Crossroads -- Hey! Can conservatives invade liberal worship?

So much depends on how journalists cover events and what news events they cover

On January 18, 2026, a cell of anti-ICE demonstrators crashed a Sunday service at the Cities Church, a Southern Baptist congregation in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Debates about this protest have been defined by the Red vs. Blue divide in American politics, which has dominated the Donald Trump era. On the cultural right, this protest was seen as a violation of the First Amendment religious-liberty rights of the worshippers. On the left, efforts to prosecute the activists were seen as a violation of their First Amendment free-speech rights.

This was the background for an Associated Press report —”After a Minnesota church protest, states are toughening penalties for disrupting services” — that served as the hook for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast. While recording this episode, I must have broken the record for offering hypothetical questions and case studies linked to the legal and journalistic implications of an event of this kind. Here are a two of those.

(1) Would mainstream media coverage have been different if a flock of conservative activists — joined by independent and activist journalists on the right — had invaded an abortion facility and interrupted the proceedings with angry chants and face-to-face confrontations with leaders and patients, including any children that happened (long shot, I know) to have been present?

(2) Would mainstream media coverage have been different if a flock of Ku Klux Klan members had invaded a Sunday service at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, which was once led by the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Oh, related to that: What if opponents of rising immigration numbers had disrupted a rite in a prominent mosque? What if Orthodox Jews had invaded an LGBTQ+ wedding in a liberal, Reform Jewish temple?

I could go on and on and, trust me, I did while discussing a host of other First Amendment questions. Frankly, I know that these legal issues are complex and — several times — I told listeners that they will need to be settled in courts, even the U.S. Supreme Court. Church-State issues and often extremely complicated.

However, most of the podcast focused on JOURNALISM issues linked to coverage of these kinds of issues. Can citizens understand what is going on when the coverage is skewed in one particular legal and political direction?

First, let’s look at the AP report’s overture:

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — At least four states have adopted laws this year making it a crime to disrupt worship services, a reaction to a high-profile protest inside a Minnesota church that prompted outrage from faith leaders.

The Republican lawmakers sponsoring most of the legislation say those gathering at sacred sanctuaries deserve protection beyond what existing trespassing laws provide. They also say these new laws will prevent escalating clashes between congregants and protestors as many churches, mosques and synagogues remain on edge over recent mass shootings and acts of violence targeting religious groups.

“People should go to church to be able to sit in peace, worship as they please, without having to worry about people coming in and harassing them,” said Idaho Sen. Mark Harris, a Republican who co-sponsored legislation criminalizing protests inside places of worship. “I think the thing that happened in Minnesota was kind of a shock to some of us, that churches would be used as a place to berate people.”

The key words in this passage are “deserve protection beyond what existing trespassing laws provide.” Note the word “EXISTING.”

Readers are then given some additional information:

Bills have been signed into law in Republican-dominated Idaho, Louisiana and Oklahoma. In Kansas, a bill is becoming law without the signature of Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly.

Similar bills have been introduced for this year’s legislative sessions in at least seven other states and in Congress. Nassau County, New York, passed a similar measure this year. In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed a law making it a federal crime to intentionally injure or interfere with or intimidate someone entering a place of worship or a reproductive health facility.

The details in the bills differ, but they all make it a crime to interfere with religious assemblies.

Note the reference to the 1994 law — The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy. It stated (bold italics added):

Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit: (1) intentionally injuring, intimidating, or interfering with, or attempting to injure, intimidate, or interfere, any person by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services; (2) intentionally injuring, intimidating, or interfering with, or attempting to injure, intimidate, or interfere, any person by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or (3) intentionally damaging or destroying the property of a facility, or attempting to do so, because such facility provides reproductive health services, or intentionally damaging or destroying the property of a place of religious worship.

The obvious question: Why are the new laws, at the state level, needed?

Why isn’t this national law being used against, to cite another type of protest/hate crime — arson attacks on religious sanctuaries, which have been on the rise in recent years. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has claimed that a large percentage of house of worship fires, as high as 25%, are arson attacks.

Religion Unplugged editor Clemente Lisi has been writing about the lack of serious news coverage of church attacks, of various kinds, for several years now. See this example: “Church Vandalism Continues To Be A Big Story Very Few Are Covering.”

In the podcast, I kept asking: Has the lack of press coverage of stories of this kind played any role in how courts have or have not handed out judgements against offenders?

To be blunt: How did attacks on religious sanctuaries become a “conservative” issue, in politics and journalism, since the 1994 act is rather clear on these matters? Is it legally “safer” for protesters to attack and even invade churches, as opposed to abortion clinics?

I will end with another case study that I believe is relevant. This one is real and was covered, at length, in a 2019 GetReligion post with this headline (it kept evolving): “What do we know? Drum chants 3.0 at the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception.'“

First question for readers: How many of you remember the tsunami of press coverage about the alleged nasty confrontation between pro-life Catholic students from Covington (Kentucky) Catholic High School and Native American rights activists led by Nathan Phillips?

This took place during the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. A silent student smiled in what journalists said was a provocative way during a face-to-face encounter with Phillips. For some background, here are roughly 360,000 links to news coverage and other accounts and commentary.

Now, readers, how many of you remember seeing news features about this second event at that March for Life? This is the overture from a report from the Catholic News Agency.

While chanting and playing ceremonial drums, a group of Native American rights activists reportedly led by Nathan Phillips attempted Jan. 19 to enter Washington, D.C.’s Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception during a Saturday evening Mass.

The group of 20 demonstrators was stopped by shrine security as it tried to enter the church during its 5:15 pm Vigil Mass, according to a shrine security guard on duty during the Mass.

“It was really upsetting,” the guard told CNA.

“There were about twenty people trying to get in, we had to lock the doors and everything.”

Now, there was no shortage of eyewitnesses to what happened. Also, in the age of smartphones and security cameras, there was highly relevant video.

At the very least, there were attempts to crash the Mass, along with some banging on doors and chants with voices and drums.

The CNA followed up with even more information and coverage. Such as:

[One} video begins as a group including Phillips prepares to approach the main steps of the basilica. One participant announces that the group will march to the front of the shrine for “a non-violent peaceful action.”

Another participant tells the group that if they want to enter the basilica, they can do so if they go “in small groups” to pray.

“Just say you are going to Mass,” a third participant advises, and another demonstrator says the basilica is “a public space.”

As the participants begin walking, one demonstrator advises participants: “I’ll watch the cops.”

The video next shows the group, led by Phillips, ascending the front staircase of the basilica, chanting and playing drums. A smaller group of protesters appears to attempt entering the basilica, while the larger group, estimated by some reports at about 60 people, continues to ascend the front stairs before stopping at a landing.

The participants who attempted to enter the shrine can eventually be seen returning to the larger group of protesters.

A California seminarian, who was not permitted by seminary officials to be publicly identified, spoke to CNA about his experience of the events.

“I was outside when the protesters were coming up the steps of the basilica. I was curious because of the noise and chanting. At first I didn’t take it too seriously, but as they came up the steps we were told to go inside - I was with a group of people from California there for the March for Life. The security people shut the doors and locked them.”

“I was inside and the protesters were banging on the doors.”

Now, yet another question or two: Who remembers the mainstream press coverage of this tense event, which was linked — in many ways — to the Lincoln Memorial stand-off that received so much ink?

Well, there was no mainstream press coverage of this attempt to interrupt a Mass in one of America’s most symbolic houses of worship, at least none that I could find.

Now, who thinks there would have been coverage if a band of, oh, Catholic marchers playing drums and singing Latin chants had attempted to interrupt a Native American sacred rite near the March for Life?

Stay tuned, as the debates continue about these new laws addressing the legality of protests during worship rites. Let me know if you see other coverage — good or bad — worth discussing.

Enjoy the podcast and, please, pass it along to others.