Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the ethics of atheists:

Do human beings possess natural rights, rights given by God that all governments must respect? Or is this plain nonsense?

A recent Pew Research Center survey shows how this philosophical question comes into play in real-life settings. If ventilators are in short supply, whom should we service first? Those who are most in need at the moment? Or those most likely to recover?

The answer, like so many ethical issues, turns on religion. The majority of those who are religiously affiliated say those who are most in need of a ventilator should take priority, while the majority of the unaffiliated (mostly agnostics and atheists) say those who are the most likely to recover should get it.

Similarly, when questioned about the role of religion in one’s life, religious Americans favor giving the ventilator to those in need at the moment; those for whom religion does not play a role prefer giving it to those most likely to recover.

On a related issue, a Pew survey in 2013 found that religious Americans were the least likely to say suicide is a moral right; the unaffiliated were the most likely to support it.

A 2018 Gallup poll disclosed that euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide varied widely on the basis of religiosity: religious Americans were the least likely to support these options; the unaffiliated were the most likely to support them.

In 2010, the British Medical Journal found that atheist and agnostic doctors, as compared to those who are religious, were almost twice as likely to decide, by themselves, that it is proper to hasten a person’s death if the patient is very sick.

To put it differently, those who are not religious are more likely to devalue the sanctity of human life. This is not a desirable outcome for anyone, especially the vulnerable.

This all traces back to natural rights. Those who take their religion seriously are more likely to believe in natural rights: they believe all humans possess equal rights, and that they cannot be overridden on the basis of utility, or what works best overall. So when ventilators are in short supply, those who are most in need deserve to get them—we are all equal in the eyes of God. Their rights should never be subordinate to those who are the most likely to live.

Those who believe otherwise embrace a utilitarian ethics.

Atheists embrace the utilitarianism as espoused by Jeremy Bentham. The British philosopher maintained that morality was best served by providing for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Such a philosophy advantages the powerful and the healthy—it can be used to justify slavery and euthanasia—which is why it is fundamentally an amoral ethics.

Bentham called natural rights “nonsense upon stilts.” Not surprisingly, he was an atheist. For him, the idea that innocent human life is sacred was chimerical. What counts, he believed, was serving the best interests of the majority of people, even if it comes at the expense of others.

Atheism is amoral because its ethics devolves to the individual. It’s all about me, not we. It is this kind of thinking that allows irreligious doctors to decide whether their patients should live or die. Ironically, even atheists who are sick would not want to have such a physician.

Society prospers morally when we have more religious persons, not less. This does not mean that all atheists are immoral or that all religious persons are moral. But it does mean that society, as a whole, is better off, generally speaking, when it is populated by people of faith, and not their atheist counterparts.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on how easy it is to fool Catholic bashers:

If there were a gullibility record, it was broken on April 27 by the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP). This Church-hating band of professional victims’ advocates—which the Catholic League played a key role in effectively destroying (it limbers on but few pay it any heed)—proved how easy it is to seduce when it bought, hook, line and sinker, a parody about Cardinal Timothy Dolan floated by Michael Sean Winters at the National Catholic Reporter.

On April 27, Winters wrote a critical piece about those bishops who were on a conference call on April 24 with the president, saving his licks for Cardinal Dolan. In what everyone with an IQ in double figures realized, what he said about Dolan was meant in jest.

“The archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, announced he was resigning as the spiritual leader of the ‘capital of the world’ in order to dedicate all his energies to his new position as co-chairman of the Committee to Re-elect the President. The resignation has yet to be accepted by Pope Francis, but there is little doubt the Supreme Pontiff will grant Dolan’s request to be relieved of his spiritual duties.”

We read that at the Catholic League and even commented on the more serious points that Winters made. We understand parody. The dunces at SNAP do not. Here is how they reacted that same day.

“New York’s top Catholic official is reportedly resigning from his position to help lead the re-election committee for President Donald Trump. We believe that New York Catholics will be better served by just about any other prelate and are glad that this longtime enemy of transparency will no longer lead the Archdiocese of New York.”

You gotta love these louts. In a time when we all need a laugh, SNAP has come through for us. How many other Catholic bashers also drank the moonshine is hard to say. But given that their average IQ is in the single digits, the numbers could be daunting.

Contact Zach Hiner, head honcho: zhiner@snapnetwork.org

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on recent statements by left-wing Catholics:

For some reason, left-wing Catholics think they own Catholicism. As a result, when they perceive that the hierarchy is not heeding their call, they get more than worried—they get delirious.

The latest event to galvanize the Catholic left has been a conference call that many bishops had with President Trump on April 24. As I pointed out yesterday, they are livid with Cardinal Timothy Dolan for speaking kindly about the president. One of the sources I cited was National Catholic Reporter journalist Michael Sean Winters. Now he has been joined by columnist Jamie Manson and an editorial penned by outgoing editor Tom Roberts.

Manson says Dolan was “seduced by power and celebrity” and Roberts says the bishops were “masterfully manipulated.” By contrast, Manson and Roberts really think they are independent thinkers. More important is why they are angry. What angers them are the Church’s teachings on marriage, the family, and sexuality.

Manson is a gay activist. “Dolan and his church have won the right to deny loving same-sex couples the chance to adopt children,” as well as the right to advise women “about the option of abortion.” Similarly, Roberts rails against the “unholy alliance” between the bishops and Trump, noting that it “may get the bishops the abortion ban they so covet, but it will not end the debate.”

There it is. Gay marriage and abortion rights are what the National Catholic Reporter prizes. The only thing Catholic about it is its hijacked name.

The same mentality was recently on display when left-wing Catholics wrote a scathing letter to Father Tom Flowers, pastor of St. Jude the Apostle Catholic Church in Lewes, Delaware. The occasion for this lengthy missive, which was signed by ten persons, was the pastor’s suspected orthodoxy. Yup, he is one of those conservative Catholics.

The letter is a textbook case of what ails left-wing Catholics. It also showcases their delirium. A small sample suffices to make this point.

In their world, there are good guys and bad guys: the good guys are Democrats and the bad guys are Republicans. In childlike fashion they roll out their vision.

They start by stating what they call a “FACT” about Catholicism. “Catholicism says Democrats are moral. Catholicism says Republicans are immoral.” Then there is this gem: “Keep in mind: Republican government officials show their immorality constantly.”

It must be nice to live in a world where Alice in Wonderland is real.

These Catholic malcontents are not satisfied to make their point and disagree. This explains why they call Father Flowers “a child,” branding him “ignorant” and a “coward.” After maligning him, it was so sweet of them to end by saying, “Signed this day in the spirit of Our Lord.”

The Catholic left does not own Catholicism. Quite the opposite. The fundamental reason why they are always angry is because, deep down, they know they don’t. The Catechism and the teachings of the Magisterium are the real FACTS, and they are not in accord with the agenda of left-wing Catholics.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on remarks made by Cardinal Timothy Dolan that have upset some Catholics:

When Catholic leaders are asked to meet with a president of the United States, or his staff, they oblige, and it matters not a whit whether he is a Democrat or a Republican. This is true of myself, and it is certainly true of the clergy. Even when those invited may not have voted for that president, prudence dictates that they find something positive to say. Either that or decline the invitation.

Isn’t this just common courtesy? Not in some quarters it isn’t. Cardinal Timothy Dolan is being criticized by some Catholic pundits for saying nice things about President Donald Trump when he spoke on a conference call with Catholic leaders on April 24. Dolan then welcomed the president to his livestream Sunday Mass from St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

“The president has seemed particularly sensitive to the religious community,” Dolan said on “Fox and Friends” on April 27. With good reason: When it comes to the life issues, school choice, the autonomy of Catholic institutions, and religious liberty, no president has done more for the Catholic community than President Trump.

Some Catholic pundits are saying that Dolan should be reminded of Trump’s immigration stance. He doesn’t need to be. In 2015, Dolan wrote an op-ed in the New York Daily News heavily criticizing the president on this issue. The conference call was not designed for conferees to sound off on what they don’t like about the president: it was an opportunity to work with him on issues that matter. Pundits, who have never run anything, don’t get it.

Michael O’Loughlin, writing for the Jesuit publication, America, criticized Dolan for his TV interview, noting that he appeared on “the president’s favorite news channel.” Perhaps O’Loughlin is unaware of Trump’s criticism of the Fox News Channel. More important, does O’Loughlin think that Dolan would refuse to appear on CNN or MSNBC? Maybe he should call the Trump-bashing stations and ask them why they don’t invite him on more often.

In his article, O’Loughlin rolls out statements by left-wing Catholics who are critical of Trump. So what? What does that have to do with the propriety of Dolan’s remarks? O’Loughlin also said, falsely, that Trump and Clinton “split the Catholic vote in 2016.” Exit polls, not polls taken before and after an election, are what counts. Among Catholics, Trump beat Hillary Clinton 52 percent to 45 percent.

Michael Sean Winters at the National Catholic Reporter, a media outlet that rejects the Church’s teachings on sexuality, is so upset with the bishops who were on the conference call that he advised them to “Stay away from the president. Avoid getting mentioned in any article that mentions him.” Why should they run away? “His moral framework is reptilian and any association with him will end up burning you.” Sounds ominous.

Cardinal Dolan is used to these attacks. In 2012, he accepted an invitation to offer a blessing at the Republican National Convention. He was immediately vilified by Catholic and non-Catholic left-wingers. Among them were, no surprise, Mike O’Loughlin of America and the National Catholic Reporter. O’Loughlin accused Dolan of “being a shill for the GOP,” and the Reporter said he was “playing a dangerous game.” More scary stuff.

Responding to criticism that he accepted an invitation to address the Republicans, Dolan said he would gladly offer a prayer at the Democratic National Convention. The New York Post said on August 24, 2012 that “President Obama turned down a chance to have Timothy Cardinal Dolan deliver a prayer at the Democratic National Convention.”

A few days later, that decision was reversed; Dolan gave the closing prayer. ABC news was not happy. According to reporter Russell Goldman, Dolan “inserted what some saw as an anti-abortion remark into his benediction Thursday night at the Democratic National Convention.” Dolan’s offense was to praise God for “the gift of life,” asking for “your benediction on those waiting to be born, that they may be welcomed and protected.”

Left-wing pundits, and the media in general, are so hysterically anti-Trump that their credibility is shot. Worse, some of them have turned into bullies. When it comes to Catholic leaders, their game plan is one of intimidation, hoping to deter them from saying anything kind about the president. Looks like they will be very busy over the next six months.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the way people are responding to coronavirus:

Religion is playing a prominent role in our responses to the health crisis. Bible app downloads are spiking and the Bible on Google Play and App Store has been installed two million times; hardcover editions of the Bible have also skyrocketed.

A minister in England said, “I’ve never known a time in my life when people are more open to [God’s word] than they are now. There are no other distractions. There’s no football, there’s no sport. There’s no entertainment. People have time to hear the Gospel.”

Unfortunately, while more people are turning to God, church coffers are taking a nose dive. The Washington Post reports that about “a third of all congregations have no savings,” and that only 48 percent are able to accept donations online. Smaller churches are being hit the hardest.

With the good comes the bad. Bible sales may be increasing, but so is   pornography. The New York Daily News finds that “the online porn industry is booming.” However, porn stars are complaining that subscription services are too expensive for many. Not to worry, help is on the way. One porn queen said she’s “enabled a retention offer so people who can’t afford it anymore can stay on for a lesser amount.”

Evidently, she didn’t qualify for the Payroll Protection Program (if some Democrats learn of her plight, things could change). No matter, the Free Speech Coalition, an advocacy group for the porn industry, has come to the rescue. It has an emergency fund and is currently dishing out the cash.

Not all atheists are so generous. For example, the atheists who run the Chinese Communist government have taken advantage of coronavirus to further oppress religious groups. Uyghurs, an Asian ethnic group of Muslims, are suffering under horrible conditions: one million are living in detention camps. According to a news story posted by Real Clear Politics, “Beijing has also used the pandemic as an excuse to crack down on churches that aren’t officially sanctioned by the government.” That includes many Catholic churches.

If there is one atheist who has been set back on his heels at this time it is Ricky Gervais. The first season of his show, “After Life,” depicted him (playing Tony) grieving the loss of his wife to cancer. The new season, according to CNN, finds him “wallowing in grief,” unable to find “comfort from religion.”

NME, the British journalism website, is less forgiving. It contends that “coronavirus has essentially squeezed the emotional impact out of After Life.” In fact, it says, “Ricky Gervais has unwittingly made the worst-timed series in TV history.” Indeed, his “fictionalised grief becomes almost trite.”

In a time when many are reeling over the effects of the pandemic, Gervais’ ordeal seems petty. But as CNN pointed out, the show is “very much in keeping with the writer-producer-star’s outspoken atheism and darker, if not irredeemable view of life.”

It is never a good time to be an atheist. But now is among the worst.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Christian videos being removed from Facebook:

“You are invited to pray, to pray for the family, to pray for the sick, and to pray for our leaders.”

“God encourages us not to be dismayed by what we see around us, things we cannot control. We can, however, with the best intel in this moment, place our trust in him, walk forward in his strength, and treat others with kindness.”

These remarks were posted on Facebook and were removed by military officers following a protest.

The first statement was made by Captain Amy Smith; Major Scott Ingram made the second one. They are military chaplains at Fort Drum, and their video remarks were posted on Facebook.

They were taken down when Mikey Weinstein, an anti-Christian activist who heads the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, complained that the videos (there were four in all) amounted to “illicit proselytizing.” He also said his complaint was done “to ensure church-state separation.”

Weinstein complained to officers of the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division and they yielded. Yet they had no need to—they were deceived by the false arguments made by Weinstein.

There is nothing “illicit” about the mere invocation of God by military chaplains. Had an atheist religion-hating member of the armed forces posted a video on Facebook celebrating Lucifer, Weinstein would have defended it as freedom of speech.

Military chaplains do not lose their twin First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech by posting religious commentary on a private media outlet. Moreover, the separation of church and state provision of the First Amendment only applies to what government cannot do.

Every president, acting as commander in chief, has invoked God, beginning with George Washington. To say that military chaplains have no right to identify themselves as officers when they engage in religious commentary is to say they have no public right to exercise their freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Only fascists think this way.

Contact: mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org 

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the latest example of media bias:

President Trump is being slammed by pundits for accusing the Washington Post of media bias in a story about comments made by Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Trump is right and the pundits are wrong. Moreover, we at the Catholic League have experienced the exact same kind of palpable media bias on many occasions.

The headline in the Washington Post story in question read, “CDC Director Warns Second Wave Of Coronavirus Is Likely To Be Even More Devastating.” Redfield never said that. He said that a potential second wave later this year, when combined with the seasonal flu, would make it more difficult to handle. He defended himself yesterday. “I didn’t say that this was going to be worse, I said it was going to be more difficult and potentially complicated because we’ll have flu and coronavirus circulating at the same time.”

Critics of Trump are saying that within the story, the Washington Post quoted the CDC director accurately; Redfield himself admits this is true. But this misses the point: the headline was false.

Headlines are read by more people than stories are—they shape public opinion in ways that are much more powerful than the actual story. This is especially true in our information-saturated society. Most people are time pressed and their take away from news articles is more likely to be affected by headlines than the story itself.

We see this at the Catholic League all the time. How many times have we seen negative headlines about a priest, only to realize—several paragraphs later—that he is Episcopalian? Then there are the negative headlines about a priest who, we learn in the story, is an ex-priest. One of my favorites is a negative headline about a cop or fireman—we see this often—that just happens to mention he is an ex-altar boy.

Last October, I criticized USA Today for running a headline that said, “The Catholic Church and Boy Scouts are Lobbying Against Child Abuse Statutes.” In point of fact, the Catholic Church was lobbying against laws that applied only to the private sector, giving the public schools a free pass.

On January 4, 2020, the CBS affiliate in St. Petersburg, Florida, WTSP, posted a story titled, “‘It’s Disheartening’: Former Catholic Church Abuse Victim Says Local Bishop Could Have More Victims.” The bishop, however, was Protestant. After I criticized the station, it apologized.

Headlines matter. Regrettably, those who write them are typically not those who write the story. Sensationalism is what drives many in the media, not truth. It’s a national disgrace.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on how the coronarvirus is being used by the left:

Those who truly care about the poor, such as Mother Teresa, have always had some skin in the game. In her case, it was more than a little: she gave her life to the dispossessed. She risked her own well-being caring for lepers; she carried the sick up flights of stairs; she founded hospitals; and she tended to the dying. By contrast, left-wing champions of the poor never lift a finger. They simply agitate.

It’s worse than this. The average American has no idea just how left-wing radicals operate. Their goal is not to help the poor: it is to destroy our market economy in the name of championing their cause. The economy they seek to plunder is the same system that has made the lifestyle of the poor in the United States the envy of middle class peoples—never mind the poor—throughout much of the world. For left-wing activists, coronavirus is a gift: they can exploit it to promote socialism.

Chris Tomlinson wrote a piece in the March 22 edition of the Houston Chronicle arguing that government programs implemented to rescue the economy “means COVID-19 will introduce democratic socialism to the United States.” He did not write out of dismay; he was delighted.

Two days later, the website socialistrevolution introduced “A Socialist Program to Fight COVID-19 and the Economic Crisis.” It called for (a) doubling the wages of essential workers and quadrupling their ranks with new hires (b) socialized health care (c) price controls (d) a moratorium on utilities, rent, mortgage payments, and evictions (e) an end to the two party system (f) a complete write-off of all debts incurred by working people, and (g) a national minimum wage of $1,000 per week.

If anyone thinks that this is just the meanderings of economic illiterates, consider what the “Squad” congressional members have been saying.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib recently announced that “corporate greed is the disease in our country alongside what is happening with coronavirus.” She saw something to exploit. “This is our moment” she said, echoing Rahm Emanuel’s famous quip, “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

With fewer drivers on the road, the declining demand for gas has rocked the stock market; the price of oil has plummeted. This brought a smile to the face of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who tweeted, “You absolutely love to see it.”

Rep. Ilhan Omar introduced a bill to cancel rent and mortgage payments during the pandemic. What about payments already made? They will be reimbursed, she said.

The “Squad” is on the hunt, looking to take advantage of this crisis by driving the economy to collapse. Why would they want to do that? To force the country to adopt socialism. This is not a novel idea.

In 1966, two Columbia University professors wrote an article for the Nation, a far-left magazine, imploring social workers and administrators to find every person in New York City who might even remotely qualify for welfare and sign him up immediately. Their goal—they were quite explicit about it—was to force the city to go bankrupt. That way the federal government would have no other choice but to step in and institute socialism.

The strategy worked, at least in part. Welfare rolls spiked, and New York City almost went bankrupt, but socialism never materialized. It did succeed, perversely, in devastating the poor.

The mayor, John Lindsay, accepted the reforms as outlined by the professors: every person who applied for welfare was put on the rolls, and none was required to provide evidence of his economic status.

Predictably, welfare recipients rose from 531,000 to 1,165,000 in a few years. This happened at a time when poverty was declining and unemployment was low. The truth is that welfare rolls expanded not because of economic conditions—they ballooned for purely political reasons.

David Horowitz was a radical activist during this period (fortunately, he has been on our side for decades), and he recalls how the left approaches crisis situations: “the worse the better.” In other words, make conditions worse, forcing revolutionary changes.

That is what the left is doing now—they want to make matters worse so they can force socialism down our throats. They are the polar opposite of Mother Teresa. They are not only a threat to working Americans, they are an absolute menace to the poor.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on how those on the left are handling coronavirus:

“There are two things which kill the soul,” wrote St. Augustine, “despair and presumption.” Despair takes command when hope is jettisoned, when we give up on God. Presumption is more typically a characteristic of atheism, the conviction that we have no need of God, and are quite capable of going it alone.

The faithful do not despair. Secularists do. The faithful are also at home when they look to God for comfort. Secularists have no idea what this means.

It is for reasons like these that many studies have shown that those who believe in God are more likely to be optimistic than secularists. And in the case of secularists who are activists, typically in left-wing circles, pessimism is something they wallow in, always looking at the dark side.

“The Coronavirus Pandemic is Far From Over.” “The COVID-19 Death Undercount Is Scarier Than You Think.” The first article is from the Huffington Post and the second was published by the Daily Beast. To be sure, some medical experts might agree, but their conclusions would be data driven. In the case of left-wing pessimists, it is emblematic of their mindset. They bask in negativity.

Interestingly, those on the left who are not secularists have much in common with non-believers during this time. For example, U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams upset some people when he opined that “God doesn’t put you where you’re going to be comfortable. God puts you where you need to be.” He added, “God always has a plan.” For this he not only incurred the wrath of secularists, he ticked off left-wing Christians, including a Jesuit priest.

The Nation, a magazine which proudly defended Stalin’s genocidal regime, ran an online article by two left-wing ministers lashing out at Ben Carson, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. His offense? He noted that during this time of trial, it is important to develop “your God-given talents to the utmost.” This, the authors said, was an example of “religious nationalism.”

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, an ex-altar boy, told us on April 13 that the coronavirus numbers were getting better. He made sure God got none of the credit. “The number is down because we brought the number down. God did not do that. Faith did not do that.” Yes, he is just that self-righteous.

The secular left is happy about one element of the coronavirus pandemic: it allows them to exploit this tragedy for political purposes.

Slate ran an article on April 20 describing how hard life is at this time in Riker’s Island, the New York prison for serial murderers and rapists. The title of the piece is, “Everyone’s Coughing, Everyone’s Agitated.” No doubt that is true. It is also true that those in nursing homes are lucky if they can cough, though that is not a community of any interest to the left.

“Advocates Worry As ICE Says Only Around 300 of its 32,000 Detainees Have Been Tested for COVID-19.” Daily Kos gave us this gem. The advocates, of course, want to abolish ICE, and the “detainees” are those who crashed our borders illegally.

The Nation took up the cause of “sex workers,” a.k.a. prostitutes, saying they “are among those most affected by the social distancing and lockdown policies.” These poor victims, we learn, are “consistently and unfairly stereotyped as diseased, so even mild epidemics can hurt business.” Trump should declare this a national emergency.

“Amazon Tribes Say Christian Missionaries Threaten ‘Genocide’ During Pandemic.” This Huffington Post beauty blames those intrusive Christians for bringing their lousy diseases with them, threatening to wipe out “isolated peoples.”

Daily Kos beat them all with this post: “Trump Faces Credible Accusations of Knowingly Spreading Coronavirus to the Maya of Guatemala.” Why he hasn’t been placed under house arrest is a mystery. The least he can do is authorize reparations for the Maya.

Finally, we have Richard Wigmans of Texas Tech University. He wants coronavirus to kill Trump. “I am personally an atheist,” the physics professor says, “but if #45 would die as a result of this virus, I might reconsider.”Wigmans no doubt speaks for many of his ilk. This is what it takes to bring about optimism among these miserably unhappy people. A sicker bunch cannot be found, anywhere on earth.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the results of a new survey of LGBT people:

A new survey by the Public Religion Research Institute on LGBT people raises some important moral and political questions, though that is not the intent of the poll.

According to the survey, “5% of Americans identify as LGBT, including 2% who identify as gay or lesbian, 3% who identify as bisexual, and less than 1% who identify as transgender.” A demographic profile of these people yields striking results.

“Among Americans who identity as LGBT, nearly half (47%) are young adults (ages 18-29), about one-third (32%) are ages 30-49, about one in ten (12%) are ages 50-64, and 8% are seniors (ages 65 and older).”

On the basis of race and ethnicity, Native Americans are the only “people of color” who are not slightly overrepresented.

In terms of religious affiliation, people of faith are underrepresented. Almost half (47%) of the unaffiliated identify as LGBT. Geographically, the West is the most overrepresented and the South is the least represented. In terms of party affiliation, LGBT people are much more likely to be independents or Democrats than Republicans.

What these findings suggest is that to a large extent the LGBT community is a cultural phenomenon, not a biological one. How else to explain the disparities?

Take age. Why is there an inverse relationship between age and transgender identity, meaning the older the person the less likely he is to be transgender? To put it differently, why are those who identify as transgender mostly young people?

Young people have been indoctrinated into thinking that being a member of the LGBT community is at least a value-neutral attribute, and may even be cool. As Pope Francis has said, there is a “nasty” tendency in schools to “indoctrinate” children, teaching that our sex can be chosen and changed. This is doing a disservice to young people and it shows up in high rates of depression and suicide in this segment of the population.

Further proof that much of what is driving the increase in the LGBT community is cultural can be found by analyzing the response of Native Americans. Why are they not overrepresented the way other non-whites are? The answer seems plain: they are the least affected by the dominant culture. It is the dominant culture, as shaped by the schools, the media, and the entertainment industry that is driving the LGBT agenda, enticing adolescents to “experiment.”

Those who have no religious affiliation are of course more susceptible to LGBT propaganda: they are the most deracinated segment of the population. It is not devout Christian young people who are at war with human nature—it is secular-minded kids who reject the idea of nature and nature’s God.

Rootlessness explains why the West has the highest proportion of LGBT people and the South has the least. Southerners are more anchored in tradition and religion than any other part of the country, while those on the west coast are the most likely to see tradition and religion as constraining, thus leaving them more susceptible to experimentation.

As to be expected, Democrats, most of whom are liberals, are more likely to be a part of the LGBT community than Republicans, most of whom are conservatives, proving once again the role of cultural values.

Being an LGBT person is difficult enough (e.g., they suffer from high rates of depression and suicide), and this is especially true of the sexually confused (a male who thinks he is female and vice versa). That is why attempts to culturally mass produce them are pernicious.