A new executive order from President Donald Trump titled “Prosecuting Burning of the America Flag” is generating considerable stir across the United States. The order, which was signed by Trump on Monday, instructs the Department of Justice to “prioritize the enforcement to the fullest extent possible of our Nation’s criminal and civil laws against acts of American Flag desecration that violate applicable, content-neutral laws, while causing harm unrelated to expression, consistent with the First Amendment.”

Much of the conversation has naturally centered around the constitutionality of flag-burning laws, since there is clear Supreme Court precedent on this question. “[T]he Supreme Court ruled on this very issue in the landmark 1989 case Texas v. Johnson, which overturned 48 state laws prohibiting desecration of the American flag,” Robby Soave notes in his Reason article on this story.

But as Robby goes on to point out, the language of the order is not as clear-cut as its title would suggest:

“With that in mind, the executive order grapples with the actually existing Court precedents in creative fashion, introducing the idea that while flag burning itself might be protected speech, flag burning ‘that is likely to incite imminent lawless action’ could still be criminalized.”

Regrettably, in a further complication of this story, the “creative” approach of the order seems to have been lost on Trump himself. John Puri astutely highlights the problem in a piece for National Review:

“Trump’s executive order, then, does not create any new law against flag burning…Unfortunately, as evidenced by his own words while signing the executive order, Trump seems to genuinely believe that he just criminalized flag burning nationwide and decreed a universal punishment of one year in prison: ‘What the penalty is going to be, if you burn a flag, you get one year in jail.’…The executive order, sitting on the desk when he said this, does not contain any mention of a one-year punishment for burning a flag.”

Setting all these complications aside, it’s clear that laws prohibiting the burning of the flag are an infringement on our basic rights that should not be tolerated in a free society. After all, freedom is all about allowing people to do anything peaceful, even if some of us personally find those peaceful actions distasteful.

The libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard actually once penned an article specifically addressing this question of flag-burning laws. The piece, titled “The Flag Flap,” was published in a 1995 collection of his articles called Making Economic Sense, after previously being unpublished. In a typical move, Rothbard chastised not only those who wanted to ban flag burning, but also those on his own side of the debate, because he felt—rightly—that their arguments lacked a rigorous foundation in libertarian principles.

“The problem with flag laws has nothing to do with free speech, and civil libertarians have gotten caught in their own trap because they do in fact try to separate speech and action, a separation that is artificial and cannot long be maintained,” Rothbard writes. “As in the case of all dilemmas caused by the free speech doctrine, the entire problem can be resolved by focusing, not on a high-sounding but untenable right to freedom of speech, but on the natural and integral right to private property and its freedom of use.”

The problem with flag burning laws is not that they violate “free speech,” it’s that they violate property rights. Unfortunately, because the free speech doctrine has such a strong tradition, even many libertarians tend to argue against these laws on free speech grounds rather than property rights grounds.

Rothbard’s criticism calls to mind a keen line from Frédéric Bastiat, “The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended.” Libertarians should be cautious that, in our zeal to defend freedom, we do not rely too heavily on arguments that lack philosophical rigor, even if they prove to be popular with the uninitiated.

Another point Rothbard makes in this piece is also relevant to Trump’s executive order. “There is the proposal to outlaw ‘desecration’ of the American flag,” Rothbard writes. “‘Desecration’ means ‘to divest of a sacred character or office.’ Is the American flag, battle emblem of the U.S. government, supposed to be ‘sacred’? Are we to make a religion of statolatry? What sort of grotesque religion is that?”

Note that the word “desecrate” means to de-consecrate, and “consecrate” shares the same root as the word “sacred,” so even the etymology backs up Rothbard’s religious accusation.

Not that the Trump executive order made any effort to hide its religious overtones. “Our great American Flag is the most sacred and cherished symbol of the United States of America, and of American freedom, identity, and strength,” the order begins. “Desecrating it is uniquely offensive and provocative.” Variants of the word “desecrate” are used a total of eight times in the text of the order.

It is rhetoric like this that often leads libertarians to the accusation that statism is a religion. That might seem like an overstatement at first glance, but the parallels are hard to ignore.

Like a religion, statism has its own Bible—the Constitution. As a popular joke goes, the Constitution is to the state what the Bible is to Christianity: an old book which no one has really taken the time to read, but on which everyone has a strong opinion.

Statism also has its deities. Consider the epitaph on the Lincoln Memorial: “In this temple, as in the hearts of the people for whom he saved the union, the memory of Abraham Lincoln is enshrined forever.” Temple sure is an odd word choice there. Consider also The Apotheosis of Washington, the painting on the ceiling of the Capitol rotunda inside the United States Capitol. “Apotheosis” essentially means deification. Is Washington divine?

For those with a creative mind and a touch of wit, the parallels extend much further. The Founding Fathers are the apostles. Holy sites naturally include the Capitol building, the White House, the Supreme Court, Arlington Cemetery, and maybe Gettysburg. There are rules for showing proper reverence, like honorific titles for politicians and judges (clergy?), and sacred rituals such as voting, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, and standing solemnly for the national anthem.

Eric July, the lead vocalist for the rap metal band BackWordz, put these parallels to music with the band’s 2017 song Statheist (as in State-theist). “Go to the alter, to your vote, there’s no moral ground,” reads the refrain. “Beg to your masters, to your gods. They won’t hear you.”

So is statism a religion? The truth is it comes down to how we define our terms. In any case, simply pondering the parallels is probably a more worthwhile pursuit than attempting to definitively answer yes or no.

What does seem certain is that, at the very least, the Trump administration is intent to convince us of the religious nature of their patriotism.