This past Sunday, a group of demonstrators interrupted a church service at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, to protest immigration policies. While they may have viewed their actions as protected free speech, the reality is far more serious: they crossed a clear boundary. 

A church is private property and a sanctuary; it is a place set apart for worship, prayer, and spiritual formation. Violating that space is not just disruptive; it is an infringement on religious freedom, a violation of private property rights, and an attack on the institutions that uphold our moral and social order. Such actions are not only morally wrong; they may also carry legal consequences.

This incident reflects a broader pattern in progressive activism: a growing willingness to ignore the line between public and private spaces, to put political or ideological goals above constitutional protections, and to justify violent or destructive behavior based on their own perceived moral imperative. When a church, a central pillar of community and moral life, can be invaded without meaningful consequence and uniform condemnation, it signals a troubling shift in how protest is conducted and how rights are understood, with ideology and power increasingly displacing respect, restraint, consent, and the rule of law.

This is not about one church in Minnesota. It is about the society we are watching take shape—one in which sacred institutions, long-recognized liberties, and settled norms can be overridden by activist pressure. We are watching democracy decay into mob rule before our very eyes. Americans who value ordered liberty, regardless of political or religious affiliation, should recognize that this is not merely a political disagreement, but a threat to the foundations of our social order. Protecting private property, religious freedom, and societal stability is essential.

This moment reveals a deeper conflict of visions. One vision holds that rights are inherent, boundaries matter, religious institutions deserve protection, and liberty depends not only on order and self-restraint, but on a moral framework historically grounded in Christian conviction. The Founders understood that freedom could not endure without a self-governing people, and that such self-government required moral and religious formation.

The other vision increasingly treats rights as conditional, boundaries as obstacles, institutions as tools of oppression, and coercion, or even violence, as a legitimate means of social change. This vision represents a sharp departure from the constitutional order and moral assumptions that have defined the American experiment. If it prevails, the result would be a nation unrecognizable from the one established at the Founding; a nation that has, for nearly 250 years, sustained unprecedented liberty, stability, and prosperity.

The question is not whether this conflict exists, but which vision will prevail—and whether Americans are willing to defend the institutions and principles that have long preserved their freedom.

Photo credit: Angelina Katsanis / Associated Press