue for the values I hold dear, I would inevitably stumble upon those notes as I took out my computer. Every time I would remember what I was fighting for: the right of religious people everywhere to practice their faith.
With religious suppression on the rise, America’s faith community felt voiceless in the fall of 2016. But on November 8, 2016, they made sure they were heard. President Trump earned 58 percent of the Protestant vote and 52 percent of the Catholic vote.78 He outperformed John McCain, Mitt Romney, and President George W. Bush in 2000, earning a greater percentage of both Catholics and Protestants. Only President Bush in 2004 tied Trump among Catholics and beat him by 1 percentage point among Protestants.
“The community of faith voters that had been demonized by the left showed up,” Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, told me. They showed up because for too long they had been left behind by their elected officials and actively disparaged or caricatured in the mainstream media. Trump offered to fight for America’s faith community by appointing a conservative Supreme Court Justice to replace the valiant warrior we had in Justice Antonin Scalia. In the early days of his presidency, Trump made good on his promise in the nomination and confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Despite the president’s best efforts, however, the ultimate solution to religious suppression lies beyond government. First Liberty’s Mike Berry said, “I don’t think we can legislate our way out of this . . . what it’s going to take is for Americans to wake up and realize that our constitutional freedoms are only as strong as our willingness to stand [up] for them.” The silencing of Americans like Sergeant Rodriguez and Coach Kennedy and Rabbi Rich can be ameliorated in the appointment of freedom-loving judges, but it cannot solve the problem entirely. The answer lies not in government but in the American people. The problem will not ultimately be fixed until our culture is fixed.
“I think there’s really a fundamentally very simple solution,” said First Liberty senior counsel Jeremy Dys. “The solution to this issue is that Mom and Dad will sit down at the dinner table each night and regularly look their kids in the eyes and say, ‘Kids, this is what religious liberty is’ . . . [and] tell them the stories of our Founding Fathers.” Dys concluded, “Religious liberty, being our first liberty, is the one in which all the rest of our freedoms are built. You remove that and all the other freedoms topple along with it.”
When the faithful are forsaken, the freedom of all is forfeited.
