Attacking Religion in America
Under the guise of favoring religion, an array of powerful forces is assaulting it.
Religion is under attack in America, and the highest levels of government are its attackers.
This may seem an odd allegation at the moment. A majority of the Supreme Court seems sympathetic to religious organizations that want to establish public charter schools to teach their own doctrines,[1] and sympathetic to religious groups even when they seek to override the rights of LGBTQ+ persons.[2]
Moreover, the President announced on May 1, 2025 (a National Day of Prayer) that by executive order he is establishing a Religious Liberty Commission.[3] Its chair is the lieutenant governor of Texas, who presides over the senate in that state, which is one of the sixty percent of state legislatures controlled by strong religious interests.[4] Another member of the Commission is a Florida pastor, who already has an office in the White House as “a Special Government Employee and Senior Advisor of the newly created White House Faith Office.”[5] The Creation of the Religious Liberty Commission follows an earlier executive order establishing a Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias. At its highest levels, government officials seem to favor certain religious faiths.
Indeed, America’s right-wing governing majorities insist they are protecting religion, not attacking it. Yet that is what makes the siege even more sinister. Under the guise of favoring religion, an array of powerful forces is assaulting it. Taking positions that appear to protect believers, those forces are damaging religious institutions and demeaning their constitutional liberties. The federal government is doing the most harm.
The Sources of Attack on Religion
Some religious interests welcome government intervention, if only because they fear their own influence in American society is waning. To be sure, there has been a statistical decline in religiosity for decades. Americans have found ways to spend weekends besides attending worship. Generational and cultural differences have altered the impact that denominations, congregations, and religious organizations once wielded.
Decreases in religious affiliation are real. However, the decline has stabilized.[6] The downward trend in religiosity may have stopped. Still, proportionally fewer Americans are actively religious in the first quarter of the 21stcentury than was the case in the middle of the 20th century.
Actually, religion is under attack not because relatively fewer people gather in churches, synagogues, temples, or mosques. Religion is under attack because it faces a strategic assault from forces seeking cultural conformity, which religious practices of the faithful are not obliged to provide. Religion is under attack by those who prefer a spirituality that acquiesces to the preferences of the dominant political, ideological, and financial authorities of the age. Religion is under attack by those who want to limit America’s constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom.
When launched by the federal government, the attacks violate the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits laws that require an establishment of religion or that restrain free exercise of it. When abetted by private pundits and propagandists in broadcasts, podcasts, and social media that go viral, the attacks expand exponentially with almost irresistible force.
They occur in two ways. One broadly deprives religion of its distinctiveness and turns it into just another cultural commodity. The other specifically exploits differences among religious traditions and divisions within those traditions to promote a politically pliable piety.
The Breadth of Attack on Religion
One sign of this assault appeared when the Trump administration, on its first day in office, changed a policy of the Department of Homeland Security, by revising the list of locations where persons could be arrested on suspicion of illegal migration or of posing a perceived threat to national security. Under the new policy, arrests may occur within houses of worship.
Dozens of religious groups filed suit against the policy revision. But on April 11, a federal judge refused to grant the injunction sought by plaintiffs seeking to stop the new practice. Consequently, if uniformed personnel enter a place of worship and snatch someone who is in the midst of prayer because the individual supposedly resembles an undocumented immigrant or terrorist, there is currently no judicial protection to prevent the intrusion and violation of constitutionally protected religious space.[7]
The free exercise of religion can now be capriciously disrupted. With flagrant disrespect, any religious community’s sacred assemblies or communal activities may be willfully disturbed for the sake of detaining persons engaged in worship, just as students engaged in the freedom of assembly on college campuses have been detained during collective demonstrations.[8]
In the United States of America today, a person’s mere presence on religious property or participation in religious activities can put that person at risk. Persons waiting in line at a faith-based food pantry can be subjected to surveillance, arrest, detention, and possible deportation. Taking a child to church-sponsored day care can expose a parent to separation from the child. Reciting a text from the Quran could be subjectively interpreted as abetting a terrorist organization. Hosting immigrants or resident aliens in a religious center, and treating them as if they are citizens, as required by Abrahamic religions,[9] could jeopardize the integrity of the religious center or the security of the persons dining or residing in it. In all of these instances, engaging in the practices of a religious faith may jeopardize personal freedom.
Violation of the Establishment and Free-Exercise Clauses of U.S. Constitution
The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the U. S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Irrespective of that clearly established prohibition, the executive branch of the federal government is currently granting state law enforcement the power to enter a place of worship and interrupt the free exercise[10] of religion. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, can commandeer local police or county sheriffs to assist with such actions in some states.
A few weeks after the change of DHS and ICE policies against entry into houses of worship, the governor of Texas condemned a new real estate development near Dallas. He objected to it because the developer is affiliated with an Islamic Center in Plano and the proposed new community would have a mosque. The governor said that the traditions of Islam are forbidden. “To be clear,” he said, “Shariah law is not allowed in Texas.”[11]
Prohibiting “Sharia law” may look like an attack on only one religion. But it threatens the free exercise of all religions, because most faith-based groups have religious laws, obedience to which is routinely taught, advised, and even enforced within specific religious communities. Provisions of religious laws cover such matters as who can join, what to eat, how to dress, whom to marry, and when to pray. Some practices are deemed requirements for access to religious rituals, such as receiving sacraments.
When federal, state, or local governments prohibit the free exercise of religious rights, or prevent participation in religious rites, they are in violation of the constitutional rights of religious communities. And when such governmental authorities interfere with the religious practices of only some communities but not others, they pose a threat to all religious communities. The Constitution makes no distinction as to whether a religious community with constitutional rights is constituted of a majority religion or a minority religion.
Specific Practices of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity
Muslims are a tiny minority within the United States—about one percent of the population. Many wear distinctive clothing and pray in publicly identifiable ways at certain times of the day, which leaves them vulnerable collectively and individually to the whims of prejudicial political powers. When a governor attacks one religious code, namely Sharia, then all religious codes of conduct are implicitly threatened.
Islamic law is not unique, in that much of Sharia, which has thousands of precepts and laws to be obeyed, evolved from the codes of other Abrahamic religions.[12]
Both Judaism and Christianity have clearly defined laws and practices. The Jewish Torah contains 613 commandments or mitzvot that Jews are instructed to obey. Among them are dietary laws. Some Christian codes of conduct require gender discrimination, such as the rules that Roman Catholics and many Baptists have mandated with respect to the ordination and employment of persons as pastors.
Jews and Christians adhere to their own communal rules, disciplines, directives, and practices, even when some may be in direct conflict with certain federal laws. Jesus’s command echoed the Levitical law whereby adherents to the faith are to love God and love neighbors as they love themselves. That love requires caring for strangers and welcoming migrants, not on the basis of any documents of identification they may or may not carry, but solely on the basis of their common humanity in the eyes of God.
Any secular law that grants a governing authority the ability to attack the rules and rituals of a single religion should be a cause of concern for all religions. Jews, given their long history of enduring pogroms and facing the threat of extinction in the Holocaust, know that the risk of prejudicial governmental discrimination and oppression, whether subtle or blatant, is real. Muslim Americans, who lived in great fear after the events of September 11, 2001, find themselves fearful once again in today’s authoritarian political climate.
Christians—who constitute two-thirds of the nation’s residents, and who at the moment may not feel at risk, or their future yet jeopardized—should recognize that the reality of unwarranted governmental intrusion may already be approaching their doorsteps.
What happens when two Christians seated at worship in a pew next to each other are confronted by ICE officers who have come to snatch one of them away while both are reciting a prayer together?
When a Prophet Speaks Truth to Power
The erosion of religious rights and the intrusion into religious commitments are genuine threats to the whole of society when spiritual, traditional, and foundational obligations are under attack. Even the duty of ordained Christian clergy to obey their ordination vows and preach the gospel of the Lord are assailed.
On the day after the inauguration of the 47th president, Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington delivered a sermon at an interfaith service hosted by the National Cathedral, where she is the resident diocesan bishop. She preached on a text about building a house on rock[13] and embraced the words of Micah to love mercy.[14]
Ordained by her denomination with the promise that she would “boldly proclaim the gospel of Christ, enlightening the minds and stirring up the conscience” of the people,[15] she cited immigrants and others in America who fear losing their freedom. Pleading with the president to show them mercy, she said:
I ask you to have mercy, Mr. President, on those in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away and that you help those who are fleeing war zones and persecution in their own lands, to find compassion and welcome here.[16]
In a response on social media, the president wrote that Bishop Budde “was nasty in tone, and not compelling or smart.” He added, “She is not very good at her job! She and her church owe the public an apology.” A Georgia congressman posted that “the person giving this sermon should be added to the deportation list.”[17] The Speaker of the House called the sermon “shameful.”[18] An officer of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) said “there is no such thing as a female bishop,” and a leader of the Proud Boys called Bishop Budde “an instrument of Satan.”[19]
While it was a Christian bishop who in her sermon pleaded with the president to have mercy, she did so within an interfaith service. Representatives of many religious traditions had helped to prepare for the occasion, some with speaking roles, offering prayers and words of witness.
Religious obedience can require a critique of governments. The United Methodist Church, for example, states in its Social Principles that regimes must be judged.
We affirm that every form of government stands under God’s judgment and must therefore be held accountable for protecting the innocent, guaranteeing basic freedoms and liberties, protecting the natural world, and establishing just, equitable, and sustainable economies.[20]
Such judgments can take many forms. A plea for mercy is one. A protest is another. These are spiritual requirements within some religious traditions. They are also constitutional rights protected by the First Amendment. Yet, currently in America, they are under siege.
Divisive Assaults on Religious Liberty
Another tactic in the assault on religion is the effort to exploit the differences between religions and the divisions within religious communities. Every religious tradition has sectarian groups that formed by dividing along doctrinal, racial, cultural, national, or practical lines. Spats and separations within Christianity are as old as the religion itself, and pleas for unity in the church shine a light on the prevalent practices of disunity.[21] Divisive debates within Islam arose in its earliest days regarding leadership after the death of Muhammad.[22] One group within Judaism has a practice that allows both a majority point of view and a minority point of view to be deemed authentically Jewish.[23]Splits and separations in spiritual communities are commonplace.
Now, however, the federal government is choosing sides among the various sects. Under the pretense of supporting religion, national authorities are exhibiting a preference for religions that support the policies and positions of the president. The newly established Religious Liberty Commission is dominated by persons who fasten their sectarian perspectives to the political positions of the current executive-in-chief. Franklin Graham, a member of the Commission who actively campaigned for the Trump candidacy, on the night of Trump’s election victory posted, “I thank God that Donald J. Trump won this election!” At the presidential inauguration, Graham began his prayer by praising God for the outcome of the election, expressing delight that the “dark” term of Trump’s predecessor ended, and said, “Look what God has done!” And then, one month after the inauguration, Graham—who leads an international religious aid agency called Samaritan’s Purse—celebrated Trump’s decision to shut down the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).[24]
Policies of the new administration now favor religious groups that side with the current government of the state of Israel in its approach to the people of Gaza. Antisemitism has been redefined to include any word or action that protests the ways in which Israeli governmental actions decimate the Palestinian people. Christians, Muslims, and even Jews pleading for the Palestinians as neighbors deserving of food and health care, are labeled antisemitic.[25] And American religious minorities who do not share the views of the prevailing political powers are seen by those powers as suspect.
In many nations, Christians are the minority. In the United States, non-Christian religions are the minority. The United Methodist Church expresses support for religious minorities. Its Social Principles state, “We urge governments, businesses, churches, and other institutions in civil society to take concerted action to preserve and protect the rights of all religious people.”[26]
The constitutional clause on “free exercise” of religion means that in the United States believers are free to proclaim God’s judgment in holding governments accountable, whether they be the federal government or states’ governments, so that Jews are free to obey Torah and Muslims are free to honor the Sharia law insisting that “the concept of mercy balances strict justice with compassion.”[27] Yet attacks on these principles take various forms, sometimes at the hands of inflammatory individuals.
On the first night of Passover this year, after the governor of Pennsylvania and his family shared a seder in his official residence, an intruder evaded security personnel, invaded the mansion, and set fire to the place. Carrying a weapon that he reportedly intended to use to harm the governor, he eluded authorities for two days. After his arrest he told police that he hated Governor Shapiro, whom he blamed for the deaths of Palestinians killed by the Israeli Defense Force in Gaza.
Ways to Respond to the Crisis
The divisive actions of the Trump administration and its allies are turning religious groups, their principles, and their perspectives against counterparts in other groups and sub-groups of believers. Yet it is not the first time in American history when specific religions or religious points of view were targeted for recrimination. Catholic immigrants faced disdainful renunciation and discrimination by Protestants. Mormons had to migrate toward barren land to find a home. Jews were excluded from organizations, limited by university quotas, and threatened by the Klan. In the 1880s, a newly enacted federal law prohibited Native Americans from observing their traditional tribal religions. The law was not reversed until the Carter administration in the 1970s.[28]
Now, many leaders of government have undertaken a new siege upon the rights of all religious expressions by politicizing their own brand of Christian nationalism as though it were the exclusive foundation of the Republic, which the separation and establishment clauses of the Constitution explicitly forbid.
Responses to this siege may arise from many sources. Secular entities that treasure the Constitution, and are alert to violations of it, can file suit in federal court. Yet, direct responses must come from the very religious institutions of America whose faiths and freedoms are endangered. Respondents must not remain in their sacred silos. They should not limit their defenses to specific cases involving only their own individual traditions, congregations, or practices. For they will not be able to maintain their constitutional liberty if others’ religious freedoms are allowed to dissolve.
When religion itself is under siege, believers of every religious persuasion must resist the intrusions of tyrants.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2025/04/30/nx-s1-5382348/supreme-court-seems-poised-to-require-state-funded-charter-schools-to-include-religious-schools
[2] Reuters, April 22, 2025, The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/22/supreme-court-schools-lgbtq-books#:~:text=The%20supreme%20court%2C%20which%20has,outs%20burdens%20their%20religious%20beliefs
[3] https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/05/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-establishes-the-religious-liberty-commission/
[4] https://www.stateside.com/state-resource/legislative-partisan-splits
[5] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/president-trump-announces-appointments-to-the-white-house-faith-office/
[6] See the “Religious Landscape Study,” Pew Research Center, February 26, 2025. (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/02/26/decline-of-christianity-in-the-us-has-slowed-may-have-leveled-off/)
[7] https://apnews.com/article/trump-churches-immigration-enforcement-82e5d40e8dad512a23732e9185879eeb
[8] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/25/us-citizen-deportation-donald-trump-00311631
[9] See Exodus 22:21 and Leviticus 19:33-34.
[10] The First Amendment to the Constitution, which contains this “free exercise” clause, was ratified in 1791.https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript#:~:text=Bill%20of%20Rights.%22-,Amendment%20I,for%20a%20redress%20of%20grievances.
[11] J. David Goodman, “Texas Muslims Want to Build Homes and a Mosque, The New York Times, April 13, 2025. (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/13/us/texas-muslims abbott.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20250414&instance_id=152535&nl=the-morning®i_id=86816299&segment_id=195962&user_id=3e378ca8557266a3ccd4d3b668e44818)
[12] Kali Robinson, “Understanding Sharia,” Council on Foreign Relations, December 17, 2021 (https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/understanding-sharia-intersection-islam-and-law)
[13] Matthew 7:24-27
[14] Micah 6:8
[15] “The Ordination of a Bishop,” The Book of Common Prayer (New York: Seabury Press, 1979), 518.
[16]
[17] Caroline Linton, “Trump calls National Cathedral bishop “nasty in tone” after her sermon urges him to “have mercy,” CBS News, January 22, 2025 (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-national-cathedral-bishop-sermon-reaction/)
[18] https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/attacks-bishop-trump-confrontation-undermine-religious-freedom-claims/
[19] Ibid.
[20] The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2020/2024 (Nashville: The United Methodist Publishing House, 2024), ¶ 163 IV. A., 135.
[21] See I Corinthians 1:10-13, II Corinthians 11:13, Galatians 1:6-7, Galatians 2:11, and I Timothy 6:3-5.
[22] Wilferd Madelung, The Succession to Muhammad (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
[23] See William B. Lawrence, Methodism in Recovery (Nashville: Abingdon, 2008), 30.
[24] https://time.com/7261411/franklin-graham-usaid-foreign-aid-freeze-interview/
[25] Alan Blinder, The New York Times, May 6, 2025 (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/06/us/trump-antisemitism-american-jewish-committee-universities.html)
[26] The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2020/2-24, ¶ 163 IV. J., 145
[27] “Mercy and Forgiveness in Islamic Law,” Studio Arabiya Institute, December 12, 2024, (https://studioarabiya.com/affection-and-mercy-in-islam/#:~:text=Mercy%20and%20Forgiveness%20in%20Islamic,a%20set%20of%20rigid%20rules.)
[28] Diane Wilson, The Seed Keeper (Minneapolis: Milkweed Press, 2021), 243.