Clarity Moment / The Paradox of Liberty: When Openness Becomes an Exit Ramp for Democracy

By Leora Blumberg-Rubinstein

Editor’s Note

This Clarity Moment is not an argument against religious diversity, nor a critique of any faith community. It is an invitation to examine a difficult tension at the heart of liberal democracy: how do open societies protect pluralism while also safeguarding the constitutional framework that makes pluralism possible?

America was founded on a core tenet of religious freedom—a “Great Experiment” designed to prove that diverse faiths could coexist under a single, secular rule of law.

But a haunting question has begun to dominate the national conversation: 

At what point does radical openness

to an ideology that fundamentally opposes a nation’s foundational laws

strain the boundaries of liberal democracy?

If a belief system seeks a foothold specifically to dismantle the protections that allowed it to enter, liberal democracies face a choice between their commitment to tolerance and the need to preserve the constitutional order that sustains it.

---

The DC Flashpoint: Chaos at the Religious Liberty Commission

This tension reached a boiling point last week (February 9–12, 2026) in Washington, D.C., during the latest hearings of the White House Religious Liberty Commission. What was intended to be a deliberation on antisemitism quickly devolved into a microcosm of the nation’s deepest ideological fractures, resulting in the dramatic ousting of Commissioner Carrie Prejean Boller.

Removed by the Commission’s chair, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, Boller’s exit followed a series of heated exchanges where she was accused of “hijacking” the hearing for a personal agenda. Boller, a conservative activist and recent (April 2025) Catholic convert, drew sharp condemnation for her rejection of Zionism and her revival of controversial theological rhetoric.

• Challenging the Definition: During the hearing, Boller claimed that Catholics don’t believe in the state of Israel; however, Lumen Gentium, a key document from the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) teaches that while Catholics believe that Christ instituted a New Covenant with himself as mediator, God’s covenant with the Jews continues to remain in effect — it is unbroken and indeed unbreakable.

• The Deicide Dispute: Boller sparked a clash with Seth Dillon, CEO of The Babylon Bee, when she questioned if citing Bible verses such as 1 Thessalonians 2:15, which refers to “the Jews who killed both the Lord Jesus.” She argued that citing this is “simply a fact” and “biblical history,” and she questioned whether such religious expressions would be censored under modern definitions of antisemitism. Dillon responded that many “conceal their antisemitism under the guise of merely criticizing Israel.” Indeed Boller’s very statement goes against the Catholic Church which in 1965 issued a landmark document called Nostra Aetate, which formally rejected collective Jewish guilt for the crucifixion. It states that the death of Jesus “cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today.” By reviving this charge, Boller was seen by fellow Catholics on the commission as retreating into a pre-Vatican II theology that fueled centuries of persecution. Critics at the hearing, including the Coalition of Catholics Against Antisemitism, called her claims “reckless and historically uninformed.” Critics argue that anyone serving on a Religious Liberty Commission should be well-versed in the theological tradition they claim to represent.

Shabbos Kestenbaum: A Warning for All Faiths

Among the most potent voices at the commission was Shabbos Kestenbaum, a Harvard graduate and activist who gained national attention for suing his alma mater over pervasive antisemitism. Kestenbaum didn’t just speak about Jews; he spoke about what happens when religious expression intersects with public federal law.

“Americans are free not to like Zionism… What concerns us is the violation of federal law, which the commissioner showed no interest in.” — Shabbos Kestenbaum, Feb 2026

Kestenbaum’s testimony provided a bridge between the specific threat to Jews and the broader threat to all people of faith. He argued that the “normalization of Jew-hatred” on campuses is not an isolated event but a “pernicious ideology” that eventually targets any group standing for Western values. He noted that when liberal democracies allow a foothold for radicalism, the result is a “moral abdication” where fear replaces leadership.

Crucially, Kestenbaum framed the defense of religious liberty as a “coalition of angels.” He emphasized that if the state allows the harassment of Jews today, it provides the blueprint for targeting Mormons, Catholics, or any minority faith tomorrow. “We have to all stand together, all denominations, all faiths,” Kestenbaum testified. “We have to say, ‘This will not stand in America.’” His presence reminded the commission that once the precedent for religious exclusion is set, no house of worship is truly safe.

---

The “Polite Fiction” and the Street Foothold

While the debate rages in DC hearing rooms, the physical manifestation of this ideological shift is appearing on American streets. In major hubs like Brooklyn, the public square is increasingly being utilized for mass religious demonstrations that test the limits of municipal law.

New York City recently formalized guidelines allowing the Islamic call to prayer (Adhan) to be broadcast over speakers without a permit on Fridays and during Ramadan. In neighborhoods like Kensington, mosques have embraced “Open Streets” programs to facilitate large-scale Friday prayers on public asphalt. Supporters argue this provides “safe gathering spaces” for the community. However, critics see these displays as more than mere worship; they view them as a “foothold” — a visible assertion of religious presence in secular public space that raises complex questions about how shared civic spaces are defined and governed.

The concern is that the modern world, in an attempt to hide its growing discomfort with Western values, has embraced “polite fictions.” We are told that “anti-Zionism is not antisemitism” and that the seizure of public streets for religious law is merely “diversity.” In reality, when religion is allowed to occupy public spaces, transitioning them from “neutral” to “sectarian,” it raises concerns about civic space shifting from shared ground to particular use.

In April 2017, Austrian President Alexander Van der Bellen suggested in an interview that, in response to rising Islamophobia, solidarity might one day require visible gestures across communities, stating: “With Islamophobia becoming increasingly widespread, the day will come when we will have to ask all women to wear a headscarf. All Women. As solidarity with those who do so for religious reasons.” His remark sparked debate about where solidarity ends and social expectation begins. This episode reflects a broader tension within liberal societies: how to protect religious expression without eroding the neutrality of the public square.

The Cost of the Foothold

The rising frequency of street-level religious assertions highlights a grim reality: when a nation’s laws are centered on individual liberty, they are uniquely vulnerable to groups that view that liberty as a weakness to be exploited.

If we treat ideologies that seek to dismantle the Constitution as merely “another point of view,” we risk losing the framework that makes freedom possible. The “Great Experiment” requires more than just openness; it requires the courage to identify when a religious foothold—whether in the university, the commission, or the street—has become a structural threat to the Republic.

A Call to Courage — and Conversation

At Building Community Thru Conversation (BCTC), we believe that defending democracy does not require shouting louder. It requires thinking more clearly.

We do not respond to hatred with hatred.
We respond with education.
With moral clarity. With structured, courageous dialogue.

We bring people together — Jews and non-Jews, conservatives and progressives, people of faith and secular neighbors — to examine hard ideas without fear, to name antisemitism without euphemism, and to ask the deeper civilizational questions most institutions are afraid to touch.

Because silence is not neutrality. And polarization is not strength.

If you believe:

• Religious liberty must apply equally — without becoming a tool to erode itself
• Antizionism must be examined honestly, not shielded by slogans
• Civil discourse is still possible

Then we invite you to stand with us.

Host a conversation.
Attend a dialogue.
Partner with us.
Support this work.

Democracy survives when citizens are willing to do the harder work of clarity, courage, and conversation.

Let’s build that together.

👉 Learn more about us, our resources or get involved

📩 Contact us to bring a structured conversation to your home, synagogue, church, school, or organization.

Because openness without boundaries is surrender.
But openness with courage is civilization.

About the speaker referenced above

About the Author