NORTHWESTERN OFFERS ANTI-CHRISTIAN COURSE

The following letter explains why there is a problem at Northwestern.

March 27, 2025

Dean Adrian Randolph
Northwestern University
Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences
1918 Sheridan Road
Evanston, Illinois 60208

Dear Dean Randolph:

It has been brought to my attention that a faculty member in the Department of Religious Studies at the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, Dr. Lily Stewart, is using her class, “Introduction to Christianity,” to engage in a frontal assault on the Catholic Church. How do I know this? The syllabus is a screed designed to distort and denigrate Christianity, thus feeding the appetite of anti-Christian bigots.

Having spent many years in higher education, and having served on the board of directors of the National Association of Scholars, I am well aware that academic freedom must be given great latitude. I am also aware that there is a difference between academic freedom and academic malpractice. What Stewart is doing is representative of the latter.

To illustrate my objections, simply compare the course outline of “Introduction to Christianity” to that of “Introduction to Islam.”

Would not Muslim scholars object if the outline for the introductory class were to ask, “How many ways are there to be a Muslim? What counts as Islam, what doesn’t, and who ultimately gets to decide?” Just substitute Christian for Muslim, and Christianity for Islam, and that is what the introductory class outline says about Christianity.

It should be noted that the introductory course outline on Islam is exemplary.

When we consider the syllabus, this issue gets much worse.

The syllabus for “Introduction to Christianity” says the class “will explore histories of Christian colonialism, bigotry, liberation, and dissent.” Indeed, it says, Jesus “has been at the forefront of projects of colonialism, violence, and subjugation, but also peace, liberation, and revolution.”

If this were the way Islam and Muhammad were treated in the introductory course, would not Muslims find this objectionable?

Students are also put on notice. “Much of the material and topics that we are working with in this class include racist, ableist, Islamophobic, anti-semitic, transphobic, misogynist, homophobic, self-harm, murder, and sexual assault.”

In other words, brace yourself in class when I discuss the historical contributions of the Catholic Church.

Imagine again, if the course on Islam were to portray the religion and its adherents as an evil force. What would Northwestern do when students and Muslim scholars complained?

I have written many books, one of which is Why Catholicism Matters. It details the role the Catholic Church has played in maintaining the manuscripts from Antiquity, the founding of the first universities, the pivotal role it played in the Scientific Revolution, and the seminal role it played in virtually every technological breakthrough in history.

The Church’s contributions to art, architecture, and music are legendary. Moreover, its promotion of natural law and natural rights made possible the eventual abolition of slavery; St. Patrick was the first person in history to publicly condemn slavery. The work of nuns founding schools, foster care homes, asylums, hospitals, hospices, and the like, is historic.

It is to be expected that professors will develop an approach to their discipline that differs from that of others in their field. That is how it should be. But we are not talking about legitimate avenues of discourse or research. We are talking about a frontal assault on a world religion.

Those who engage in vitriolic caricatures of demographic groups, be they religious, ethnic, racial, or sexual, may find expression in social media, but they have no business in academia.

If there are some who read this letter who are not convinced that Professor Stewart has crossed the line, consider that there is a depiction of Jesus in the syllabus, with the following inscription:

Hey girl.

How about I turn that water into wine,
we put on some slow jams and just cuddle?

#Hot.Jesus

This is not scholarship. It is hate speech with a scholarly veneer.

I look forward to hearing from you about this matter.

Sincerely,

William A. Donohue, Ph.D.

President

cc: Michael H. Schill, President
Peter M. Barris, Chair, Board of Trustees
Elizabeth Shakman Hurd, Chair, Department of Religious Studies
Lily Stewart, Professor Religious Studies
Barbara Gellman-Danley, President, Higher Education Commission




SATANISTS ARE SICK PUPPIES

Bill Donohue

The Satanic Grotto is not a well-known Satanic group but it is making a media splash in Kansas. On March 28, it is scheduled to hold a “Black Mass” on the grounds of the Capitol building. Christian protesters will be present and the police are gearing up for the event.

It’s not just Topeka that is the site of Satanic activity. St. Patrick’s Church in Wichita was recently vandalized: statues, candles and glass fixtures were smashed, a Satanic website was inscribed on a wall, and an American flag was burned. It is uncertain whether the young male suspect acted alone or was part of a Satanic group.

A “Black Mass” often consists of a celebrant dressed in black vestments, holding forth in mockery of the Catholic Mass. The participants typically use the back of a naked woman as their “altar,” and they occasionally secure a consecrated Host to desecrate.

This ceremony has a long history, extending back centuries. One of its most famous proponents was the Marquis de Sade, the 18th century writer and madman whose obscene portrayals of Catholicism are legendary. Blasphemy is too weak a word to describe his work.

Satanism is often associated with Devil worship, and at one time manifested itself as witchcraft. Some Satanists see themselves as atheists who put their entire trust in reason; others perceive Satan to be real.

Satanism is spiking internationally, and it appears to flourish at Christmas and Easter. To what extent it is responsible for Christian persecution—the most prevalent form of oppression in the world—is unknown, but to say that the Devil’s hand is not at work is risible.

Today, there are two main branches of Satanism in the United States: The Church of Satan and The Satanic Temple (TST); they have no use for each other. The former was founded in 1966, and the latter in 2013. Both insist they do not believe Satan is a real being. The more influential of the two is clearly TST.

TST, unlike The Church of Satan, is officially recognized as a tax-exempt church by the IRS. Predictably, it is headquartered in Salem, Massachusetts, and has local chapters in parts of the country; its competitor has no headquarters and no chapters. Most important, TST is a politically charged force that promotes abortion and gay marriage.

It is actually an understatement to say TST promotes abortion—it is obsessed with it. There is no issue that absorbs more of its time than abortion. It has even founded facilities that do nothing but kill kids.

On February 14, 2023, it opened “the world’s first religious abortion clinic” in New Mexico; it claims to have paid for over 100 abortions. More recently it founded a second abortion clinic in Virginia. It says its work proves its commitment to “compassion, empathy, and justice,” though the children who were killed might beg to differ.

It has a shop that sells abortion apparel, flags, pins, mugs, and the like. Its most famous item is “The Sam Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic Unisex T-Shirt,” a reference to the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade. Its most despicable item is a cartoonist depiction of Alito’s mother saying, “If only abortion was legal when I was pregnant.”

TST proves that Satanic groups don’t have to literally believe in Satan in order to do his work. After all, to celebrate the intentional killing of unborn babies is something only devotees of Lucifer would do. Indeed, it takes really sick puppies to get their jollies by dancing on the graves of innocents.




FBI DOCUMENTS ON CATHOLIC PROBE NEED ANSWERS

The following letter explains why Catholics deserve to know why the FBI launched a probe of Catholics under the Biden administration.

March 24,  2025

Hon. Jim Jordan
Chairman
House Committee on the Judiciary
2056 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-3504

Dear Chairman Jordan:

I am delighted that you issued a series of subpoenas to the FBI last month seeking documents on a number of serious matters, and that you recently obtained them. Of interest to the Catholic League are those documents pertaining to the FBI’s probe of Catholics. It appears there was an anti-Catholic cell group in the Agency during the Biden administration.

In 2023, I wrote ten news releases on this subject: four were open letters to you; one was a letter I wrote to FBI Director Christopher Wray; the rest were standard news releases. I issued three more statements in 2024, two of which were open letters—one to Wray and one to you.

As the president of the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization, I am committed to getting to the bottom of this issue. To that end, I would like to restate a series of questions that I previously posed to you on this subject; the last one is new.

1. On what basis did the FBI conclude that these Catholics [Radical-Traditional Catholics] warranted a probe? Do they have a history of violence? If so, where is the evidence? If not, why were they singled out?

2. On what basis did the FBI decide it was necessary to enlist “mainline Catholics” to spy on their fellow parishioners? Where is the evidence that ordinary practicing Catholics pose a security threat to the United States or to other law-abiding Americans? How common is it for FBI agents to infiltrate houses of worship—of any religion—employing “tripwire sources”?

Inspector General Michael Horowitz issued his report on this issue in 2024. He began by noting that the Richmond Field Office examined “a purported link between Racially or Ethnically Motivated Extremists (RMVEs) and ‘Radical Traditionalist Catholic’ (RTC) ideology.” It was concluded that though the probe of Catholics “lacked sufficient evidence” to establish a relationship between the extremists and RTC ideology, there was no evidence of malice. It was also concluded that FBI Analysts “incorrectly conflated the subjects’ religious views with their RMVE activities….:”

3. This begs the question: Why did the Analysts think there was a relationship in the first place? It is one thing to concede that there are racial and ethnic extremists in every religious and secular organization; it is quite another to assume a nexus between a mainstream religious organization and violence, especially when the grounds for making such an assumption are spurious.

The report said that the entire probe was based on one person, Defendant A. Not only was he identified as a violent bigoted thug, he did not even attend a Catholic church—he went to some breakaway church.

4. How could FBI Analysts embark on an open-ended investigation of mainline Catholics on the basis of an ethically compromised person who was not even Catholic? Was he used as a pretext to go after Catholics?

 Hope this is helpful. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

William A. Donohue, Ph.D.
President




IS THE ACLU CRAZY?

Bill Donohue

This article originally appeared in the American Spectator on March 20, 2025. It is an extended version of a piece Bill wrote earlier this week.

If there were a proposal to erect a statue of St. Michael the Archangel on a municipal building, it would be understandable if some objected. However, it would not be understandable to object on the grounds that a depiction of St. Michael stepping on the neck of the Devil ineluctably conjures up images of George Floyd. But that is exactly the position of the ACLU of Massachusetts.

Having authored a Ph.D. dissertation, two books, and a monograph on the ACLU, I am convinced that most of its board members and senior officials harbor a deep animus against religion. Nothing bothers them more than Christianity, especially Catholicism. This is much more than a phobia: religion is seen as a threat to liberty.

When the ACLU was founded in 1920 by Roger Baldwin (the ACLU today falsely claims that Baldwin was one of 10 who founded the organization), all the provisions of the First Amendment, save for religious liberty, were listed as part of their ten objectives. That was not an oversight: Baldwin was an atheist.

Still, the reasoning of the ACLU of Massachusetts is off-the-charts, even by ACLU standards. It is challenging a decision made by the mayor of Quincy to erect two statues of Catholic saints outside the Quincy Public Safety Building. Mayor Thomas Koch chose St. Florian and St. Michael the Archangel; they are the patron saints of firefighters and police officers, respectively. The ACLU says the statues violate the separation of church and state.

The ACLU is well aware that religious statues adorn many buildings in the nation’s capital, including the Capitol Building, the Supreme Court, the Library of Congress, the Lincoln Memorial, and other public buildings. Even in Massachusetts, the Boston Public Library features the outstanding work of John Singer Sargent: his religious murals, including “Madonna of Sorrows,” are classic. At the State House, there are statues and paintings of famous Christians, clergy, and laity alike.

But none of this is enough to allay the fears of the ACLU.

In the ACLU’s letter to Mayor Koch and the Quincy City Council, it said that “we note that the contemplated statue of Saint Michael is not only troubling … it depicts a figure stepping on the neck of a demon. Such violent imagery is particularly abhorrent in light of the murder of George Floyd and other acts of police brutality throughout the country.”

In other words, the revered saint who battled Satan and who is known as the guardian prince of Israel — he stood ready to defend God’s chosen people — reminds the ACLU of a serial violent criminal who resisted arrest and was subdued by the cops; he had four times the lethal dose of fentanyl in his system. Maybe if St. Michael had been depicted as engaging in dialogue with the Devil, instead of crushing his head, the ACLU would have applauded.

Would Baldwin have agreed with the ACLU? Only in part.

When I interviewed him in his home in New York City in 1978, we discussed an array of issues. He was cordial and forthcoming. But when it came to religion, he was an extremist. Here is an exchange I will never forget (See my book, The Politics of the ACLU: Transaction Press, 1985).

Donohue: The ACLU has even gone so far as to deny the right of people to voluntarily take the time during the day, as a schoolchild, to say a prayer.

Baldwin: Not on school time.

Donohue: Well, whose rights are being infringed upon if there is a silent prayer voluntarily said by a student?

Baldwin: If they don’t say anything? You mean if they don’t—

Donohue: Right. Are you afraid they are going to proselytize the rest of the class?

Baldwin: Well, they’ve tried to get around it. They’ve tried to get around it even further than you by calling it meditation.

Donohue: What’s wrong with that?

Baldwin: You don’t say anything about God or religion or anything. I suppose you can get by with that but it’s a subterfuge, because the implication is that you’re meditating about the hereafter or God or something.

Donohue: Well, what’s wrong with that? Doesn’t a person have the right to do that? Or to meditate about popcorn for that matter?

Baldwin: I suppose that — it sounds very silly to me because it looks like an obvious evasion of the constitutional provision.

Back to St. Michael. Baldwin surely would have opposed erecting the statue, but he would have done so on conventional church and state grounds. Even if he were appraised of the George Floyd incident, he clearly would not have equated St. Michael stepping on the head of the Devil with a cop kneeling on Floyd. I spent many hours with him. He may have been an extremist on church and state, but he was not crazy.




RELIGION DRIVES ACLU CRAZY

Bill Donohue

Having authored a Ph.D. dissertation, two books, and a monograph on the ACLU, I am convinced that most of its board members and senior officials harbor a deep animus against religion. Nothing bothers them more than Christianity, especially Catholicism. This is much more than a phobia: religion is seen as a threat to liberty.

Two recent cases demonstrate this verity.

The ACLU and the American Humanist Association are bent out of shape because a West Virginia agency, the state Water Authority, has authorized a grant to a Catholic school, the College of St. Joseph the Worker, in nearby Steubenville, Ohio. The purpose of the loan is to enable the college, which specializes in developing “a solid foundation in the skilled trades,” to provide for services, such as training tradesmen, that are consistent with the mission of the state agency.

The issue is whether this violates the West Virginia Constitution.

The ACLU says it does, saying that “to force the taxpayers of West Virginia to fund its [the college’s] mission is wholly inappropriate and unconstitutional.” Similarly, the American Humanist Association says that “no one should have to pay taxes to fund someone else’s religion.”

Case law makes it clear that religious institutions may receive public funds when the purpose is not to advance religion, but to provide for services that serve the public weal. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that students who attended religious schools (in this instance they were Catholic schools) could receive public transportation without violating the Constitution. The high court ruled that the law had a “public purpose,” which was the safety of the students.

In the 1970s, the courts ruled that it was constitutional to provide religious schools with textbooks. Again, this served a public purpose. The courts, however, have been so inconsistent in their rulings in these matters that no wonder the ACLU exploits any opening it sees. For example, it is legal to give textbooks to Catholic schools but not maps. Incredulously, it was decided that the books serve the students but the maps serve the school. This led Daniel Patrick Moynihan to quip, “What about an atlas—a book of maps?”

The bottom line is: The West Virginia Water Authority is not funding religious instruction at the College of St. Joseph the Worker—it is funding secular services that have a public purpose. It has every right to do so.

In an even more bizarre case, the ACLU of Massachusetts is challenging a decision made by the mayor of Quincy to erect two statues of Catholic saints outside the Quincy Public Safety Building. Mayor Thomas Koch chose St. Florian and St. Michael the Archangel; they are the patron saints of firefighters and police officers, respectively. The ACLU says the two ten-foot-tall bronze statues violates separation of church and state.

The ACLU is well aware that religious statues adorn many buildings in the nation’s capital, including the Capitol Building, the Supreme Court, the Library of Congress, the Lincoln Memorial and other public buildings. Even in Massachusetts, the Boston Public Library features the outstanding work of John Singer Sargent: his religious murals, including  “Madonna of Sorrows,” are classic. At the State House there are statues and paintings of famous Christians, clergy and laity alike.

But none of this is enough to allay the fears of the ACLU. In fact, its objections to the statues make my case: religion drives the ACLU crazy.

In the ACLU’s letter to Mayor Koch and the Quincy City Council, it said that “we note that the contemplated statue of Saint Michael is not only troubling…it depicts a figure stepping on the neck of a demon. Such violent imagery is particularly abhorrent in light of the murder of George Floyd and other acts of police brutality throughout the country.”

In other words, the revered saint who battled Satan and who is known as the guardian prince of Israel—he stood ready to defend God’s chosen people—reminds the ACLU of a serial violent criminal who resisted arrest and was subdued by the cops; he had four times the lethal dose of fentanyl in his system. Maybe if Saint Michael had been depicted as engaging in dialogue with the Devil, instead of crushing his head, the ACLU would have applauded.

The ACLU’s idea of religious liberty is to allow Black Muslims in prison to huddle together “in prayer,” outside the purview of guards, so they can plan an insurrection. But when it comes to Christian iconography on public buildings, its tolerance for religious liberty runs out.

Furthermore, its idea of separation of church and state is so extreme that it not only opposes public funds to a Catholic entity that services a public  need, it has gone to court seeking to strip the Catholic Church of its tax exempt status.

It boils down to this. The Founders believed religious liberty was integral to the makings of a free society; the ACLU believes it impedes it.




SALUTE TO ST. PATRICK

Bill Donohue

 [Note: We run this article each year in honor of St. Patrick]

The heroics of St. Patrick are not appreciated as much as they should be. He is the first person in history to publicly condemn slavery, and one of the first leaders to champion the cause of equal rights.

There is much to celebrate on March 17. Fortunately, his writings, though slim, are eye-opening accounts of his life: Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus and Confession reveal much about the man. Along with other sources, they paint a picture of his saintliness.

Patrick was born in Britain in the 4th century to wealthy parents. It is likely that he was baptized, though growing up he did not share his family’s faith. He was an atheist.

When he was 15, he committed what he said was a grave sin, never saying exactly what it was; it appears it was a sexual encounter with a young girl. No matter, it would haunt him throughout his life.

At age 15 or 16 (the accounts vary), Patrick was kidnapped and enslaved by Irish barbarians. They had come to plunder his family’s estate, and took him away in chains to Ireland. While a slave, he converted to Christianity, praying incessantly at all hours of the day. After six years, he escaped, and made his way back home.

His family thought he was dead, and with good reason: no one taken by Irish raiders had managed to escape and return. St. Patrick biographer Philip Freeman describes how his family received him, stating “it was as if a ghost had returned from the dead.”

After he returned home, he had a vision while sleeping. He felt called to return to Ireland. This seemed bizarre: this is where he was brutalized as a slave. But he knew what Jesus had commanded us to do, “Love thy enemy.” He was convinced that God was calling him to become a missionary to Ireland. So he acted on it, despite the reservations of family and friends.

Patrick became a priest, practiced celibacy, and was eventually named a bishop. Contrary to what many believe, he did not introduce Christianity to Ireland, nor was he Ireland’s first bishop. But he did more to bring the
Gospel to Ireland than anyone, converting legions of pagans, especially in the northern parts of the island.

His missionary work in Ireland has been duly noted, but his strong defense of human rights has not been given its due.

No public person before him had denounced slavery, widespread though it was. Jesus was silent on the subject, Aristotle thought it was a natural way of life, and neither master nor slave saw anything fundamentally wrong with it. Patrick did.

Though he did not invoke natural law specifically, he was instinctively drawn to it. He taught that all men were created equal in the eyes of God, and that the inherent dignity of everyone must be respected.

Patrick did more than preach—he lashed out at the British dictator, Coroticus, harshly rebuking him for his mistreatment of the Irish. In fact, Patrick found his Irish converts to be more civilized than Coroticus and his band of thugs.

Patrick was way ahead of his time in the pursuit of human rights. Not only were men of every social status entitled to equal rights, so were women. In his Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus, he scolds “the tyrant Coroticus—a man who has no respect for God or his priests.” More important, he made a startling plea: “They must also free Christian women and captives.” His reasoning showed the power of his faith when he said, “Remember, Christ died and was crucified for these people.”

He did not mince words. “So, Coroticus, you and your wicked servants, where do you think you will end up? You have treated baptized Christian women like prizes to be handed out, all for the sake of the here and now—this brief, fleeting world.”

What makes this all the more dramatic is the way the pagan world thought about women: the idea that women were equal to men was totally foreign to them. But the women understood what Patrick was saying, and gravitated to him in large numbers. The Christian tenet that all humans possess equal dignity had taken root.

Did the Irish save civilization, as Thomas Cahill maintains? Freeman thinks not—”it had never been lost.” But everyone agrees that had it not been for St. Patrick, and the monasteries that followed, much of what we know about the ancient world would not exist.

Indeed, it is difficult to fathom how classical Greek and Roman literature would have survived had it not been for the Irish monks who attracted students from many parts of Europe. They are responsible for preserving the great works of antiquity. And all of them are indebted to St. Patrick.

It is believed that he died on March 17, sometime during the second half of the fifth century. That is his feast day, the source of many celebrations in his honor. His impact extends beyond the Irish and the Catholic Church—human rights are a global issue—making him a very special person in world history.




CARDINAL DOLAN VERBALLY ABUSED

Bill Donohue sent the following letter today to the parties noted.

March 14, 2025

Jelani Jefferson Exum
Dean, St. John’s Univ. School of Law
8000 Utopia Parkway
Jamaica, NY 11439

Dear Dean Jefferson Exum:

A recent incident was brought to my attention about the conduct of one of your law school students, Vishai Balani. He is alleged to have attacked Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York, on X (since removed). On February 22, he said Dolan was “a bootlicking disgrace with your nose up Donald Trump’s ass.” He also used derogatory language to smear New York City Councilman Robert Holden and New York City Councilwoman Vickie Paladino. (See the enclosed.)

I have spent many years in higher education, and have written several books on civil liberties, so I am well aware that student speech is given wide protection. I am also aware that with liberties come responsibilities, and this is especially true of Catholic institutions of higher education.

St. John’s Law Mission Statement says the school strives to foster an “equitable” environment where “respect for the rights and dignity of every person” is maintained. The Student Code of Conduct proscribes  “verbal,” as well as “physical action,” saying they are “inconsistent with the Core Values of St. John’s University.”

Regarding the Core Values, the Code says that “Students are required to engage in responsible social conduct and to model good citizenship in any community. Students shall not engage in any conduct that reflects a failure to live up to the expectations of all St. John’s students.” It ends by being specific: “Any behavior (verbal, written or physical) that abuses, assails, intimidates, demeans, and/or victimizes.”

It seems plain that Vishai Balani has violated these norms. How you handle instances like this is not my business. But as president of the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization, it is my business to combat attacks on individual Catholics and the institutional Church. Accordingly, I am asking that you take this situation seriously.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

William A. Donohue, Ph.D.
President

cc: Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York
Fr. Brian Shanley, O.P. president of St. John’s Univ.
Jack Flynn, Director of Student Conduct
Councilman Robert Holden
Councilwoman Vickie Paladino




IS A “BLACK MASS” FREE SPEECH?

Bill Donohue

On March 28, a Kansas-based group, the Satanic Grotto, is planning to hold a “Black Mass” on grounds surrounding the Kansas State Capitol in Topeka. The event was originally scheduled to be held at the Statehouse, but Kansas Governor Laura Kelly succeeded in getting it moved outdoors.

She insists that she has “a duty to protect protesters’ constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression, regardless of how offensive or distasteful I might find the content to be.” Not so fast.

The Satanic Grotto has admitted that the purpose of the “Black Mass” is to engage in blasphemy targeted at Catholics. On Facebook, it says, “We will be performing rites to the Black Mass and indulging in sacrilegious blaspheme [sic]. God will fall and Kansas will be embraced by the black flame of Lucifer.”

While it is true that blasphemy is generally seen as protected speech under the First Amendment, in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), Chief Justice Warren Burger explicitly said that the Constitution “affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility to all (my italics).”

Here’s where the “Black Mass” gets problematic.

Every Christmas season, the Catholic League receives a permit from the New York City Parks Department to display a nativity scene on public property. But not just any public property: we are allowed to do so because it is erected in Central Park. Central Park is considered a public forum, a place where freedom of expression carries no appearance of government endorsement.

Importantly, we do not apply for a right to display our crèche near City Hall, because to do so might give a reasonable person the impression that it has the tacit endorsement of government. This is the way the First Amendment is interpreted today.

Ergo, for the government of Kansas to allow an event on the grounds of the statehouse—the express purpose of which is to insult Catholics—might give the impression that it is endorsing this sacrilege. It would  therefore be party to the kind of “hostility” to religion that the Supreme Court said was unconstitutional.

The most practical way to handle this is to revoke the permit and allow the Satanic Grotto to reapply, choosing a public forum, not government property.

We are contacting the governor and all state lawmakers.

Contact the governor’s chief of staff, Will Lawrence: will.lawrence@ks.gov   




THE ANGST AT THE WASHINGTON POST

Bill Donohue

They really don’t like Jeff Bezos at the Washington Post (WaPO). Not only did the opinion editor, David Shipley, resign, their longtime columnist Ruth Marcus called it quits; so did other staffers. Moreover, many of those who are sticking around are not happy campers. In fact, news stories report that the paper’s employees were “shocked and stunned.”

The hysterical response stems from the announcement Bezos recently made. “We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets.”

Why would this set workers off? There are three possible reasons: (a) they don’t like being told what to write about, (b) they don’t like personal liberties, and (c) they don’t like free markets. In fairness, the reason why Marcus resigned was more personal—WaPO refused to publish an editorial she wrote criticizing Bezos for making the aforementioned changes.

Regarding the first reason, it is understandable that reporters and other staffers would object to anything that might compromise their independence. But how independent were they before? If a reporter, or someone on the editorial staff, were pro-life, how secure would that person be in expressing his independence from his colleagues?

Why would staffers object to free markets? After all, they make their living from a market economy. But maybe that doesn’t matter. It is hardly a secret that WaPO is home to liberal and left-wing reporters, and for them, socialism is not a dirty word. Capitalism is. This is a reflection of what they learned in school.

New York Post columnist John Stossel recently noted that a prominent TikTok star, Madeline Pendleton, told her considerably large audience that “Socialism is working better than capitalism 93% of the time.” Forget Stossel’s astute rebuttal, what matters is that a lot of young people, in particular, believe this to be true.

Similarly, Touro University professor Yuriy V. Karpov observes that half of young voters are pro-socialist. “According to a recent survey, 49.6 percent of young American voters would prefer to live in a socialist country.” But for some reason, none want to move to Venezuela.

In short, the hard left has taken command of a large portion of our nation’s youth. While staffers at WaPO may not be quite as radical as these young people, many are closer to them than they are to the Young Republicans. After all, the staffers were also trained by those on the left.

Karpov reports that a survey of faculty at elite American universities found that 91 percent identify as liberal. Importantly, he notes that “liberal” means people like Angela Davis. He accurately describes her as “a radical communist and a professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who has been awarded the Lenin Peace Prize from the Soviet Union.”

What about personal liberties? Why would staffers object to that? They don’t when it comes to drugs and abortion. But when it comes to free speech, that is problematic. Even though they make their living by exercising their right to free speech, recent studies show that liberals are the least supportive of this First Amendment right.

Two years ago, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression released its annual survey on the status of free speech on campus. In a survey of almost forty-five thousand college students from 201 colleges, it found that liberals were the most intolerant of free speech; conservatives were much more tolerant.

Bezos is trying to move the newspaper away from being a forum for liberal-left thinking. He has no nefarious agenda: he simply wants employees to start showing an appreciation for the liberties that allow for a free society. That this is controversial shows how deeply ideological WaPO has become.




HOW GAYS CRASHED THE ST. PATRICK’S DAY PARADE

Bill Donohue

As we approach the 10th anniversary of homosexuals marching under their own banner in New York City’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade, it behooves us to understand how this happened.

To begin with, gays were never banned from marching. As I said on radio and TV in New York for two decades, no one ever asked anyone what they did in bed and with whom. Gays were banned from marching under their own banner, and that is because to do so would deflect from what the day is all about—honoring St. Patrick. For the same reason, pro-life groups were banned from marching under their own banner.

The first gay group to march was in 1991. Mayor David Dinkins entered into a discussion with the Ancient Order of Hibernians (AOH), the parade organizers, and a compromise was reached: members of the Irish Gay and Lesbian Organization (ILGO) could march with the mid-town chapter of the AOH, accompanied by the mayor.

When ILGO sought to march in the 1992 parade, they were barred. They were accused of “outrageous behavior” when they marched in 1991, making obscene gestures in front of St. Patrick’s Cathedral and in front of the reviewing stand at 5th Avenue and 67th Street.

On January 21, 1992, the Hibernian National and State Boards issued a joint statement asserting that “no organization or organizations are allowed to use New York City’s 231st Annual St. Patrick’s Day Parade on March 17, 1992 as a vehicle to publicly insult any person or group watching or reviewing the parade.” They repeated the charge that ILGO engaged in “outrageous behavior and conduct.”

ILGO did not give up and proceeded to march, illegally, in the 1994 parade. They were arrested for marching without a permit on March 17, but that didn’t make any difference to Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Robert Sackett. On November 2, 1994, he threw out the charges, saying the arrest of the ILGO members was a “blatant denial of First Amendment rights.”

A week later, here is what I said about that ruling.

“Judge Sackett is an embarrassment of the courts. For him to simply disregard the fact that ILGO (a) had no permit to march (b) never sought one in the first place (c) was never denied the right to protest elsewhere and (d) had already lost in the courts in its bid to march in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade, demonstrates that Judge Sackett shows no respect for the law.”

In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that banning ILGO from the Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade was constitutional. It was a private parade, the high court said, and the organizers had a First Amendment right to freedom of association, essentially affirming their right to craft their own rules.

Meanwhile in New York, the AOH handed the parade over to a new group, the St. Patrick’s Day Parade Committee, headed by John Dunleavy. Even though the Supreme Court upheld the right of parade organizers to ban ILGO, they attempted to march in the late 1990s, and were arrested for doing so. I took pictures of them and was assaulted by one of the lesbians. I did not hit her back knowing the media would capture my retaliatory move, and blame me.

Why was ILGO so determined to march? It had nothing to do with honoring St. Patrick. This is not an opinion—it is what they said.

In 2017, Anne Maguire and Maxine Wolfe published their reminiscences on an array of subjects, one of which was the parade. Maguire, who was co-founder of ILGO, talked about the politics of the group. She explicitly said that the protests at the St. Patrick’s Day Parade “sort of dovetailed with ACT UP.” She also admitted that “the vast majority” of ILGO members were illegal aliens who sought to mobilize politically.

Maguire said that within their first year in the U.S., “somebody brought up in a meeting, ‘Wouldn’t it be kind of funny if we marched in the St. Patrick’s Day parade?’” To which most of them said, “Are you kidding me?” This is how it all began—as a lark.

They asked for a permit, were denied, and “it just completely blew up.” They saw homophobia everywhere, from being denied a permit to “ACT UP and AIDS.”

Maguire’s admission that there was a nexus between the parade and ACT UP is telling: she was referring to what ACT UP did on December 10, 1989 at St. Patrick’s Cathedral. That was the day when gays crashed the Sunday 10:15 a.m. Mass, celebrated by Cardinal John O’Connor. ACT UP activists interrupted the Mass, handcuffed themselves to the pews, blew whistles, shouted obscenities and spat the Host on the floor. One of the most prominent members at the “Stop The Church” protest who was arrested was Ann Northrop.

Northrop blamed Cardinal O’Connor for AIDS, not promiscuous homosexuals. How did the archbishop cause AIDS? By saying that monogamy protects against the sexually transmitted disease! This is like blaming obesity on those who diet.

Further proof that ILGO’s interest in marching in the parade was a lark, having everything to do with making a political statement and nothing to do with honoring St. Patrick, was made plain by Maguire. In 1996, a year after the Supreme Court ruled against ILGO, she wrote the following.

“What is clear about ILGO and the St. Patrick’s Day parade is that most [ILGO] people, particularly those of us who are most actively involved, had no inclination to be associated with, never mind march in, the parade. [The protest], very simply, is where our ‘coming out’ took place.”

This is exactly what the AOH had been saying all along.

In September 2014, as I previously recounted, Dunleavy was pushed aside by the vice chairman of the St. Patrick’s Day Parade Committee, John Lahey, president of Quinnipiac University. At a press conference held at the New York Athletic Club, welcoming a gay group to march, OUT@NBCUniversal, Lahey and others spoke, but Dunleavy did not. He was treated like dirt by the heavyweights who sucked up to the media. I was never invited, and we all know why.

Lahey paired with elites from other universities, corporations, lawyers and the media to take the reins from Dunleavy. Dunleavy was a former transit dispatcher, a great blue collar guy from Ireland. He was outclassed by these sharks. It did not matter to the elites that the Supreme Court declared that parade officials had a First Amendment right to bar ILGO. What mattered is that they wanted the affirmation of elites unconnected to the parade.

Lahey and company would have us believe that the parade was being threatened with a boycott from its sponsors, and that they could not have it televised on NBC without their advertising support. It is true that Guinness, Heineken and the Ford Motor Company were planning to do just that. It is also true that Manhattan College, Fairfield University and the Irish government were pressuring parade officials.

What Lahey did not say is that they could have looked for other alternatives. What about WPIX? Would they have agreed to televise the march? What about EWTN, the Catholic media giant? What about looking for new sponsors? Quite simply, they used this as an excuse to get what they wanted all along—the elites were all on the same side.

I know that their hearts were not in it because in the spring of 2014, right after the St. Patrick’s Day Parade, the issue of gays marching in 2015 was coming to a head. I met with seven owners of Irish pubs in New York City; they owned roughly 25 percent of the Irish bars. All but one agreed to my plea to boycott Guinness. Some chose to cut the price of Guinness’ competitors, thus enticing drinkers to choose an alternative; others simply took out the Guinness tap. But it was not enough to change things, and that is because parade officials wanted nothing to do with it.

On September 17, 2014, I wrote Dunleavy a letter restating how I was lied to about gays marching in the parade. I mentioned to him that one of the parade officials, John Fitzsimmons, an attorney, had called me at the end of August. I knew him well and would have fielded the call but I was in Montauk, Long Island taking a break. The call was about including a gay group in the parade in 2015. Here is part of what I said.

“I told Bernadette [the vice president] to let John know that it was okay by me [to include a gay group], as long as (a) there was a formal change in the parade rules governing marching units allowing those that have their own cause to march, and (b) a pro-life group would be marching under its own banner as well. John said he believed that a formal revision of the rules had been made, but that he had to ‘check his notes.’

“John called back saying that he checked with you about this issue, and that he also checked his notes. He said there was, in fact, a formal change in the rules, and that a pro-life group would be marching. Bernadette then urged him to pick a pro-life group so that it could be announced at the same time as the NBC gay group [which had already been approved]. He agreed to do this.”

It was plain that I had been lied to by Fitzsimmons, so I closed my letter to Dunleavy saying, “John is the source of the problem.” (Both Fitzsimmons and Dunleavy have since passed away.) I pulled our Catholic League unit the next year and we will never march again.

On the day that gays first marched in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade under their own banner, March 17, 2015, Northrop said she still wasn’t happy. She was angry that a gay group was chosen by NBC, which televised the march, saying “it’s all a corporate deal. It has nothing to do with really opening up the parade and welcoming gay people in and certainly not Irish gay people.”

It’s never enough for narcissistic gays—it’s always about them.

To show how crazed Northrop is, consider that she once celebrated the news that human cloning could make men obsolete. “Essentially, this is sort of the final nail in men’s coffins. Men are now totally irrelevant, if [cloning] is, in fact, true and possible and becomes routine. Men are going to have a very hard time justifying their existence on the planet, I think.” Male hatred is not unusual among radical lesbians, but this comment is hard to beat.

Ten years after the first gay group marched up Fifth Avenue, there is still no pro-life group allowed to march. Each year Irish Pro-Life USA, founded by John Aidan Byrne, requests a permit to march, and every year he is denied. Parade organizer Hilary Beirne never gets back to him.

In other words, the St. Patrick’s Day Parade officials allow homosexual groups to march but not pro-life Catholics. In short, we can thank the Irish elites, in the U.S. and Ireland, for ganging up on John Dunleavy.