The Justice Department Hosts The First Religious Liberty Commission
I have tried my best to watch the monthly Religious Liberty Commission presentations, hosted by the US Justice Department. The first of these monthly meetings was held June 16, 2025 at the Museum of the Bible. The select panel, that includes a pop psychologist (Dr. Phil), a Miss America Candidate (removed from the commission) and 2016 presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson, advocate for moving religion from the church, mosque or synagogue, to the public square. The mistruths and fabricated history articulated in this meeting, particularly when it comes to what the founders thought, is simply hard to accept.
Many in the Commission expressed the view that religion is under fire in America. The Commission members expressed a need to expand the influence of religion in our government. Are these claims of religious persecution valid or do these members simply desire privilege for their own religious denomination? As Tom Waites wrote in his song, Black Market Baby, “there’s no prayer like desire.”
In an effort to find an objective observer of this meeting, I asked AI to come up with 6 questions discussing how the creation of the Commission and its work is even possible in light of the Establishment Clause. Here’s what AI said.
1️⃣ Does the Commission maintain government neutrality among religions — and between religion and nonreligion?
Observed at the June 16 meeting:
The choice of venue (Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C.), the leadership by a politically conservative Christian official, and the pre-event criticism by watchdog groups suggested a strong Christian framing of religious liberty. Critics argued the Commission’s composition and rhetoric leaned toward a particular religious and ideological viewpoint rather than neutral pluralism.
- Consistent with the First Amendment: If the meeting genuinely offered diverse perspectives from multiple faith traditions and secular viewpoints and avoided privileging one religious narrative.
- In tension with the First Amendment: If the focus and remarks emphasized one religious tradition as foundational to American law and culture, which can appear to favor that tradition over others and nonreligions.
Assessment: There were credible perceptions of emphasis on a particular religious narrative, which raises concerns about neutrality.
2️⃣ Is the Commission advisory, or does it exercise governmental power to advance religion?
Observed at the June 16 meeting:
The Commission clearly served in an advisory capacity — hearing testimony from scholars, historical discussion of the First Amendment, and context on religious liberty. It did not itself enact policy at that meeting.
- Consistent with the First Amendment: Advisory bodies can lawfully discuss and recommend policies as long as they do not enforce religious doctrine or coerce religious practice.
- In tension with the First Amendment: If recommendations are framed in ways that push governmental action to favor religion over secular interests — especially if overlapping with other policy domains.
Assessment: The meeting was advisory in form, which is not inherently unconstitutional, though concerns arise depending on the substance of recommended policies.
3️⃣ Does the Commission protect free exercise for all, or only for select groups?
Observed at the June 16 meeting:
The official agenda included historical exploration of religious liberty, Supreme Court interpretations, and separation of church and state. Critics like the Freedom From Religion Foundation suggested the meeting’s rhetoric might focus on perceived threats to traditional Christian practice rather than on a broad array of free exercise claims for all faiths and nonreligions.
- Consistent with the First Amendment: If discussions genuinely contemplated the free exercise of all faiths and non-faith perspectives equally.
- In tension with the First Amendment: If the meeting elevated some claims (e.g., privileging traditional Christian practices) while ignoring or minimizing concerns of minority religions or nonreligious citizens.
Assessment: The content could support free exercise broadly, but public concerns highlight the risk of selective focus.
4️⃣ Does the Commission avoid shifting harm to third parties?
Observed at the June 16 meeting:
The hearing focused on historical foundations, court interpretations, and conceptual issues rather than specific regulatory exemptions. There’s no evidence the June meeting itself advanced policy that shifted harm to third parties.
- Consistent with the First Amendment: Focusing on education and history does not inherently burden others.
- In tension with the First Amendment: If future policy recommendations justify exemptions that harm others’ rights or access, then the framework discussed could lay groundwork for such outcomes.
Assessment: On June 16 the meeting did not directly shift harm to third parties, though subsequent policy advice might.
5️⃣ Does the Commission avoid excessive entanglement between government and religious doctrine?
Observed at the June 16 meeting:
Speakers underscored religious and historical claims about America’s founding (some arguing Christian principles undergirded constitutional rights). Critics like Americans United argued that the rhetoric also advanced what they termed Christian nationalist themes, which can blur the line between constitutional analysis and religious promotion.
- Consistent with the First Amendment: Governments may study religious liberty history as a constitutional matter if done in a secular academic, not doctrinally religious, way.
- In tension with the First Amendment: If discussion about “founding principles” gives the impression of government endorsement of religious doctrine, it risks entanglement.
Assessment: The content of the remarks — especially around religious foundations and public value of religion — could risk entanglement if they move from constitutional analysis to perceived endorsement.
6️⃣ Would the same principles apply equally if the religious claimant were unpopular or politically marginalized?
Observed at the June 16 meeting:
Critics charged that the Commission’s framing and venue signaled a priority for traditional, mainstream religious perspectives — mainly from conservative Christian voices. Groups advocating for broader interpretation of the Establishment Clause or nonreligious viewpoints expressed concern that they were not centered or included.
- Consistent with the First Amendment: Equal application would mean attendees and Commission members seriously engage with diverse traditions, including minority and secular perspectives.
- In tension with the First Amendment: If the narrative assumes a dominant religious culture and treats minority or nonreligious positions as peripheral.
Assessment: Reports suggest the meeting did not demonstrably prioritize minority or nonreligious perspectives, which raises concerns about equal application.
📊 Overall Constitutional Summary of the June 16, 2025 Meeting
Question
Likelihood Consistent with First Amendment
Likelihood of Concern
Neutrality among religions
⚠️ Limited
Critics suggest emphasis on certain traditions
Advisory role
✔️ Yes
Formally advisory
Protection for all groups
⚠️ Questionable
Critics see selective focus
Avoid third-party harm
✔️ Yes
Meeting itself was informational
Avoid entanglement
⚠️ Possible tension
Rhetoric risked endorsements
Equal treatment of marginalized claimants
⚠️ Concern
Reports highlight narrow focus
📌 Conclusion
The June 16, 2025 Religious Liberty Commission meeting was formally consistent with an advisory body discussing constitutional history and threats to religion. However, numerous groups and observers expressed concern that the framing, venue, and emphasis leaned toward a particular religious narrative rather than neutral, pluralistic constitutional analysis — which is key for First Amendment compliance.
Whether that amounts to a legal violation of the First Amendment is a separate question for courts — but in constitutional practice and perception, the meeting raised legitimacy and neutrality concerns under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.