Silencing Easter: The Latest Example of Religious Intolerance

“But in order that it may spread no further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name.”- Acts 4:17

Attempts to suppress the message of Christ’s resurrection began the moment the stone was rolled away, and today is no different.

On Easter Sunday 2026, Secretary Brooke Rollins sent a note of encouragement to USDA workers. This note is being weaponized and exemplifies somebody being punished for living their faith. Politico reports that Secretary Rollins is now the target of a lawsuit claiming “government-sponsored religious ‘coercion’” that “violates” the First Amendment.

The lawsuit is bogus for several reasons. First, Resurrection Sunday has long been recognized by government officials. On April 3, 2015, Barack Obama formally recognized Christ’s resurrection when he said, “With humility and awe, we give thanks for the extraordinary sacrifice that Jesus made for our salvation. We rejoice in the triumph of the Resurrection."

Jimmy Carter acknowledged the Easter’s meaning when he declared, “Christ's resurrection really happened some 2,000 years ago; we must consider this the most important event in the history of the universe." The list of public servants celebrating Easter is so long it makes this lawsuit laughable!

However, when one considers the historical precedent of celebrating the resurrection, one must question the motive behind such a frivolous lawsuit. This is not a legal argument; it is an ambush dressed in constitutional clothing.

Second, Secretary Rollins is fully within her rights to acknowledge an event relevant to our national heritage. The Mayflower Compact, the template for American self-government, was a church covenant, and the day after it was signed, every Christian aboard the Mayflower observed the Lord's Day in worship. Every Sunday, when our government offices are closed, it is an acknowledgment of the risen Christ.

The Great Awakenings transformed colonial life. Preachers like Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield proclaimed salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to crowds of thousands, crossing denominational, racial, and class lines in a way nothing else in colonial life could.

It was the promise of Christ’s resurrection that gave hope during the darkest days of the Civil War. One soldier’s journal noted, “I never prayed until last night; when I saw that man die so happy, I determined to seek religion too.” It was the promise of resurrection that sustained Americans in our nation’s darkest days.

Finally, the lawsuit against Rollins claims “religious coercion.” Definitions matter! So, what exactly is “coercion?”

Coercion is generally understood to involve force, threats, or intimidation to compel someone to “act against” their will. And here is where the accusations break down: the Christian faith, by nature, requires one to make a “free will” decision to accept or reject its claims.

Sharing the claim of a resurrection is the antithesis of coercion because a belief is only a belief if it is freely chosen. To say it plainly, messages of hope, encouragement, and gratitude can only be an act of love, not coercion, because Christianity can only be received when the gospel is preached, and listeners are allowed to accept or reject.

These latest charges once again reveal the need to educate our nation on the proper understanding of church and state. Religious liberty does not mean that people of faith cannot share their beliefs while holding public office; it means that no person shall be forced to believe, and no person shall be forbidden to share. It does not mean “no person shall hear matters of faith with which they disagree.” Religious liberty is a shield against compulsion — not a gag order on faith.