Minn. Church Rioters, Don Lemon Must Be Prosecuted Under This Law
Nathaniel Hawthorne famously opined that “no man, for any considerable period, can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true.” There is a grain of truth in that observation about people, but laws do not blur their meaning with temperament. Federal statutes can be plain and ruthless when applied correctly.
Congress wrote the FACE Act, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, with two distinct protections that matter here. One protects access to clinics; the other protects worshippers at places of worship under 18 U.S.C. §248(a)(2). That second protection is squarely on point when a mob storms a sanctuary to disrupt worship.
Why The Law Applies
The FACE Act forbids force or threats to obstruct, injure, interfere with, or intimidate anyone exercising religious freedom at a place of worship. Those are not subtle, academic harms; they are violent interruptions of a sacred moment. When people barge into a service, accost the pastor, and terrify congregants, that behavior matches the statute’s proscribed conduct.
We have seen federal prosecutors use this law before, even in difficult cases, and the statute carries real penalties — imprisonment, fines, or both. History shows the law is not reserved for one side or one kind of protest; it applies when conduct crosses into obstruction and intimidation. The Justice Department should apply it uniformly when the facts fit.
Some defenders of the mob try semantic contortions to shrink the law’s reach. Minnesota’s attorney general was quoted saying, “How they can stretch [FACE] to apply to people who protested in a church over the behavior of a religious leader is beyond me.” That claim ignores Section (a)(2) and the plain language Congress added to protect worship.
(function(w,q){w[q]=w[q]||[];w[q].push([“_mgc.load”])})(window,”_mgq”);
Scripture helps cut through the fog. “Some therefore cried one thing and some another … and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together” (Acts 19:32, KJV). The Bible recorded the chaos of mobs long before modern media could amplify confusion, and that passage fits the scene: people showing up for different causes and making a violent spectacle.
The law was amended in 1994 because Congress recognized how private intrusions into worship hurt religious liberty. That amendment reflects a settled judgment: the right to worship deserves federal protection when it is threatened. If a mob intends to intimidate worshippers away from prayer, the law kicks in.
What Should Be Done
Those who stormed the church did not merely stand with signs outside; they entered, shouted, and intimidated women, children, and a pastor trying to lead worship. That behavior is criminal, and it merits prosecution under the FACE Act’s religious-worship clause. The Department of Justice should move deliberately and seek the penalties that the law allows.
There is a moral double standard when commentators demand prosecution for some offenses but excuse similar conduct when their allies commit it. Don Lemon spent years calling for accountability after the attack on the Capitol, yet when a mob invaded a house of worship the messaging shifted. Public consistency matters; the rule of law cannot bend to fit convenience.
We can disagree about causes without condoning criminality. Christians must insist on the protection of worship and expect civil authorities to enforce laws meant to keep sacred spaces safe. Anything less leaves worshippers vulnerable and undermines the promise that religious liberty will be defended.