When the White House Religious Liberty Commission convened a hearing on antisemitism, the purpose was straightforward and urgent: to confront the rising hostility toward Jewish Americans and to defend one of the most foundational religious communities in our nation’s history.
Instead, Commissioner Carrie Prejean Boller chose to redirect the focus toward Israel’s conduct in Gaza and whether anti-Zionism should be treated as antisemitism. Chairman Dan Patrick rightly removed her from the hearing for hijacking the proceeding.
That decision wasn’t about suppressing dissent. It was about maintaining moral and theological coherence.
A hearing on antisemitism is not a seminar on Middle East policy. It is not a forum for adjudicating geopolitical disputes. It is certainly not a stage for building a personal brand. It is a solemn moment to address hatred directed at Jews — hatred that has surged across college campuses, in public protests, and online.
For Christians, this should not be controversial.
Scripture is unambiguous about the covenantal faithfulness of God. In Genesis 12, the Lord declares to Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse.” In Romans 11, the Apostle Paul warns Gentile believers not to become arrogant toward the “natural branches,” reminding us that “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”
Christians may disagree about modern Israeli policy. But we do not get to sever Jewish identity from its biblical roots or treat biblical covenant history and God’s promises as disposable.
The rise of a performative anti-Israel posture on parts of the right is not primarily theological. It is reactionary. It is marketable. It is viral. And increasingly, it is profitable.
As I argued previously, the so-called “new right revolt” over Israel is rarely about careful exegesis or serious doctrine. It is often about contrarianism as identity — a way to signal independence from mainstream conservatism. Israel becomes a prop in a broader culture war, rather than a subject of sober theological reflection.
That is precisely why what happened at the hearing matters.
Religious liberty requires discipline and knowledge. It requires the ability to distinguish between categories: antisemitism versus foreign policy debate; covenant theology versus political grievance; conscience versus provocation.
When a commission convenes to address antisemitism (hatred against Jews) redirecting the focus toward critiques of the Jewish state blurs those categories in a way that is theologically irresponsible and civically reckless.
Anti-Zionism and antisemitism are not always identical. But neither are they always separable. Historically, hostility toward Jewish national existence has frequently functioned as a socially acceptable proxy for hostility toward Jews themselves. That reality demands nuance and seriousness, not rhetorical showmanship.
Chairman Dan Patrick’s decision signaled something important: religious liberty conversations are not stages for online theatrics. It is a constitutional principle rooted in the recognition that rights come from God, not government. Defending it requires moral clarity, not opportunism.
Christians, in particular, should approach this issue with humility. The Church does not replace Israel in a way that nullifies God’s promises. The New Covenant grafts believers in; it does not uproot the original branches. That theological reality should make us cautious about joining fashionable movements that dismiss Jewish covenant history as irrelevant or pretend that opposition to Israel carries no spiritual weight.
None of this means that Israel is beyond criticism. It does mean that Christians must resist turning Jewish identity into a political punching bag simply because it is currently popular to do so.
Religious liberty is serious business. Antisemitism is serious evil. And theology is not a prop for branding.
In this instance, Dan Patrick acted responsibly and ethically. If the conservative movement wants to retain credibility on matters of faith and freedom, it must draw firm lines between principled debate and performative provocation.
The defense of religious liberty demands nothing less.
Notice: This column is printed with permission. Opinion pieces published by AFN.net are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, AFN.net, our parent organization or its other affiliates.
