Orthodox Reflections

By Nicholas – member of the Western Rite Vicariate, a part of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese in America

In the United States, the First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and freedom of religion are under increasing threat. So far, 39 states, the District of Columbia, and even some cities such as San Diego have adopted or recognized the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, either through legislation, executive orders, or proclamations, according to reports from the American Jewish Committee. The working definition intentionally conflates criticism of Israel and the bad behavior of Jewish billionaires with antisemitism. The IHRA definition adoption and related legislation provide a legal pretext for governments to take action against what was once considered free speech.

In a recent example of the ongoing crackdown on free speech, independent journalist Ethan Levins was detained at an airport by DHS for three hours, solely for the purpose of interrogating him about comments concerning Israel and Israeli minister (war criminal) Ben-Gvir. News is becoming more frequent of police paying visits to private citizens to investigate  “antisemitic” posts, which are often nothing more than opposition to genocide in Gaza. This is one example from the “free state” of Florida. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that foreigners who have criticized Israel, or whose opinions could hurt Jewish feelings in America, will be kept out: “Do not come to the US if you have criticized Israel.” Having criticized America, however, has no impact on the ability of a foreigner to get a visa to visit the United States.

David Melech Friedman, attorney and the former United States Ambassador to Israel, openly called on Trump to financially ruin, jail, or even deport those like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson who criticize Israel. His is just one influential voice among many, all saying essentially the same thing – shut up or we will find a way to make you shut up.

As of 2026, more than 35 U.S. states have enacted anti-boycott laws that require government contractors to sign a written certification pledging they do not and will not boycott Israel. Want a government contract in those states? Stay quiet about the genocide in Gaza and Zionist influence over American politicians. Better not talk about the Iran War or Epstein either, just to be safe.

At Orthodox Reflections, we have previously covered the increasing adoption of Rabbinic Noahide Laws into American law:

These Noahide Laws, drawn from rabbinic interpretations of ancient texts, outline seven requirements for non-Jews: setting up courts of justice, avoiding blasphemy, rejecting idolatry, refraining from sexual immorality, prohibiting murder and theft, and banning the eating of flesh from living animals. On paper they promote basic ethics. In practice, the idolatry rule creates immediate friction with Christianity. Major rabbinic voices, including Maimonides, have classified Trinitarian worship and devotion to Jesus as forms of idolatry, essentially dividing the divine or assigning improper form to it. 

That worshipping Christ is considered idolatrous to Rabbinic Jews shouldn’t surprise anyone. Where the embrace of the Noahide Laws eventually lands American society is anyone’s guess at the moment.  The trend, however, is not comforting.

Further, there are plenty of Rabbis who would love to suppress any public discussion and reading of the New Testament on the grounds that it is “antisemitic.” There have even been calls to censor passages offensive to Rabbinic Jews when Bibles are published. No one should be fully confident that a public Bible study of the “offensive” NT passages could not, or would not, lead to hate-speech arrests.

How far can all this go? That is an open question. After all, the U.S. government does have an “antisemitism czar,” officially the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism. The office operates within the U.S. Department of State as an ambassador-level position tasked with coordinating international efforts against antisemitism. The current office holder is Ambassador Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun, Israeli-American businessman, follower of the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic movement, and Trump campaign liaison to the Jewish community during the 2024 election. Kaploun has noted that the Trump administration has expanded his office’s remit to collaborate more closely across domestic federal agencies like the Department of Justice and the FBI on international threat tracking.

What could go possibly go wrong?

If these legal trends continue, non-Zionist American Christians could be in for a world of trouble. To be fair, the government will most likely leave you alone in Church. Probably. That is not guaranteed, but probably. However, if things keep going like this, taking your faith into the public square (IRL or online) could be a problem for you.

Of course, we don’t face legal problems from just speech and actions potentially labeled as “antisemitic.” COVID proved that governments are more than willing to levy legal sanctions on citizens over speech deemed to be “misinformation.” It is not hard to visualize a crackdown over antiwar speech, anti-Flock camera speech, or any other type of speech powerful political actors deem inconvenient.

One more thing. Inventive government agents don’t even have to prosecute you over “antisemitism” or “misinformation,” charges that could end up reviewed over constitutional grounds by appeals courts. There are plenty of other charging options available from “disturbing the peace” to engineering an in-person confrontation to conjure up “resisting arrest” / “obstruction” / “disorderly conduct” charges to various forms of “conspiracy,” and much more that you have never even thought of.  Harvey A. Silverglate, a criminal defense attorney and civil liberties advocate, wrote a book called Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. The book is all about how ordinary, law-abiding people routinely break ever expanding, complex federal rules through normal daily activities like sending emails, making phone calls, and handling workplace documents.

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” is a quote attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, the head of Joseph Stalin’s secret police in the Soviet Union. Find the target first, then find a way to prosecute. In a highly criminalized society, whether the U.S.A. or the USSR, there is always a way.

That is a lot of doom and gloom. So what can we do about any of it?

Let’s start with what won’t work. Christians can’t organize to stop anti-free speech and anti-free exercise laws from being passed. The governments work for the Epstein Class, not us. In America, we truly have the best politicians money can buy. Further, grass roots organizing has little chance in a centralized media landscape. It is difficult to gain traction when your opposition can keep the general population from even learning of your existence. There is only so much an appearance or two on some podcasts can do. Plus, how many dissident political organizations do you think exist in the U.S. that aren’t under 24/7 surveillance? We might be able to build some kind of effective coalition, someday through sheer effort and God’s grace, but don’t count on that any time soon.

We also can’t stop these laws from being enforced. American police have proven willing to enforce even the most egregious government edicts, without so much as a whimper of protest. See COVID mandates if you need a refresher on this topic. Don’t count on law enforcement, at any level, to refuse orders on constitutional grounds. Few police have even a vague understanding of constitutional rights. Most wouldn’t care, even if they did.

Finally, Americans can’t count on the courts. Judges have had a decidedly mixed record in terms of protecting civil liberties. There is no sure thing when the black-robed oracles are involved. They are government employees, after all, and their sympathies tend to lie in that direction.

So what does work? What we can do as individuals. First, and foremost, do not talk to police. Ever. Investigators want to ask you about a social media post, an event you attended, a comment you made – refuse to answer any questions without the presence of an attorney. None. Not a single one. Keep this in mind: you must actively assert your rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during any questioning. Merely keeping silent does not count as you invoking the Fifth Amendment. Thank the Supreme Court for that.

So assert your right to remain silent. Then shut all the way up. You can never help your own case by talking.

Second, learn and spread the word about Jury Nullification. In the U.S., the right to a trial by jury is guaranteed by Article III and the Sixth and Seventh Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Trial by jury is the bedrock of our English common-law heritage. Most Americans know the basics about juries, even if they have never served on one. What most Americans don’t understand is that juries, in our legal system, are not just triers of fact (did he do it) but also of the validity of the law itself. A juror can vote not guilty in a criminal case for any reason or no reason at all, but particularly if he believes:

• The law is unjust or being unjustly applied.
• The charges are a cover for political oppression.
• The penalty is unfairly harsh.
• Mitigating circumstances make the law a poor fit in the case at hand.

Here is an explanation of Jury Nullification from the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA):

In its strictest sense, jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a Not Guilty verdict even though jurors believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has broken the law. Because the Not Guilty verdict cannot be overturned, and because the jurors cannot be punished for their verdict, the law is said to be nullified in that particular case.

In what can be said to be a milder form of jury nullification, some of the jurors, or even just one in most cases, can hang the jury by maintaining a Not Guilty verdict even though they believe the defendant broke the law. There is no requirement that jurors must come to a unanimous verdict. If the jury cannot unanimously agree on a verdict of either Guilty or Not Guilty, this is known as a hung jury. When further deliberation clearly will be unproductive, the judge will declare a mistrial. The prosecution may or may not retry the case in the future, but the law has at least been nullified in the trial at hand.

When these kinds of rejections of enforcement of laws stack up over time, the laws become unenforceable. We’ve seen this rejection of the Fugitive Slave Laws and alcohol prohibition, for example, undermine such laws’ enforcement. Eventually, it is no longer worth the time or hassle or embarrassment for government officials to try to enforce these laws. They may be further nullified in a sense either remaining on the books but not being enforced or being repealed altogether.

As a juror, you cannot be held legally liable for your vote to acquit. You do not have to explain your vote to acquit to anyone, including other jurors. If you feel the need to explain your vote, just say something general such as that in your heart you cannot convict the defendant. Just one person, out of twelve, can stop a politically motivated prosecution dead in its tracks. Stack enough of those refusals to convict on top of each other, and you can render a law essentially unenforceable. No organizing. No politics. Just an informed populace exercising their free will to follow their own God-given consciences.

Why don’t more Americans know about Jury Nullification? Throughout much of American history (colonial and republican) some judges, in their jury instructions, would discuss the right of a jury to decide both the law and the facts. Things changed after Sparf v. United States in 1895. In a 5-4 decision written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the Court held that trial judges have no responsibility or obligation to inform jurors of any right or power to judge the law or nullify an unjust statute. After that ruling, judges mostly either ignored nullification, or actively instructed juries that they had to decide a case on the basis of the law as written.

Prosecutors also started going out of their way to eliminate potential jurors who understood the doctrine. Judges started to remove jurors during deliberations who spoke openly about the right of the jury to nullify bad laws. Law schools, mass media, even courtroom TV dramas have also all done their best to cover up the existence of Jury Nullification.

Despite the knowledge of it being ruthlessly suppressed, however, jury nullification never went away. The independence of a jury to acquit for any reason is an inherent feature of our English common-law framework, and was formally recognized in the American colonies as early as 1670. You don’t get any more American than that, especially since the Founding Fathers considered the role of the jury to be an essential check on government tyranny:

“Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty. Without them we have no other fortification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, worked like cattle and fed and clothed like swine and hounds.” – John Adams

I highly recommend visiting the FIJA Website to learn more. You, as a juror, could be the last line of defense against government tyranny. Possibly the only line of defense we are currently left with.