Muslim, Jewish Groups Warn “Right to Worship” Bill Could Undermine Free Speech

Two religious organizations — one Jewish and one Muslim — are urging lawmakers to reject a bill that ostensibly aims to protect houses of worship but that would actually quell free speech rights.

“The Right to Worship Act,” sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and cosponsored by Republicans and Democrats alike, seeks to “protect” religious buildings and people inside them by limiting the First Amendment right to protest in nearby areas.

The bill prohibits activities within 100 feet of a house of worship that include actions that are “knowingly disrupting the scheduled religious service” or “impeding people from participating at [a] scheduled religious service.”

While the legislation limits protections to the period of time “beginning 1 hour before the start of and ending 1 hour after the conclusion of a scheduled religious service,” the ambiguous language of the bill could feasibly allow houses of worship to define almost any event as being “protected” from demonstrations happening nearby — for example, a church bake sale could be considered a “scheduled religious service” by some, as could a political event featuring a controversial speaker discussing religious topics.

“Offenders” could be fined $2,500 by the federal government for their first instance of violating the rules laid out in the bill, and up to $10,000 for subsequent violations. The bill also grants private individuals who feel that their religious rights have been violated the ability to sue for “damages” of up to $5,000 per violation.

While most sponsors of the bill are Republican, it does have bipartisan support. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Michigan) has signed on as a cosponsor, and 13 Democrats are cosponsors of the House version of the bill.

The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and Bend the Arc: Jewish Action issued a joint statement urging lawmakers to reject the legislation, arguing that it sacrifices protections for one fundamental liberty to provide unnecessary protections for another.

“As Muslim and Jewish organizations, we understand the urgent need to protect houses of worship from threats, violence, intimidation, and physical obstruction,” the statement from the two groups explained. “Every person deserves to practice their faith freely and safely. However, protecting religious freedom must not come at the expense of other constitutional rights.”

The organizations argued that the broad language of the bill risks “chilling lawful speech, peaceful assembly, and political protest, including on public sidewalks and streets.”

“The legislation fails to adequately distinguish between genuine threats to religious exercise and constitutionally protected expression,” they said, adding:

Our communities know firsthand the consequences of religious hatred and discrimination. We reject the notion that protecting Muslim and Jewish Americans requires weakening the constitutional freedoms that safeguard us all.

The groups are calling on other members of Congress to reject the bill, and in the future, for lawmakers to only “pursue narrowly tailored protections that safeguard religious communities without restricting lawful expression.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has also condemned the bill, warning that it could limit speech protections for protests outside religious venues that are hosting Israeli settlement land sales, further promoting dispossession of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.

In an explainer on the legislation published in September, CAIR labeled the bill as essentially an “Illegal Israeli Settlements Protection Act” that, if enacted into law, could be used to “discourage lawful demonstrations against events promoting Palestinian dispossession.”

“Existing federal law already prohibits force, threats of force, and physical obstruction directed at religious worship,” the organization said in a statement. “CAIR therefore questions the need for a new civil-liability regime that could be used to burden constitutionally protected advocacy and dissent.”

“Hosting a political or commercial event in a religious building should not shield that activity from public accountability,” CAIR added.