Postliberal Catholic social influencer (and former Miss California beauty queen) Carrie Prejean Boller’s claims of “Zionist” control of the U.S. Religious Liberty Commission highlighted the growing influence of anti-Israel postliberal Catholics and Protestants.
At Monday’s meeting of the commission, which focused on antisemitism, Boller, as a commission member, complained about the commission’s failure to condemn Israel. Afterwards, she tweeted: “I will continue to stand against Zionist supremacy in America. I’m a proud Catholic. I, in no way will be forced to embrace Zionism as a fulfillment of biblical prophesy. I am a free American. Not a slave to a foreign nation.”
Yesterday, the Religious Liberty Commission chairman said he was removing Boller from the commission because “no member of the Commission has the right to hijack a hearing for their own personal and political agenda.” (Boller denies the commission’s chairman can remove her.)
Fellow Catholic convert and anti-Israel social influencer Candace Owens tweeted her support of Boller and against the Religious Liberty Commission:
Carrie didn’t hijack anything. You hosted a performative Zionist hearing meant to neuter the Christian faith. Carrie spoke truth, as a Catholic, and Christians, the Truth cannot be defeated. Zionists are naturally hostile to Catholics because we refuse to bend the knee to revisionist history and support the mass slaughter and rape of innocent children for occult Baal worshipers. Your decision will only further the Christian enlightenment which is taking place in this country. And for that, we thank you.
Before her removal, and after Monday’s commission meeting, Boller tweeted:
I will never bend the knee to the state of Israel. Ever. I am more determined than ever to speak plainly about political Zionism and the lies we’ve been sold to justify endless war, dead children, and blank checks. My conversion to the fullness of the Catholic faith exposed what I was taught in American evangelicalism, a version of Christianity that fused Jesus with a political agenda and called it “God’s prophecy being fulfilled.”
And Boller concluded: “Christ is King,” which is, sadly, increasingly common code language for anti-Jewish influencers.
Even more disturbingly, Boller and Owen retweeted a notorious antisemitic and anti-Protestant figure who declared:
As I have said before, as Protestantism disappears, the fundamental conflict at the dawn of America’s fourth republic will be the battle between Catholics and Jews over whether the moral law is universal and binding for all men, the Catholic position, or whether one group by virtue of its DNA is above the moral law and can commit any crime to preserve its hegemony over the rest of us.
Boller like Owens and others insist they are merely criticizing Israel. But instead, they typically conflate “Zionist” with Jewish in their complaints about “Zionist control,” which is really a claim about supposed Jewish control. Antisemitic tropes typically assert that Jews, even if only one or two percent of the population, “control” vast parts of society and so must be targeted. Of course, Naziism gained power in the 1930s by claiming Germany needed liberation from Jewish control, even though Jews were a tiny percentage of the German population.
Boller like Owens claims her objections to “Zionism” are rooted in her newly found Catholicism. She conflates Zionism with evangelical Christian Zionist Dispensationalism, which focuses on biblical prophecy. But Zionism predates and is much wider than Dispensationalism. Zionism simply supports a Jewish homeland. Dispensationalism was born in the 19th century and became popular among evangelicals in the 20th century. Zionism includes Jews, of course, many Catholic and Protestant non-Dispensationalists, and many non-religious people. Boller and Owens are disingenuous or simply ignorant in their facile conflation of Dispensationalism with Zionism.
But the conflation is increasingly common and worrisome. A young staffer at the Heritage Foundation at a publicized staff meeting last year, amid the Tucker Carlson/Nick Fuentes, controversy, complained that Zionism contravened her faith, which was presumably Catholic. Carlson ignited controversy then because of his friendly interview with Fuentes, who has identified with “Team Hitler.”
Boller and Owens, while wrapping their anti-Jewish statements in Catholicism, ignore many Catholic statements affirming fraternity with Jews and recognizing Israel. Almost nobody claims political criticism of Israel by itself is antisemitism. But obsessive critique of Israel, and obsessive denunciation of Zionism, are always ominous.
Obsessive anti-Zionists like Boller and Owens who are, at the least, adjacent to antisemitism, have emerged when universal values of human dignity and human rights are retreating. These universal values emerged from Judaism and Christianity, whose God is universal.
But postliberal tribalists like Boller and Owens point to a nastier world in which religion becomes largely a self-defensive tribe constantly warring against other tribes. The point of the conflict is not truth, harmony, or reconciliation, but the conflict itself, which offers at least superficial purpose to lives otherwise without meaning.
Both Judaism and Christianity point to a vision in which God presides over a tranquil world in which the lion will lie down with the lamb. We are not at that point, but our aspirations should always point in that direction.
More from IRD:
Christian Zionism, Antisemitism & Christian Realism
Comment by Wilson R. on February 12, 2026 at 3:17 pm
I read an article about this incident. On the narrow question of whether criticizing the government of Israel makes you anti-semitic, I agree with Boller.
Is it possible that she is also an anti-semite? Of course, but that is a different question. I don’t know (or care) enough about her and Candace Owens to form a conclusion on that one.
Trashing critics of the Israeli government as anti-semites is a slanderous canard that has been used for decades in the US by groups like AIPAC and others. Politicians of both major parties here have engaged in this, although for the past 40 years most of that behavior has come from Republicans. Criticizing the Netanyahu government no more makes you anti-semitic than criticizing the Biden or Trump administrations makes you anti-American.
Mark Tooley writes, “Almost nobody claims political criticism of Israel by itself is antisemitism.” I guess he’s never set foot in my world. If I had a dollar for every time I heard that charge made against someone who criticized the policies of an Israeli government, I wouldn’t be a millionaire, but I could buy a very nice vacation. I have heard that charge from Jews and Christians alike.
A better definition of Zionism is necessary. Like Mark Tooley, I associate that term with a traditional definition: supporting a national homeland for the Jewish people.
But nowadays I hear some people to use that term to mean blanket support for the actions of Israeli governments. Under this definition, if you think the policies of the Netanyahu government in Gaza amount to war crimes (as they manifestly do), even if you affirm the right of Israel to defend itself (as I also do), you’re at risk of being labeled anti-semitic by people (especially Christian fundamentalists) who adopt this broader definition of Zionism.
And there are clearly Christians whose support of Israel is predicated on the loony idea that the God who created the universe can’t bring Jesus back without human intervention (rebuilding the Jerusalem Temple). Privately, they will admit that they believe all Jews are still going to hell unless they accept Jesus as Lord, but they love them as God’s chosen people to accomplish the return of Jesus. I know they exist because I’ve talked to lots of them.
Comment by Larry Jackson on February 12, 2026 at 3:34 pm
Dear Catholics, please do not believe that all Protestants buy into Modern Israel being “the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.” Historically only a minority of Protestants have held the premillennial interpretation of the Bible. Faithful, orthodox Bible believers have long taught against this position. It is politics, not the Bible, that is motivating the loudest voices on the issue of the State of Israel.
Comment by Td on February 12, 2026 at 4:43 pm
What is “post liberal Catholicism”. I am Catholic and have no idea what you mean by that term.
Comment by Td on February 12, 2026 at 4:45 pm
And what is a Catholic non-dispensationalist? Catholics don’t have these terms for themselves.
Comment by Salvatore Anthony Luiso on February 12, 2026 at 5:13 pm
I agree with Wilson R that it isn’t so that “Almost nobody claims political criticism of Israel by itself is antisemitism”. Too many people do that. Thanks to him for the correction.
I also agree with Larry Jackson that many Protestants do not believe that the modern state of Israel is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Thanks to him for mentioning that important fact which has become greatly obscured since the founding of that state in 1948.
Regarding “But postliberal tribalists like Boller and Owens point to a nastier world in which religion becomes largely a self-defensive tribe constantly warring against other tribes”: That’s true about many other tribalists who are also Christian Zionists, isn’t it?
Regarding “The point of the conflict is not truth, harmony, or reconciliation, but the conflict itself, which offers at least superficial purpose to lives otherwise without meaning”: Upon what grounds does the author say this? I do not know about the purposes and goals of those two women, but I ask: Of how many other Christians in America could it be said that, for them, “The point of the conflict is not truth, harmony, or reconciliation”, but worldly power and domination?
Comment by David on February 12, 2026 at 9:06 pm
“And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD.” This happended in the past, there is no reason to think it cannot happen in the future.
Israel was established by countries who did not want to deal with Jewish refugees who had suffered greatly in Europe. The Balfour Declaration (1917) calling for a Jewish state was named after a man who had laws passed prohibiting Jews from entering the UK from Russia where they were persecuted. The same situation arose after WWII with the US and European countries denying entry.
For many years, the idea was promoted that “Palestine was a country without a people and Jews are a people without a country.” The fact that it was already populated is conveniently ignored. In 1948, Israel was established by ethnic cleansing. It is estimated that 80% of the native population was forced to relocate.
Genetics has shed a rather lurid light on this situation—Jews, Palestinians, and Lebanese are all basically Canaanites. They are indigenous to the area except for the coastal areas where they were pushed out by the Philistines in ancient times. Many other groups came and went through Palestine. In 70 CE, the Romans deported many urban Judeans into slavery in Italy. This accounts for European Jews as having 40% European DNA, mostly northern Italian. The Palestinians were a rural population that remained in Palestine and eventually converted from Judaism to Christianity in the Byzantine period. They likewise converted to Islam when that became dominant.
So who has a greater claim to the land—people who are 40% European, or natives who changed their religion?
Comment by John on February 12, 2026 at 10:03 pm
Two things are true. Yes, there are people who will label any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic. Such people do exist, though Tooley tries to deny it. I once got called an anti-Semite for questioning a statement made by Netanyahu that claimed Hitler got the idea for the Holocaust from an Arab cleric. When I asked my accuser how many friends’ Shabbat dinners he had attended over his lifetime, he backed off.
It is, however, equally true that there are real anti-Semites in the world who are using criticism of Israel as a gateway or recruitment tool to incite broader hatred and mistrust of the Jews as people. Boller and Owens appears to have been lured by these individuals and I think it’s safe say Owens is now become an anti-Semite recruiter herself. There is nothing wrong criticizing the actions of another country in war, including Israel, and the manner in which it treats the Palestinians. But beware of getting in bed with the wrong people. When you start to hear chatter about media conspiracies, overthrowing world governments, or Holocaust Denial, then get away from the source as fast as you can.
Comment by Salvatore Anthony Luiso on February 12, 2026 at 10:54 pm
In answer to Td’s two questions here:
1. “What is ‘post liberal Catholicism’?”
I refer Td to the following articles from 2024 which are freely accessible online:
A. Associated Press: “JD Vance’s Catholicism helped shape his views. So did this little-known group of Catholic thinkers”
B. *National Catholic Register*: “JD Vance Is a Catholic ‘Post-Liberal’: Here’s What That Means — And Why It Matters”
C. *New York* magazine: “J.D. Vance and the Rise of the ‘Postliberal’ Catholics”
2. “And what is a Catholic non-dispensationalist?”
By “many Catholic and Protestant non-Dispensationalists”, the author means “many Protestant non-Dispensationalists and Catholics”.
Comment by Glenn Wheeler on February 14, 2026 at 12:40 am
In regard to the article….
“Caution…judaizer at work”
Comment by Mark on February 14, 2026 at 1:24 am
Glenn,
Give it a rest