Minnesota State Rep. Leigh Finke is stirring controversy with her call for leftist protesters to disrupt places of worship in their fight against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). On Sunday, a group of anti-ICE demonstrators descended on Cities Church in St. Paul, a church led by the local pastor who also heads the ICE office in the area. This scene unfolded while former CNN host Don Lemon livestreamed the event, capturing the tense atmosphere as parishioners, including children, were left shaken during what can only be described as a hostile takeover.
Finke’s statements echo a growing trend among some activists who believe that disrupting church services is a valid form of protest against government policies they deem oppressive. This particular demonstration was reportedly led by BLM activist Nikema Armstrong, who boldly shouted down the pastor. Such actions have raised alarm, prompting the Justice Department to investigate potential violations of the federal FACE Act, which prohibits interference with religious services.
DOJ official Alina Habba explained, “The FACE Act is a long-standing federal statute that prohibits force, threats, obstruction, or any kind of interference with a religious place of worship. It carries criminal penalties for violations.” Despite this, Finke remains unapologetic. She views these demonstrations as necessary steps toward achieving what she calls “dignity and humanity for all of our neighbors.”
Her statements blur the line between peaceful protest and disruptive action. Finke’s position recalls the controversial protests of the late 1980s, particularly those staged by Act Up and WHAM during a time of crisis. By likening her call to action with past movements, Finke underscores her belief in civil disobedience, positioning her actions within the broader historical context of social justice movements.
Finke’s rhetoric is steeped in the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., as she invoked his name during her calls for continued protests. She framed her message within the ethos of nonviolent resistance, stating that true justice requires the public to rise against oppression until changes are made. “Dr. King knew that injustice must be confronted,” she wrote, positioning herself as a modern-day advocate for civil rights.
Yet the question arises: at what cost does this form of protest come? Disrupting places of worship raises ethical questions about the sanctity of religious practices. It touches on the delicate balance between activism and respect for differing beliefs and spaces. The ramifications of this kind of activism could lead to division rather than unity, a potential setback in the pursuit of the very justice Finke claims to advocate.
The backlash against these recent events in St. Paul has been swift and fierce. Many are calling for prosecution and voicing outrage at the perceived violation of a space meant for reflection and worship. As tensions rise between differing factions on this issue, it’s clear that the conversation around ICE, immigration, and civil rights continues to grow contentious.
In her reflection, Finke appears unfazed by the criticism. She seems to draw strength from historical movements and the notion that disruption is sometimes necessary for change. However, her call to “continue storming churches” adds a troubling layer to the conversation about the boundaries of acceptable protest and the impact on local communities.
As protests against ICE escalate, Finke’s approach seems to draw supporters as well as fierce opponents. The challenge now lies in whether such protests will achieve their desired outcomes or merely fan the flames of division. In the end, the actions taken in the name of justice require careful examination not only of their effectiveness but also of their broader implications for society.
"*" indicates required fields
