In a nation founded on religious liberty and free expression, it should not be controversial to state a simple truth: Americans are allowed to criticize political ideologies without being accused of hatred toward an entire people. Yet that is precisely the line Carrie Prejean Boller crossed—according to her critics—when she publicly rejected Zionism while affirming her Catholic faith.
Boller’s remarks, delivered during a hearing of the White House Religious Liberty Commission and reinforced in subsequent public statements, were neither violent nor discriminatory. They were theological, political, and constitutional. She stated clearly that she is Catholic, that Catholicism does not require adherence to Zionism, and that rejecting a political ideology does not equate to hatred of Jews.
That distinction matters. And it is one Americans are increasingly being told they are not allowed to make.
Catholic Teaching Is Not Political Extremism
The Catholic Church does not teach that modern nation-states fulfill biblical prophecy, nor does it require political allegiance to any foreign government. Catholic theology separates spiritual salvation from nationalist ideology. That position is not radical. It is centuries old.
To suggest that Catholics must embrace Zionism—or remain silent about it—to participate in public life is not religious tolerance. It is ideological coercion.
Boller did not attack Judaism. She did not demean Jewish people. She challenged an expansive political definition of antisemitism that increasingly treats criticism of Zionism or Israeli state policy as inherently hateful. That framework, most notably embodied in the IHRA definition, has been criticized by civil liberties groups, legal scholars, and even Jewish academics for being overly broad and dangerous to free speech.
Raising that concern is not bigotry. It is civic responsibility.
A Chilling Moment for Religious Liberty
The most alarming aspect of this controversy is not the backlash online—it is the implication that a government commission tasked with protecting religious freedom would consider disciplining or removing a commissioner for expressing her sincerely held religious beliefs.
If a Catholic can be punished for articulating Catholic doctrine, then the commission’s mission is already compromised.
Religious liberty does not mean protecting only approved religions, approved speech, or approved political positions. It means protecting the right to dissent—even when that dissent makes powerful interests uncomfortable.
Boller’s refusal to resign is not defiance. It is fidelity—to her faith, to the Constitution, and to the idea that Americans are not subjects required to pledge ideological loyalty to anyone.
Criticism Is Not Hatred
The deliberate conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism is not only intellectually dishonest, it is dangerous. It cheapens the real and horrific history of antisemitism by turning the term into a political weapon rather than a moral warning.
One can oppose Zionism without opposing Jews.
One can criticize Israel without hating Jewish people.
One can be Catholic without being disloyal to America.
Those statements should not be controversial in a free society.
The Real Test
This moment is a test—not just for Carrie Prejean Boller, but for America.
Do we still believe that religious conviction deserves protection even when it challenges political orthodoxy?
Do we still believe free speech includes the right to say things powerful groups dislike?
Do we still believe faith is not a firing offense?
If the answer is yes, then Boller’s stance should be defended—not because everyone must agree with her, but because no one should be punished for speaking from conscience.
Religious liberty that only protects silence is not liberty at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment