Reflections on Serving in a Religious Freedom Commission
As the Presidential Commission on Religious Freedom approaches its conclusion, I find myself contemplating the experience and the rather unexpected reactions people had to my involvement.
About a year ago, I received an unexpected call from the White House. They wanted me to join a new commission dedicated to promoting religious freedom in the United States. To be honest, I’m still not sure who put my name forward. But when I got that invitation, my initial thought was, “Wow, the president is inviting Catholic bishops to sit down and discuss such a crucial issue.”
How could I say no? Religious freedom is a topic that has long been important to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
This committee has genuinely done significant work. Over the past year, we’ve highlighted several violations of religious freedom across various sectors, including health care, education, and the military. We dove into the roots of religious freedom, reflecting on the ideals of our Founding Fathers, and paid special attention to the pressing issue of anti-Semitism in our country. One of our key contributions has been to clarify the often murky relationship between church and state.
For too long, discussions around religious freedom have been clouded by Thomas Jefferson’s notion of a “wall” meant to separate civil governance from religion.
Interestingly, this “wall” is not mentioned in foundational documents like the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution itself. The First Amendment does prohibit Congress from formally establishing a religion, but it doesn’t mean that religion should be marginalized in public life or restricted to private worship.
That very same First Amendment also emphasizes the importance of freely exercising one’s religion. Yet, many of the testimonies we gathered demonstrated the ironic use of Jefferson’s “wall” to impose considerable restrictions on the exercise of faith. While there’s consensus that no student should be compelled to follow a specific religious practice in schools, we’ve heard stories about students being barred from singing Christian songs at talent shows and, believe it or not, from wearing face masks that said “Jesus Loves Me.”
Throughout my time on this commission, I’ve often noted that the most substantial threat to religious freedom today stems from what I consider an alternative belief system, or a “culture of self-invention,” which believes in subjective moral values and that individual choice defines ethics.
It’s clear that as this ideology gains traction, cultural leaders will increasingly seek to remove religion from vital institutions like education and healthcare. They see those who uphold traditional religious values as their greatest ideological opponents. The discussions and testimonies we’ve collected have echoed this theme repeatedly.
I want to highlight that my fellow commissioners were fantastic. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick from Texas, who chaired the committee, genuinely welcomed my perspective on Catholic teachings in relation to religious freedom. There was no attempt to silence me or question why I was there. I felt completely free to share my views and engage in vibrant discussions.
No one pushed me toward any unwavering loyalty to the Trump administration, which I find rather refreshing. I’m proud to contribute to the final report that I’ll soon be presenting to the president.
I know that for some, merely being part of a committee appointed by President Trump is enough to warrant criticism. But honestly, I find that viewpoint misguided. If President Biden had reached out with a similar invitation, I would have accepted, despite my disagreements with many of his policies. After all, serving on a committee focused on a particular issue doesn’t equate to endorsing every decision made by that president.
Some critics have suggested that church members shouldn’t be so intertwined with government activities. Yet, I draw inspiration from Father Theodore Hesburgh, the late president of the University of Notre Dame, who served on numerous presidential commissions across different administrations. It’s inconceivable that he agreed with them all, but he knew the importance of offering the church’s insights to those in power.
A puzzling critique I’ve encountered is the suggestion that my role somehow aligns me with the Trump administration, especially given the claim that Pope John Paul II discouraged church figures from taking government roles. But that’s not how it works. Those within the administration work to put policy proposals into action, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio or Vice President J.D. Vance. In contrast, our commission’s aim was to shape policy, not implement it.
Our mission involved advising the president on actions he could take to enhance religious freedom through legislation or executive orders. There’s a big difference between advising and enacting policy.
In closing, I believe my experience on the Commission on Religious Freedom has been invaluable, and I’m genuinely grateful for the opportunity. I argue that much of the criticism aimed at me is often rooted in anger or jealousy, which, to me, seems misplaced.
