Americans should not have to choose between the right to protest and the right to pray. The Right to Worship Act rests on the proposition that we are capable of protecting both.
The newly introduced bipartisan proposal, sponsored by Sens. Ted Cruz and Elissa Slotkin and Reps. Brad Knott and Tom Suozzi, would provide federal protection against conduct within 100 feet of a house of worship that meaningfully disrupts a scheduled religious service or unreasonably obstructs, intimidates or deters people trying to attend one. It would apply during services and for one hour before and afterward.
The impetus is obvious. Synagogues in particular have increasingly become targets of demonstrations that sometimes cross the line separating protest from intimidation. But this is emphatically not a Jewish-only measure. Supporters include Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh organizations, among them the ADL, AJC, Orthodox Union, Agudath Israel, Islamic Society of North America, Hindu American Foundation, United Sikhs and Jewish Federations of North America.
Perhaps the most compelling example comes from Ann Arbor, Michigan. Beth Israel Congregation has faced weekly demonstrations during Shabbat services for more than two decades. Protesters gather outside with anti-Israel and anti-Zionist messages as congregants arrive to pray. Sander Gerber, one of the architects of the legislation, became involved because his father attends the synagogue and unsuccessfully pursued legal remedies, including seeking Supreme Court review.
That history also demonstrates why this legislation is difficult.
Public sidewalks are traditional forums for political expression. People have a constitutional right to criticize Israel, Zionism or religion itself. They may say things that are offensive and profoundly unwelcome. Government cannot create protest-free zones simply because worshippers would rather not encounter protesters.
Existing federal law also prohibits force, threats of force and physical obstruction against people exercising religious freedom. Critics can therefore fairly ask why another federal law is necessary.
Ann Arbor provides part of the answer. When protesters return to the same synagogue, at the same time, week after week and year after year, the distinction between expressing a political message and targeting worshippers becomes harder to ignore. Must someone actually be assaulted or physically blocked before the law can address intimidation intended to deter religious exercise?
The Right to Worship Act tries to draw that line carefully. It does not prohibit protests within 100 feet or outlaw
signs or criticism of Israel or religion. It specifically protects lawful demonstrations. What it prohibits is conduct
that substantially interrupts worship or unreasonably hinders, threatens, intimidates or deters people from entering. That is a distinction worth defending.
Free speech includes the right to stand outside a synagogue and condemn Israel. But the First Amendment protects religious exercise too. Neither right automatically extinguishes the other. As Suozzi aptly put it, no one should need “particular courage” simply to pass through a gauntlet to attend religious services.
There will undoubtedly be constitutional challenges, and courts should scrutinize the law carefully. But that is an argument for precise drafting, not congressional paralysis.
After two decades of Saturday-morning demonstrations in Ann Arbor — and disturbing incidents elsewhere — Congress is right to insist that protecting the right to protest need not require surrendering the right to pray. The Right to Worship Act deserves bipartisan support.
