Bill Donohue comments on the way terrorists are discussed in public life:

It took three stories in the New York Times on Muslim killer Omar Mateen before he was identified as a Muslim. When Robert Dear killed three persons in a Planned Parenthood clinic last year, the first word in the New York Times headline was “Religion”; the reader quickly learned that Dear was Christian.

Thomas Sowell correctly pointed out that “no sooner had blood been spilled at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado than accusations of ‘Christian terrorism’ began to fly across the Internet,” despite the fact that there was no nexus between his religion and his crimes. Indeed, a CBS/AP story concluded, “Those who knew Dear said he seemed to have few religious or political leanings.”

There is a huge difference between Dear and Mateen. Dear’s three wives said he was never a practicing Christian. Moreover, there is no evidence that he ever belonged to a Christian congregation, or that he was ever involved in a Christian community.

Mateen bragged of his links to terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, and told his friends of his ties to the Boston bombers. He was known for frequenting a mosque attended by Al Qaeda operatives, and was twice investigated by the FBI.

Unlike Dear, Mateen was devout. He brought a prayer rug and skullcap to work, praying on his knees during breaks. He did not occasionally go to his local mosque—he went several times a week. All of this makes it easy to understand why he called 911, just before he began his rampage, to express solidarity to the Islamic state.

The ACLU reacted to Mateen’s killings by expressing “solidarity with the Muslim community.” When I typed “ACLU expresses solidarity with the Catholic community” in the Yahoo search engine, up popped an article, “ACLU Lawyers Say Christians Caused the Orlando Shooting.” It would be impossible to find a better example of rank bias than this.

 Bill Donohue comments on the victims’ lobby:

The plight of those who have been sexually abused, especially minors, is a condition eminently worthy of our compassion. Unfortunately, many of those who have professionally taken up the cause of these victims are dishonest activists who are not above lying to advance their interests.

• Last week, NY Assemblywoman Margaret Markey lied about Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, accusing him of bribery.

• In 2012, the director of SNAP, David Clohessy, admitted under oath that he has lied to the press.

• In 2011, Terence McKiernan, founder of BishopAccountability, lied when he told a conference that Cardinal Timothy Dolan was protecting 55 priests.

• Jeffrey—”I’m suing the s*** out of [the] Catholic Church” Anderson—has lied repeatedly about “smoking guns” that never seem to fire, trying to implicate the Vatican in U.S. abuse cases.

• Last month, Yeshiva University lawyer Marci Hamilton lied to the press when she said the bishops pay my salary. She knows full well that the Catholic League is not funded by the bishops.

• Attorney Mitchell Garabedian, whose role was acknowledged in “Spotlight,” twice pressed charges against a priest who was never found guilty of anything: In 2011, he blew up at me for simply questioning him; he was even condemned by the Boston Globe for his recklessness.

• In 2012, author Jason Berry lied when he said that I defended the disgraced priest, Father Marcial Maciel. He knew this was untrue.

In short, we are not dealing with honest champions of the abused. We are dealing with liars who exploit the very persons they claim to help.

Bill Donohue comments on the U.N. Human Rights Committee report on Ireland’s law banning abortion:

This report was triggered when a woman claimed she was treated unfairly under Irish law. To be specific, she was denied the right to abort her child after her doctor said that her baby had a fatal heart defect and could not survive outside the womb.

This complaint, it turns out, was simply a pretext to the real agenda of the U.N. panel: any fair-minded observer who read the entire report would conclude that the panelists want to pressure Ireland into legalizing all abortions. Indeed, they make no bones about their goal.

For example, the report says that Ireland’s abortion law “subjected her [the complainant] to a gender-based stereotype of the reproductive role of women primarily as mothers, and that stereotyping her as a reproductive instrument subjected her to discrimination.”

In other words, since women carry babies, and men do not, any law that protects the baby in utero effectively treats the mother as “a reproductive instrument.” It must take many years of post-graduate education to craft such language—the rest of the world couldn’t even begin to think that way.

Similarly, one of the panelists went so far as to say that the abortion ban “targets women because they are women” (italics in the original). Three others complained about “the structural and pervasive discrimination that characterizes Irish abortion law and practice.”

These panelists have had their minds corrupted in the classroom. They sound delirious: their real beef is with nature, and nature’s God. At bottom, they resent the nature-based, biological differences between men and women. These differences are intractable and are duly noted in the customs and traditions of virtually every society in the history of the world. These savants need to be deprogrammed fast before someone calls the asylum.

Bill Donohue comments on Pennsylvania Catholic lawmakers:

They are crying foul. What is really foul is the basis of the complaint made by Pennsylvania Catholic lawmakers: they are upset that priests are calling them out for working against their own religion.

In Pennsylvania, as in virtually all states, if a bill to lift the statute of limitations on offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors does not specifically say that it covers the public sector, it means that kids raped by public school teachers are treated like second-class citizens. To be exact, because of the antiquated doctrine of sovereign immunity, public school students have a very short window—usually 90 days—to press charges, otherwise they are out of luck.

The bill being considered by the Pennsylvania legislature gives the public schools a pass—the reform does not affect them. Which means that kids who are sexually abused in a public school, or were abused by a public school employee in the past, have less rights than private school students; the latter, under the proposed bill, could now sue for alleged offenses that took place decades ago.

The legislation has one purpose—to stick it to Catholics. If the intent were to allow justice for the victims of sexual abuse, the venue of the offense would be irrelevant. But it is very relevant. Indeed, it explains why so many parishes are calling out Catholic lawmakers who support this discriminatory bill.

What did these legislators think would happen? They are pledged to represent all of their constituents, yet they now decide to throw Catholics overboard—their own people—by supporting a bill that discriminates against them. Kudos to the priests, and others, for letting everyone know who is behind this outrageous scam.

Bill Donohue is calling for a formal investigation of New York State Assemblywoman Margaret Markey. Her defamation of Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio warrants a probe as to whether she has violated New York State’s ethics laws.

To read Donohue’s request, click here.

Bill Donohue comments on today’s lead story in the Daily News:

The Daily News is back at it again slamming the Catholic Church. But this time they really did themselves in: They floated a front-page story by a notorious anti-Catholic bigot accusing a local bishop of bribery.

Assemblywoman Margaret Markey—the number-one enemy of Catholics in New York—has accused Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of offering her a $5,000 bribe. He allegedly tried to get her to drop her support for a bill that would lift the statute of limitations on offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors. The bishop vehemently denies it.

Only a fool would believe Markey. First of all, the alleged bribe took place in 2010. Now are we supposed to believe that the same woman who is fixated on the statute of limitations as it relates to sexual abuse didn’t know that the statute of limitations for bribery in New York is three years?

Second, Markey never reported the alleged crime. Why not? What kind of dunce is she? Or is she simply venal? Isn’t this the same woman who has spent years lecturing us about the moral obligation we have to report crimes to the police? Here is her defense: “Who could I report it to?” Try calling 911.

Third, why is it that the New York media are ignoring this “news story”? Is it because the Daily News has no credibility left with honest reporters? What other reason is there for the media blackout? How embarrassing.

When a public official tells malicious tales about a bishop, it is serious business. When the same person is a known anti-Catholic bigot, it is time for him or her to resign. Assemblywoman Margaret Markey should resign immediately. There is no place in public office for rogues like her.

Contact Markey: MarkeyM@assembly.state.ny.us

Bill Donohue comments on a controversy involving Orthodox Jews:

Since the 1990s, a public swimming pool in an Hasidic community in Brooklyn has set aside a number of hours per week to allow women-only sessions. Recently, after one person complained, New York’s Commission on Human Rights told the Parks Department that the policy was illegal. The policy was quickly reinstated after Assemblyman Dov Hikind protested; he was responding to complaints from Orthodox Jewish women. Now the policy is being reconsidered again.

The Catholic League stands with Assemblyman Hikind.

Last year, in a Supreme Court religious accommodation case pitting the EEOC against Abercrombie & Fitch, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Court, noted that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act “does not demand mere neutrality with regard to religious practices…it gives them favored treatment.” He added, “Title VII requires otherwise-neutral policies to give way to the need for an accommodation.”

The word “accommodate” means “to provide room for (someone).” That’s what the women-only policy does—it provides room for the religious preferences of these Jewish women; setting aside single-sex pool hours allows them to abide by their modesty strictures. Furthermore, the EEOC says that laws should bend to afford religious accommodation unless they create “undue hardship.” There obviously isn’t any undue hardship—it took a quarter century for one anonymous person to complain.

One critic is quoted as saying that the Hasidic community has “a standard of modesty and decorum the rest of the culture doesn’t share,” and he doesn’t want “to change [his] attire to accommodate them.” That’s just the point: Those who don’t share the dominant culture’s mores should not have to lose their religious rights when reasonable accommodations can be granted. The requested pool hours are entirely reasonable.

Catholics should stand with Orthodox Jews in demanding religious accommodation. The principle is too critical for people of all faiths not to defend.

Bill Donohue comments on today’s front-page story in the New York Daily News:

The Daily News stooped to a new low yesterday when it assigned reporters to interview the faithful as they exited St. Patrick’s Cathedral, and other Catholic churches in New York City; they were asked about proposed changes in the statute of limitations for offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors.

There were no reporters assigned to a synagogue over the weekend, even though Orthodox Jews are united with Catholics in opposing the “look-back” provision of some bills that would allow alleged victims to bring a lawsuit for offenses that occurred decades ago.

Why the discrimination? Why were only Catholics badgered as they left a service? This blatant expression of religious bias is of a piece with a lot of reporting by the Daily News lately—it has been on a tear against the Catholic Church.

The Daily News literally created a “news story” by staging this event. Were the Catholics they interviewed told that most of the bills only cover private institutions? Were they told that Assemblywoman Margaret Markey once included the public schools in a bill—that was in 2009—and that the public school establishment went bonkers?

Were they told that kids raped by public school teachers as recently as February would have no right to file a lawsuit because the 90-day clock has expired? But a kid groped in a Catholic school or a yeshiva could sue for an offense that allegedly occurred when JFK was president?

Were they told that in the entire nation last year, the percentage of the Catholic clergy that had a credible accusation made against him for sexually abusing a minor in the past year was 0.01?

The Daily News has crossed the line. This isn’t journalism—it’s a hit job.

Contact Jim Rich, editor-in-chief: jrich@nydailynews.com

Bill Donohue comments on remarks made this week by Aaqil Ahmed, the head of the BBC’s religious programming:

In 2009, when Aaqil Ahmed was appointed the first Muslim to direct religious programming at the BBC, he was looked upon with some suspicion. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, wasn’t happy that the “Christian voice is being sidelined.” Now others are looking askance at Ahmed; his remarks made this week at a London gathering of journalists are raising some eyebrows.

Ahmed, who is a professor at Middlesex University, was asked about the phrase “so-called Islamic State.” His answer was enlightening: “I hear so many people say ISIS has nothing to do with Islam—of course it has. They are not preaching Judaism. It might be wrong but what they are saying is an ideology based on some form of Islamic doctrine.” He added that the Islamic nature of ISIS is “a fact and we have to get our head around some very uncomfortable things.”

Those who work at the State Department have an ethical responsibility to discuss Ahmed’s position. The same is true for those who teach multiculturalism on American college campuses.

Clear-minded persons know that ISIS is rooted in an interpretation of Islam that is widely shared in Muslim communities, even if it is not embraced by most Muslims. This isn’t being bigoted—it’s being honest.

President Obama bears much of the blame for closing down an honest discussion on the religious roots of ISIS; his constant denial of any relationship between the teachings of Muhammad and terrorist acts conducted in his name is absurd. We can’t make progress in any area without robust freedom of speech, untainted by political considerations.

Professor Ahmed has done us a service. It is up to others to grab this opportunity.

Bill Donohue comments on a principled ACLU official:

Three men over six feet tall invaded a women’s bathroom in Atlanta, scaring the daylights out of young African-American girls. The victims’ mother, Maya Dillard Smith, is furious. What makes this so newsworthy is that Ms. Smith is the interim president of the ACLU’s Georgia chapter.

The ACLU is defending the aggressors, claiming that the men no longer consider themselves to be men; they call themselves transgender persons. No matter, Ms. Smith has had it with this insanity and has quit her leadership post at the ACLU. She should instead sue the men who terrorized her daughters.

This issue is a time bomb waiting to explode. That so many of our cultural elites are buying into this new wave of sexual engineering shows how morally debased they have become.

The big losers are women, not men. If feminist leaders cared as much about the average woman as they do the rights of abortionists and lesbians, things would be different. But they don’t.

Kudos to Maya Dillard Smith for defending her daughters from these reckless men.