Blog Archives

Anti-Christian Bigotry Surges in U.K.

NEW YORK, July 19, 2017 /Christian Newswire/ — Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a new survey on anti-Christian bigotry in the United Kingdom:

Premier Christian Communications has released the results of a survey of 12,000 Christians in the U.K. assessing prejudice and discrimination against them. The findings are disturbing.

      • 93% say Christianity is being marginalized in society
      • 80% say Christianity is not given equal respect
      • 67% say they are unable to be open about their faith at work
      • 50% say they have experienced prejudice because of their Christian faith
      • 26% say they fear they will be persecuted for being open about their faith

Tim Farron, who resigned as the head of the Liberal Democrats last month, said that “we are kidding ourselves if we think we live in a tolerant liberal society.”

What is going on in the U.K. is also going on in the U.S.

The Catholic League website records an extensive example of anti-Catholic incidents, listing offenses stemming from activist organizations, the artistic community, business and the workplace, education, government, and the media. We have noted that the biggest spike in bigotry in recent years has emanated from government; it is also the most problematic venue of anti-Catholicism.

Evangelicals have also noted a surge in bigotry. The Family Research Council recently published “Hostility to Religion: The Growing Threat to Religious Liberty in the United States.” It noted a 76% increase in attacks on religious liberty over the past three years.

Earlier this year, First Liberty published “Undeniable: The Survey of Hostility to Religion in America.” It found there was a 133% increase in attacks on religious liberty over the past five years.

In February, the Public Religion Research Institute did a survey of white evangelicals and found that they believe they face more discrimination than Muslims.

What’s going on? Farron is right: There is no tolerance for practicing Christians in the U.K., and the same is true in the U.S. Yet both nations prize their alleged open-mindedness. Much of the animus has to do with Christian sexual ethics: Christianity values restraint and the dominant culture in both nations values the abandonment of it.

But even this explanation is incomplete. Muslims are more in agreement with practicing Christians on sexual issues than they are with militant secularists. Yet in elite circles, the British and American high priests of tolerance are more accepting of Muslims than Christians. How can this be?

For one, Muslims are feared and Christians are not. Two, due to the corrupting influence of multiculturalism, elites in the West are more likely to embrace outsiders than they are their own, and this is especially true of practicing Christians. Three, those on the Left welcome everyone who seeks to undermine the basis of Western Civilization, namely the Judeo-Christian ethos. It’s a sick admixture of these three factors.

Christians in both nations need to hang tough and work together to combat anti-Christian bigotry. The alliances they forge must not be sidetracked by bigots, or by arrogant and boneheaded leaders in their own ranks who wish to crush such coalitions.


Scalia–Religious Neutrality is Bunk

NEW YORK, Jan. 4, 2016 /Christian Newswire/ — Bill Donohue (photo) defends Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s remarks that were given at Archbishop Rummel High School in Metairie, Louisiana on January 2:
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the Constitution was never meant to be neutral about religion. Indeed, he said, “there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition.” He admitted that “you can’t favor one denomination over another,” but that doesn’t mean that religion cannot be favored over non-religion.
Scalia’s comments have ignited a firestorm. For example, professor Jeff Schweitzer accuses him of “gross ignorance unbecoming of a justice of the Supreme Court.” The marine biologist should stick to studying fish.
Scalia’s critics say he ignores the meaning of the establishment clause which supposedly bars government aid to religious institutions. In fact, it was written in support of the primary clause, the free exercise clause. University of South Dakota law professor Patrick M. Garry, author of Wrestling with God: The Courts’ Tortuous Treatment of Religion, notes that “The first and foremost concern of the framers of the First Amendment was not to create a separation of church and state, but to guarantee religious freedom. And the absence of an established church was just one aspect of achieving freedom of religion.”
Garry demolishes the idea that the First Amendment is neutral about religion. “The First Amendment framers did not intend to strip religion of its uniqueness, or to make it exactly equal to every secular institution in society. To the contrary, the establishment clause aims only to keep government from singling out certain religious sects for preferential treatment, not from showing any favoritism to religion in general.”
The founders publicly funded the building of churches, paid for the salaries of ministers, and allowed for state churches. That has changed, but Scalia is right to say that there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the government to be neutral about religion.

Pope Cites Armenia Genocide

NEW YORK, April 13, 2015 /Christian Newswire/ — Bill Donohue (photo) comments on the remarks made yesterday by Pope Francis:
There are two good reasons why Pope Francis chose to address the genocide of the Armenian people. First, Armenia was the world’s first Christian country. Second, this year marks the centennial of the 20th century’s first genocide. It should also be noted that it was Muslims who were responsible for these atrocities, and they are at it again today.
The Turkish government says the pope is guilty of promoting “unfounded claims.” It is wrong: nothing the Holy Father said is historically inaccurate, though in fairness, there have been “unfounded claims.”
It is true that some observers have lumped together those Armenians who died as the result of disease, famine, and war with those who were singled out for extinction. It is also true that there is evidence supporting the claim that some Turkish officials took steps to protect the lives of Armenians during the deportations. But they also failed in serious ways.
One of the most astute historians to cover these events is William B. Rubinstein. After conceding that some accounts have been unfair to the Turks, he writes, “Most of the evidence suggests…that the Turkish authorities actively masterminded the mass killing of the Armenians as a deliberate policy.” On the other hand, the popular claim that 1.5 million Armenians were systematically killed appears to be an exaggeration. Rubinstein puts the figure at about 1 million. But this hardly exculpates Turkish officials. “This was certainly the greatest massacre of civilians in what can be described as the Western world in modern times until that point,” he writes, “and one of the greatest slaughters in recorded history, as well as the first of the demonic slaughters of the twentieth century.”
On the eve of the Holocaust, Hitler told his military, “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” This is why it was important for Pope Francis to cite this event. Moreover, Muslim madmen are carrying out another genocide of Christians today. Some things never change.
On the eve of the Holocaust, Hitler told his military, “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” This is why it was important for Pope Francis to cite this event. Moreover, Muslim madmen are carrying out another genocide of Christians today. Some things never change.