Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the events of Charlottesville and what they mean:

President Trump was right to call out the extremists on both sides of the Charlottesville tragedy, but more needs to be said about those on the Left who helped to bring it about.

The crazies on the Right—the KKK, the Neo-Nazis and the White Supremacists—have been justly condemned by virtually everyone, save for their sick sympathizers. But we will not make progress if the role of the Left is ignored. Their censorial agenda is wide ranging.

It is the Left that has led the fight to scrub the public square free of religious symbols. From banning Christmas songs in school events, to lawsuits against the display of nativity scenes and the Ten Commandments on public property, the Left has been waging war on our Judeo-Christian heritage for decades.

The multicultural agenda, with its express animus against Western Civilization, is another expression of this pernicious uprooting of our past. Very much linked to this phenomenon are the speech codes on college campuses. It is not conservatives who are promoting gag rules, it is the Left that wants to muzzle the free speech of those who defend American traditions and our religious heritage.

Now the Left has seized upon Southern historical persons and symbols to attack and destroy.

The media have done a superlative job in creating the impression that what happened in Charlottesville was purely the work of right-wing lunatics. That is why they are so angry with Trump—he unmasked them. More unmasking is in order.

Even normally astute commentators such as Charles Krauthammer took the media’s bait. He put 100% of the blame on the far Right, saying “the riots began over a Nazi riot.” But it was not a neo-Nazi who put a cord over the neck of a 1924 statue of a confederate soldier, smashing it to the ground—it was members of the Workers World Party.

There was no mention of the Workers World Party at the Charlottesville event on ABC, CBS, NBC, or PBS. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and a few other newspapers cited its role. AP said nothing. That was it. It was close to a media blackout.

Even this account is too generous. Though the Washington Post reported on the Workers World Party, its front-page story on August 16 simply noted that “left-leaning protesters” were there. It did not refer to the Klan or the neo-Nazis as “leaning” Right.

The Workers World Party is not “left-leaning”: it is a Communist organization. Since being founded in 1959, it has taken up the cause of Mao Zedong, who killed 77 million Chinese people, the Soviet invasion of Hungary, and the mass slaughter of innocents by Saddam Hussein. In America, it has supported the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground.

When not endorsing violence, the Workers World Party is busy attacking the Catholic Church’s teachings on sexuality. When Pope Francis was elected, he was cast as the pawn of capitalists. Israel is accused of promoting genocide against the Palestinians, and now the U.S. is charged with waging war on North Korea, a nation the Communists proudly defend. It also supports the left-wing dictatorship in Venezuela.

The media have said nothing about any of this. Nor will it report that the Workers World Party mapped out a violent agenda for Charlottesville several days before the Nazi rally. It also pledged to work with Black Lives Matter to “disrupt” it.

Instead of fairly reporting on the violent pedigree of both sides, the media rely on the notoriously unreliable Southern Poverty Law Center—it treats the Family Research Council as a hate group alongside the KKK—for source material.

The truth is that this left-wing organization does not track “hate groups,” per se. The Southern Poverty Law Center explicitly limits its interest to “the American radical right.” This explains why the Workers World Party is given a pass: it is too busy monitoring Tony Perkins.

If we are going to bring the country together, more needs to be done than to condemn all of these hate groups. We need to answer the president. He asked the right question. “Where does it stop? I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after?”

Krauthammer has given us his answer. He would prefer to leave such statues up, but he will not object if they are taken down. He did not say just how far his “tolerance” might extend. All he said was that “if they become symbols and centers for racism and neo-Nazism and the KKK, then there’s a case for bringing them down.”

Krauthammer did not mention that those most responsible for associating Southern historical persons and symbols exclusively with racism—it is certainly not the Southern people—belong to violent, anti-American Communist entities such as the Workers World Party.

Censoring speech, religion, and traditions is the mark of a totalitarian society, not a democratic one. But as Tocqueville instructed, there are times when the passion for equality in democratic nations turns to “delirium,” and when that appetite is abetted by administrative centralization, it inexorably leads to despotism.

That is the conversation we should be having.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue explains why Cardinal George Pell will not be able to secure a fair trial in October:

If it weren’t for Cardinal George Pell, it would not matter a whole lot to the Catholic League if a free nation like Australia decided to emulate the totalitarian regime in North Korea. But he does matter, and that is why we are concerned. He has been the target of character assassins for a very long time, and will appear in a Melbourne court on October 6.  Judging from recent events, it seems near impossible for him to get a fair trial.

Queensland, Australia’s second largest state, declared war on Christian children last week: they have been told to stop talking about Jesus in the school yard. Christmas cards that refer to the birth of Jesus have been banned, as have creating Christmas tree decorations. Beaded bracelets that share “the good news about Jesus” have also been prohibited.

“Christians, prepare for persecution.” That is the conclusion of Australian journalist Andrew Bolt. “I am not a Christian,” he says, “but am amazed that your bishops and ministers are not warning you of what is already breaking over your heads.” Bolt is correct. Cowardice in the face of oppression never works, yet this lesson has not been learned by many Catholic and Protestant leaders.

Anti-Christian bigotry in Australia is widespread. Bolt notes that just last week “two Christian preachers were summoned to Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Tribunal for preaching their faith’s stand on traditional marriage and homosexuality.” Two years ago, Hobart Archbishop Julian Porteous, Australia’s most outspoken Catholic defender of the faith, was ordered to explain to the authorities “by what right he spoke against same-sex marriage.”

Australian journalist Bill Muehlenberg has written a splendid column, “The Ongoing War on Christianity in Australia,” that details the extent of censorship being enforced throughout the nation. He references an article that he wrote in 2015 about the crackdown on religious speech in the Australian state of Victoria, home to Cardinal Pell’s trial. Those policies went after the kids, banning the singing of Christmas hymns.

As usual, the gag orders are motivated by a libertine conception of freedom. Pro-life demonstrators have had their rights abridged, and all discourse that is not deemed gay friendly is subject to censorship.

If this were simply an anti-Christian phobia, it might not matter too much. But it is much more than that. It is cultural fascism sponsored by the state.

In 2012, the late Chicago archbishop, Cardinal Francis George, noted the increasingly hostile milieu for Christian expression in America. He said that while he expected to die in bed, “my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square.”

Looks like Cardinal George’s prediction is proceeding at a gallop pace in Australia. It does not bode well for Cardinal Pell—the cultural climate is poisonous to Catholics.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the Bedford Cheese Shop, a store with locations in Brooklyn and Manhattan:

If the Bedford Cheese Shop did this to some other religious figure, the owner would be in serious trouble. But she chose to defile Mother Teresa, which is why there will be no physical retaliation. They should nonetheless be punished by everyone, not just Catholics: a boycott is in order.

At the Manhattan store, the card display of Brebirousse D’argental cheese  says, “The texture is as close to heaven that we have found here on earth. Kinda like going down on mother [sic] Teresa herself, divine.”

The store, which is owned by Charlotte Kamin, is ignoring complaints. Perhaps she would like to hear from you.

Contact: info@bedfordcheeseshop.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on radio station KPFA’s decision to cancel an interview with English atheist Richard Dawkins:

Whenever I write about Richard Dawkins, it is to criticize some anti-Catholic remark he has made. I have written a fair amount about him.

Today, I am on his side. He is being denied the opportunity to express his views on KPFA: the radio station has reneged on its invitation to interview him.

Here is how the radio station explained its ruling. “KPFA does not endorse hateful speech. While KPFA emphatically supports serious free speech, we do not support abusive speech.” It objected to Dawkins calling Islam the “most evil” of world religions.

KPFA is a public radio station that features left-wing hosts and left-wing guests, and is owned by the left-wing Pacifica Foundation, based in the left-wing city of Berkeley, California.

To prove its left-wing status, it supports censorship. To be fair, it does not censor hate speech against Catholics—it is quite tolerant of anti-Catholic bigotry. That is why it hosted the late Christopher Hitchens, a proud Catholic basher.

Dawkins is different. He is critical of Islam, and that is not something KPFA will tolerate. That’s because it only supports “serious” free speech, not speech of a less-than-serious kind. So when Dawkins mocks the Eucharist, KPFA applauds, noting the seriousness of his speech.

Dawkins has been burned by the Left. It’s what they do. He spoke the truth when he said of the decision to muzzle his free speech that “I am known as a frequent critic of Christianity and have never been de-platformed for that.” He never will be.

Dawkins also asks the right questions. “Why do you give Islam a free pass? Why is it fine to criticize Christianity but not Islam?” He deserves an answer.

Islam is given a free pass by the Left because it supports every effort to sabotage the West, beginning with the disabling of America. It’s just that simple and just that pernicious.

Contact William Crosier, executive director of Pacifica Radio Network:

ed@pacifica.org

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on two TV shows that ripped Catholicism last night:

The Catholic Church recently reaffirmed Church teaching on the Communion Host, stating that it must contain at least a trace of gluten. Though this teaching has nothing to do with public policy, and is therefore no one’s business but that of Catholics, two non-Catholic TV personalities used this issue to slam Catholicism on air last night.

Kennedy, the Fox Business host, asked, “Why does the pope hate my small intestine?” She added, “The wine is not enough to complete the spiritual circle of transubstantiation. Having a sip of Christian cough syrup is hardly partaking in the sacrament.”

Hardwick said, “Jesus is gluten! A pile of Jesus gluten there…maybe that girl in the Exorcist was just throwing up because she had a gluten allergy.” He then goaded the panelists to comment further. One screamed, “Be a different religion”; the other yelled, “Stop f***ing kids.”

Kennedy says she is Eastern Orthodox, and usually those Christians are respectful of Roman Catholicism. But not her. Perhaps she will weigh in next on the dietary strictures of Judaism or Islam, but we doubt it.

Hardwick is an ex-Catholic, and like so many of that ilk in Hollywood, he has devolved into an anti-Catholic bigot. He is also a recidivist.

Maybe their Communications officials might like to hear from you.

Contact: Irena Briganti at Irena.Briganti@foxnews.com

  Jeremy Zweig at jeremy@viacom.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an editorial in the Washington Post July 2:

In yet another attack on Pope Francis for his handling of sexually abusive clergy, the Post editors state that the Holy Father’s “zero tolerance” policy toward such abuse is “not a priority for him.”

Their evidence? Chiefly, that two cardinals appointed by Pope Francis to the Vatican’s nine-member Council of Cardinals—Cardinal George Pell of Australia and Cardinal Javier Errázuriz of Chile—were “alleged” to have “turned a blind eye” toward priests accused of abuse in their jurisdictions.

The key word—to any fair-minded person—is “alleged”; but not to the editors of the Washington Post, for whom any allegation against a Catholic priest or bishop, no matter how credible, is all that is needed to sully his name and sidetrack his ministry.

Incredibly, the editorial then turns its guns on the Church in the United States—whose record in responding to the abuse crisis far surpasses that of any other entity where systemic abuse of children has occurred. The latest audit of Catholic clergy accused of abuse of a minor confirms the success of the Church’s efforts: only two new substantiated cases of abuse against 52,238 priests and deacons in the United States—.004 percent of Catholic clergy.

What other entity can boast such a record? Certainly not America’s public schools. Nine years after an AP investigation called out the practice of “passing the trash”—allowing abusive teachers to simply move from one district to another—a USA Today series last December revealed that this practice continues unabated.

The Post accuses Church officials of trying to “minimize” its abuse problem by pointing out that the problem exists throughout society. In fact it is the Post that is minimizing the extent of child sexual abuse throughout society by constantly singling out the Catholic Church—and ignoring the aggressive reforms through which the Church has become a model that other entities confronting this problem would do well to emulate.

The Post’s editors chide the Church for opposing laws “that would enable victims of clergy abuse to seek justice in court.” Why only victims of clergy? What about victims of public school teachers? This is precisely why the Church—and others concerned about justice—have opposed these laws. Many of them single out clergy and churches for suspension of their due process rights, while leaving public schools and abusive teachers protected.

Finally, the Post continues to mischaracterize the past abuse crisis in the Church as a “pedophile” scandal. As the detailed studies by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice have made clear, some 80 percent of those abused by priests were male, the vast majority post-pubescent. This was a scandal driven not by pedophilia, but by homosexuality.

Contact Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor: fred.hiatt@washpost.com

Catholic League President Bill Donohue comments on a new Pew Research Center poll on religion:

 On June 20, Pew Research Center released the findings of a new poll on President Trump’s job performance. It found that 39 percent of the public approves of his performance in office, while 55 percent disapproves. But among those who attend church weekly or more the respective figures are 48 percent and 45 percent. This suggests that it is secularists who are driving down his approval ratings.

Among white non-Hispanic evangelical Protestants, Trump wins the approval of 74 percent; 20 percent disapprove. Among white non-Hispanic Catholics, he wins the support of 52 percent; 42 percent disapprove.

Overall, 48 percent of Protestants approve of the president’s performance, while 45 percent disapprove. Among Catholics, the figures are 38 percent and 56 percent. The drop-off in support overall is clearly due to the Hispanic input. Here’s more proof.

White non-Hispanics, independent of religious affiliation, approve of Trump’s handling of the job by a margin of 50 percent to 44 percent. But among Hispanics, the figures are 20 percent and 72 percent, respectively.

Trump’s lack of support among Hispanics is well known, but more controversial is his support among the faithful. To take a line from President Bill Clinton, he feels their pain.

Two weeks ago, President Trump told religious Americans that the “bitter voices” of elites are responsible for the “hatred” and “prejudice” toward religion. Saying the faithful are “under siege,” he vowed to “put a stop to the attacks on religion,” pledging to “end discrimination against people of faith.”

This is a welcome change from the Obama years where the executive branch used its powers to challenge the autonomy of churches and religious non-profits. The faithful are taking note, redounding to the favor of President Trump.

With regard to the role of religion, two conclusions seem plain. One, religious Americans like the president. Two, secularists don’t like him. A third conclusion, based on other data, is also warranted: militant secular activists are the “bitter voices” of hatred and prejudice against the faithful.

This is one more reason why the culture war is not going away, and why practicing Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Mormons, and Muslims must stand up to the bullies who are leading the attacks against them.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on President Trump’s decision to recognize the Dreamers:

President Trump is going to shield from deportation those young people who were brought to the United States illegally by their parents, the so-called Dreamers. He is to be commended for doing so.

In the decision announced late yesterday, the president has made good on his pledge, made two months ago, that he is “not after the Dreamers.” Indeed, he said in April, “The dreamers should rest easy.” Pointedly, he drew a bright line between those young people who did not willfully break the law, and others. He made it clear that “we are after the criminals.”

President Trump was in office for just over a month when he rethought the position he took as a presidential candidate. “To me, it’s one of the most difficult subjects I have,” he said, “because you have these incredible kids.”

The ruling, which was announced by Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, means that 750,000 young people will not be deported, though they are not being granted residency status. If one of the Dreamers commits a crime, he could have his status revoked.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops will cheer this decision. On December 22, 2016, Bishop Joe Vásquez, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Migration, supported legislation to protect the Dreamers.

But not everyone will be happy—anti-Catholics such as Ann Coulter will be livid. Every time anyone in the Catholic Church speaks about immigration, she goes off the bat.

In September 2015, after Pope Francis said that immigrants helped build the United States, Coulter said, “This is why the Founders distrusted Catholics.” She added that the Catholic Church was “largely built by pedophiles.” In April 2016, she accused the pope of running “a huge multinational that protects subordinates when they rape little boys.”

This is who Ann Coulter is: she is a raging anti-Catholic bigot. It’s about time conservatives stopped defending her. She has more in common with the likes of Kathy Griffin than she does rank-and-file conservatives.

Kudos to President Trump. Now he has the moral capital to do what most Americans want him to do—go after the thugs who are here illegally.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on gay activists who are attacking the free speech and religious liberty rights of former St. Louis Cardinals player Lance Berkman:

Not too long ago it would be considered perverse to say that men have a right to use the restrooms and shower facilities reserved for women. Today, the reverse is true. Ask Lance Berkman, the former St. Louis Cardinals slugger.

The St. Louis Cardinals has hosted Christian Day for nearly three decades, and this year, as in the past, they have invited Berkman. But because he is opposed to men and women using the bathrooms and shower facilities of the opposite sex—it’s almost always cross-dressing men who want to crash the ladies room—the Cardinals are being condemned by homosexuals and other sexual minorities.

Even sports columnists have gotten into the act. Bill Baer of NBC Sports writes that “In September 2015, Berkman foolishly advocated against public accommodations for transgender people to use public bathrooms,” saying such persons were “troubled men.”

There is nothing “foolish” about supporting the privacy rights of women, but there is something seriously wrong about objections to it. Two years ago, Berkman walked back his comment about transgender persons being “troubled men,” though there was no good reason why he should have.

He clarified his remark saying, “The issue is, what to do about a 15 or 16-year-old boy who thinks he’s a girl and wants to shower with the girls? Maybe he is [transgender], maybe he’s confused. But I wouldn’t want him in the shower with my daughters.”

What Berkman said is common sense and a tribute to common decency. No normal father would want his high school daughter showering with a boy. But we live in an age where the sacred and the profane have switched places, and common sense has all but collapsed.

When Berkman was asked about a person who identifies with the opposite sex, he said, “You’re taking their word for it, saying that’s the way they’re born…maybe there’s a science that backs that up. I don’t know.”

There is no science to back this nonsense up. Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer is an epidemiologist trained in psychiatry, and Dr. Paul R. McHugh is one of the nation’s preeminent psychiatrists; the former is scholar in residence in the Department of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and the latter was psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital for 25 years, and is a colleague of Mayer in the same department.

They have researched sexuality for decades, and their findings on transgender persons are revealing. “The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex—that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.” Their conclusion is based on empirical data, not politics.

These are important points, but they are not the most critical.

There are two reasons why Berkman deserves to be defended. One, he is exercising his free speech rights, and nothing he has said is untoward. Second, his religious rights are paramount.

Regarding the latter, when asked to explain his position, Berkman said he felt it necessary “to stand up for Christ.” And for this some want him silenced! Sadly, our society is no longer committed to the First Amendment as it once was.

Religious leaders across faith lines have a moral duty to support Berkman and beat back the forces of censorship. If we don’t stand with those who “stand up for Christ,” we are the problem.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an offensive play funded by the New York Times:

New York’s Public Theater has decided to malign the president and his wife in its production of “Julius Caesar.” The Shakespeare in the Park play opens today at the Delacorte Theater in Central Park.

It depicts President Trump as Caesar—the dress and iconography are unmistakable—and Melania as Caesar’s wife Calpurnia, complete with a Slavic accent. Trump/Caesar is brutally assassinated.

Delta and Bank of America both withdrew their sponsorship of the play, saying that it crossed the line. But the New York Times is standing fast, citing its allegiance to free speech. “As an institution that believes in free speech for the arts as well as the media,” the newspaper said, “we support the right of the Public Theater to stage the production as they chose.”

This is a lie. The New York Times is standing by the play because it likes it—it has nothing to do with its alleged commitment to free speech. I will prove it.

On February 29, 2016, the New York Times ran an op-ed page ad I wrote blasting Disney-ABC for airing a TV show, “The Real O’Neals,” based on the life of Dan Savage, an obscene anti-Catholic. It was not the ad I wanted—I settled for it after my initial submission was rejected. Click here to read the ad the Times would not print.

The Times explained its decision to nix my ad saying, “the use of off color examples of Mr. Savage’s quotes, still leaves our readers with the offensive comments of Mr. Savage, less a vulgar word or two. Even with the particular vulgarities reduced to astericks [sic], the comments are still too off color for this newspaper. It’s like telling a dirty joke, and using asterisks for the offensive words. The joke will still be offensive to our readers.”

Now how about them apples! The New York Times put on its Victorian hat by refusing to offend its readers with Dan Savage’s vulgarities, but it has no qualms about sponsoring a vulgar assault on President Trump and his wife Melania.

The Times has every right to establish its house rules, and we have every right to call them out for being rank hypocrites.

Contact Dean Baquet, executive editor: dean.baquet@nytimes.com