Responding to Peter Boykin's Criticism of Faith in Politics

Peter Boykin is a Republican activist and former candidate for the North Carolina state legislature, US Congress, and then for North Carolina lieutenant governor. Boykin is the founder of Gays for Trump and blogs regularly on peterboykin.com.

Most recently, on November 6, 2025, Boykin posted an article titled, "When Faith Hijacks Politics: Are We Losing the Republic We Were Meant to Be?". In this article, Boykin asserts that the GOP needs to refocus, citing the most recent Democrat wins in New York City, New Jersey, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and California. Boykin uses these races as a basis for suggesting that the right risks alienating people by confusing moral conviction with moral superiority. Boykin, however, chose extreme examples upon which to base his thesis. For example, as of the most recent voter registration data available on vote.nyc, New York City has 523,178 active registered Republican voters out of 4,741,026 active registered voters.[1] That accounts for 11% of the electorate. California’s registered Republican voters are barely double that percentage. In order to not dive too deep into the numbers, suffice it to say that both of these percentages are well below the national average. In New Jersey, Chris Christie was the only Republican governor since 2002, where there have been four Democrats to hold that office since that time with a fifth winning this past Tuesday. Again, Boykin has picked a state that leans heavily Blue. Pennsylvania is a purple state where Republicans have made great strides in registrations. Looking at the numbers, Peter Boykin chose a series of races that no fact-driven pundit would connect the outcomes with alienation by the religious right.

Nevertheless, Boykin suggests faith is being weaponized to divide. Boykin says,

The United States was never founded to be a religious state. It was founded by people escaping one. From the Pilgrims fleeing Anglican persecution to Quakers and Catholics seeking refuge from state-imposed faith, early Americans came to build a nation where belief could be chosen, not enforced.[2]

These groups were fleeing religious persecution. However, it is highly inaccurate to suggest that or imply that these groups were truly seeking religious freedom for all. This is a highly anachronistic projection of later ideals onto the colonial era. While Pilgrims wished for a complete break from the Anglican Church and thus fled to the New World in 1620, they established a covenantal theocracy in Plymouth Colony. Church attendance was mandatory and legally required for all. While there was no state church, civil order was linked to religious observance. Those not in attendance at public worship on Sunday were subject to fines or punishment.[3] The Plymouth Colony and later the Massachusetts Bay Colony enacted harsh laws against Quakers. By the 1650s, Quakers were banned from entering the colony, with violators being fined, imprisoned, whipped, or even executed.[4] In Catholic Maryland, The Maryland Toleration Act of 1649, officially titled “An Act Concerning Religion”, granted freedom of worship for all Trinitarian Christians.[5] 

These are not necessarily warming facts, but facts they are. They demonstrate that Boykin’s narrative is a false one. And thus goes his entire article. Boykin invokes Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists as evidence that the Founders sought to prevent religious influences. On the contrary, this was a private letter, not a governmental document. The First Amendment’s “no establishment” clause prohibits federal favoritism, but permits accommodation. This is later played out in the courts in Everson v. Board of Education, 1947.[6] Jefferson was a deist who edited the Bible to remove miracles, and his views clashed with more orthodox Founders like Patrick Henry, who pushed for state funding of Christian teachers, or John Adams, who saw religion as essential to republican virtue. It should also be noted that the Treaty of Tripoli (1797) under Adams did affirm "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," but this was diplomatic language for Muslim envoys, not a rejection of Christianity's cultural role. Boykin’s assertion is both a strawman and cherry-picking fallacy in that it misrepresents nuanced views and attempts to use selective evidence to present his desired perspective. As stated earlier, Boykin anachronistically forces modern views onto the early years of The Great Experiment.

Boykin is correct in stating that this country is a Constitutional Republic, not a theocracy. Thankfully, America has grown and has been greatly influenced by her separatist roots. The United States is undeniably founded on two principle documents: The Constitution of the United States and the Bible. John Adams wrote in a 1798 letter to the Massachusetts Militia,

While all our ancient habits have been subverted, our former principles of government relinquished, and new ones substituted, which are wholly incompatible with the happiness of the people, we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.[7]

This is entirely consistent with the Declaration of Independence which states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”[8]

Boykin asserts, “Every time we make faith a weapon instead of a guide, we push America further from unity and closer to collapse.” This is a false dichotomy. He suggests that politicians focusing on their faith turns off voters who might agree on economic issues, but disagree on social issues. Further, he is guilty of ad hominem and motivated reasoning by equating identity politics of the left with legislating morality on the right. This is an extremely flawed and fallacious argument. Boykin takes issue with legislating morality by the Christian right, but our entire Law code is moral. Laws regarding both the voluntary and involuntary taking of life is both moral and based on Biblical laws. Laws respecting personal property are founded in Biblical law. Even many civil laws are based on civil laws in scripture. Libel and Slander laws are based on scripture. These moral laws provide fundamental protection of civil rights and liberties. By criticizing Christians who wish to legislate morality, he is engaging in special pleading for all the moral laws he wishes to keep. Boykin says, “when politics turns into theology, real issues get lost.” Which real issues are lost because of the moral laws, based on religious principles found in the Christian Bible? Which of the aforementioned categories of moral law would Boykin be willing to repeal in order to demonstrate “economic compassion”? If faith divides, why end the article with the #FaithAndFreedom hashtag?

What then is the answer? According to Boykin, every conservative leader should ask two questions: Is it Constitutional? What Would Jesus Do? The crux of Boykin’s sermon is this,

We do not need more lawmakers acting like pastors or pastors acting like presidents. We need leaders who know that power belongs to the people and that the Constitution, not a creed, is our highest law.

But instead of interpreting his words based on emotion or conjecture, his words should be interpreted in the context of his other writings. In an article from October 26, 2025, Boykin writes,

If we truly want to protect freedom of religion, we must also defend freedom from religion in government. Because liberty doesn’t choose sides, it protects them all.[9]

That article goes on to state, “When Faith Becomes Law, Freedom Dies”. That article is in response to the possibility of SCOTUS overturning Obergefell. His entire argument is grounded in his objection to the parts of the Biblical Law that conflicts with his personal views. He is fine with legislating morality when it comes to defending life and property. But when Christian morality conflicts with his sexual preferences, a line must be drawn. Peter Boykin is pro homosexual marriage. And herein lies the dilemma. Boykin wishes the Christian to leave his presuppositions and worldview outside the public arena. But he has no intention of doing the same. The Christian’s faith and moral convictions have no place in the public discourse as it relates to law and politics, but his faith and moral convictions are absolutely acceptable. That, again, is special pleading: “rules for thee, but not for me”. Is the atheist or agnostic expected to leave his worldview out of politics? Is the moral relativist going to leave his subjectivism at the door?

Boykin’s two questions were, is it Constitutional and what would Jesus do? A Christian should reverse those questions. Why? A Christian is guided by creed over the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees the Christian’s right to be governed by his creed – in all aspects of life. This includes politics. In fact, the Christian’s creed demands that faith play a role in every aspect of life. There is nothing secular to the Christian. 1 Corinthians 10:31 (LSB) says, “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” It is not possible for the Christian believer to have saving faith and that faith not produce works according to James 2:14 (LSB): “What use is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?” Ephesians 2:10 says, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.” What then would Jesus do? He would do right. What is his standard? It is scripture. It is not only the words in red, but all of scripture is his word; and Christians must abide by that word. That word is the Christian’s highest law. It is what the Christian believes he will be eternally judged by.

Therefore, nothing can supersede it. Nor does the Constitution attempt to do so. On the contrary, it guarantees the American Christian’s liberty to pursue happiness according to creed and conscience. Faith that guides the heart guides the ballot box. Religious conviction and Constitutional responsibility go hand-in-hand. A faith that cannot be separated from public life is principle over passion. The principles taught in scripture must overrule our own emotional and lustful passions that are at conflict with scripture. Boykin asserts that, “freedom is preserved not by preaching righteousness, but by practicing restraint”. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jeremiah 17:9 (LSB) says, “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can know it? The wickedness of the heart can only be restrained by the righteousness found in Christ. So, what would Jesus do? In Matthew 4:4, Jesus said,  “…It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’” He would be governed by scripture alone in every aspect of his life. Is doing that in the public arena Constitutional? Undeniably.

Jonathan Burris Pastor-Teacher, Sophia Baptist Church Executive Director, For The Master Ministries, Inc.

[1] New York City Board of Elections. "Voter Enrollment Totals." Vote.NYC. Accessed November 6, 2025. https://www.vote.nyc/page/voter-enrollment-totals.

[2] "When Faith Hijacks Politics: Are We Losing the Republic We Were Meant to Be?" Go Right News. Accessed November 6, 2025. https://gorightnews.com/when-faith-hijacks-politics-are-we-losing-the-republic-we-were-meant-to-be/.

[3] New Plymouth Colony. The Book of the General Laws of the Inhabitants of the Jurisdiction of New-Plimouth: Collected Out of the Records of the General Court, and Lately Revised, and with Some Emendations and Additions Established and Disposed into Such Order as They May Readily Conduce to General Use and Benefit. Boston in New-England: Printed by Samuel Green, 1685. (archive.org)

[4] Robert F. Moran, “State and Church in the American Colonies – The Laws Against Quakers in Plymouth.” The Theological Quarterly 13, no. 1 (1916): 33‑44. (ctsfw.net)

[5] Maryland. An Act Concerning Religion, September 21, 1649. Avalon Project, Yale Law School. Accessed November 6, 2025. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/maryland_toleration.asp.

[6]  Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Accessed November 6, 2025. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/330us1.

[7] John Adams to the Officers of the First Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, October 11, 1798, in The Works of John Adams, ed. Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1850–56), 9:229.

[8] U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, “Declaration of Independence: A Transcription,” National Archives, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript.

[9] Peter Boykin, “Is Faith Freedom or a Weapon Against It?,” peterboykin.com, October 26, 2025, https://peterboykin.com/is-faith-freedom-or-a-weapon-against-it/.