The expansion of so-called drag churches in the United States once again opens a deep and necessary debate about the limits between freedom of expression, religious practice, and ideological imposition. Recent statements by a drag performer during a religious service—presented as an act of “spirituality,” self-exploration, and personal liberation—clearly illustrate how certain sacred spaces are being deliberately transformed into stages for identity-based activism.

The central problem is not merely the existence of these churches, but the messages being conveyed within them, especially when, as seen at the beginning of the video, children are present. The concern is legitimate: how will these children grow up when, in a space that has traditionally been formative in values, they are exposed to confusing messages about identity, the body, and ideological self-affirmation? Childhood is a formative stage, and using religious environments to introduce messages loaded with cultural activism raises serious ethical and social questions.

This is not about denying rights or censoring individual expressions. It is about responsibility. Children do not yet have the cognitive or emotional tools to distinguish between faith, performance, and activism. When worship becomes spectacle and the spiritual message is displaced by identity-driven narratives, the traditional role of the church as a space for guidance, support, and moral clarity is broken.

In these discourses, spirituality is diluted into narratives centered on self-exploration and immediate emotional validation. The altar becomes a stage; the choir, a performance; and the liturgy, a narrative of self-celebration. For millions of believing Americans, this does not represent inclusion or spiritual renewal, but rather a trivialization of the sacred and a dangerous confusion for new generations.

Drag churches are presented by their defenders as examples of “evolution” and “openness.” However, from a critical perspective, they reflect a broader trend of cultural progressivism: redefining millennia-old institutions to fit a contemporary ideological agenda, even when that means exposing minors to messages for which they are not prepared. This is not dialogue; it is replacement. It is not coexistence; it is disguised indoctrination.

The United States has always defended religious freedom, but that freedom also includes the right of families to protect their children and the right of faith communities to preserve their identity without being pressured to adopt external narratives. Genuine tolerance does not require all institutions to become platforms for activism; it requires mutual respect and clear boundaries.

The debate is not against individuals or artistic expressions in their legitimate spaces. It is a defense of children’s right to grow up without induced confusion and of churches’ right to remain churches—not ideological platforms. Freedom can only endure when the most vulnerable are protected.