Bill Donohue

Islamists, or Muslim extremists, are on the war path again slaughtering Christians in Nigeria during Holy Week. It is an annual event, though most people don’t know anything about it. As usual, when Muslims wantonly kill Christians, it’s either ignored or lied about. None of this is a mistake.

On Palm Sunday, more than two dozen Christians were massacred by jihadists. It occurred in Jos, a Christian city in Plateau state, Nigeria. According to International Christian Concern, at least 30 people were killed. Besides the BBC and the New York Times, most of the mainstream media did not cover it.

Last year on Palm Sunday in Nigeria, at least 54 Christians were massacred by Islamists in the village of Zikke, near Jos. Over 100 households were destroyed and the entire village was displaced. In 2024, more than 1,300 Christians were killed in Plateau state alone: the majority were non-combatants—more than 500 women and 260 children were wiped out, leaving 30,000 displaced.

The barbarians are mostly associated with Boko Haram, Islamic State West African Province (ISWAP) and Fulani militants. They are responsible for killing thousands of Christians and destroying hundreds of churches. This has been going on in earnest since 2009 when Boko Haram went on a rampage slaughtering innocent Christians.

What has the United Nations done about this? It engages in “diplomatic mediation.” Swell. And what does it do when the next round of massacres occur? It engages in more “diplomatic mediation.” Worse, it refuses to call a spade a spade, eschewing any condemnation of Muslim extremists. It says the situation in Nigeria is “complex.”

The New York Times is working from the same playbook, branding the situation there “complex.” It goes beyond the dodging of the U.N. by criticizing those “who have falsely claimed that there is a Christian genocide happening in Nigeria.” This has also become the favorite talking point of the mainstream media.

Where is the evidence that a Christian genocide is not taking place in Nigeria? The Times provides a link to a story it ran in January claiming that “Spotty research from a Christian activist has been used by Republican lawmakers to justify U.S. intervention in the country [Nigeria].”

In fact, this news story should be studied in journalism classes as a classic case of how “spotty research” is done. It focuses on the comments made by one guy, a screwdriver salesman, who argues that Christians are being singled out for slaughter. This is a red herring.

No serious scholar leans on anecdote for evidence. What about the annual reports on human rights in Nigeria released by Freedom House, Aid to the Church in Need, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, U.S. State Department and Open Doors?

Regarding the latter, the Times blithely refers to it as “a Christian advocacy group whose data has [sic] been cited by Mr. Trump.” Does that make it invalid? Talk about “spotty research.” Moreover, the paper never has a problem citing reports issued by George Soros-funded entities.

Those who are closer to the problem are not fooled. In 2022, Aid to the Church in Need said the situation in Nigeria “clearly passes the threshold of genocide.” In 2025, local leaders who witnessed the slaughter during Holy Week said it was “a targeted act of genocide against the Christian community.”

After a truck ran over a gathering of Christians on Easter Monday last year, killing six people, the initial police report said it was due to “faulty brakes.” “However,” as one reporter put it, “an investigation has now confirmed what the participants already knew—that the driver, named as 28-year-old Usman Mohammed, had deliberately plowed into the marchers.”

The governor of Plateau state, commenting on what happened during Holy Week in 2025, called it “genocide.” So did the president of International Christian Concern. He said the massacre was not a random event. He called it a “calculated” attack by the Fulanis to “erase Christians from their homeland.” He was explicit. “They roll in with AK-47s, machetes and gasoline, and no one’s stopping them.”

Christians in Nigeria should not have to endure Easter every year—they should be celebrating it. There is nothing complex about what they are facing—it’s the most violent expression of anti-Christian bigotry imaginable.

Bill Donohue

This year was the first time Zohran Mamdani observed Ramadan as New York City Mayor, and now he is about to observe Passover, Good Friday and Easter. However, this is not the first time he has done so as a public official (he was previously a New York State Assemblyman).

We checked his record and compared it to how his predecessor, Mayor Eric Adams, treated these key religious days. The differences are stark.

Ramadan

Adams

He attended Ifar events and issued tributes to Muslims.

Mamdani

He attended more than a dozen events this year, claiming on the last day of Ramadan that this day is “For All of Us.” Thus he invited non-Muslims to celebrate Ramadan. There is no record of him being that inclusive to Muslims, asking them to consider Passover or Easter as a day they should celebrate, nor does he invite them to observe Good Friday.

At a press conference marking the start of this month-long Muslim period, he said, “Ramadan is my favorite month of the year.” If this is true, it is of recent vintage.

For example, he confessed in 2018 that it was the first time he celebrated Ramadan in years. Curiously, the next year he announced his candidacy for office: in 2020 he was elected to the New York State Assembly. This gave him the appearance of being an authentic Muslim. Yet his bona fides do not extend to respecting Islamic teachings on abortion, same-sex marriage and the LGBTQ agenda.

Passover

Adams

He attended speaking engagements and issued celebratory tweets to the Jewish community.

Mamdani

Last year, he commemorated Passover by speaking to Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, a far-left organization that was condemned in 2022 by the Anti-Defamation League as being “out of touch” with the Jewish community. He exclaimed, “No Fascists, No Pharaohs.”

Good Friday

Adams

He typically spoke about the crucifixion of Christ and the need for redemption and reform.

Mamdani

There is no evidence he has ever addressed this day.

Easter

Adams

He usually addressed themes of rebirth and renewal.

Mamdani

In 2024, he said, “Happy Easter.” In 2025, he said nothing.

We would expect a Muslim public figure to recognize Islamic religious days more than Jewish or Christian holy days. But Mamdani politicized Passover last year (the way he recently politicized St. Patrick’s Day), and his terse treatment of Christian religious days is appalling.

We will be watching how Mamdani treats Passover, Good Friday and Easter. Will he mimic Adams or his old self?

Bill Donohue

Sarah Mullally has her hands full. The newly installed Archbishop of Canterbury is facing turmoil in her church, much like that of other mainline Protestant denominations in North America.

Mullally, who was a nurse before she was ordained an Anglican priest, took over as archbishop after her predecessor, Justin Welby, resigned following his handling of a sexual abuse case. She inherits a church that is torn over sexual issues.

She is also faced with a sharply declining Anglican population, especially among young people. Catholics in England now outnumber Anglicans among the Gen Z population (those born between 1997 and 2012) by a margin of more than 2-1. The problem is not limited to youth. Overall, attendance at Anglican services are declining; they are increasing among Catholics.

In the United States, none of the mainline Protestant denominations are in good shape. The Episcopal Church had made sharp cuts in its headquarters staff. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has also laid off many senior officials from its national staff. The United Methodist Church has undergone a major schism, cutting its number of bishops. All have seen sharp reductions in attendance at weekly services, though that appears to be stabilizing.

The Catholic population in the United States has grown by 40 percent in the past 40 years, mostly because of increases in the South and West. Of the top ten gainers, six are in Texas or California.

Younger dioceses such as Fresno and Atlanta are doing very well, while older dioceses like Pittsburgh and Milwaukee are not. Pittsburgh has seen a decline of over 30 percent in the Catholic population since 1980, and is situated in the bottom in terms of priestly ordinations, along with New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle and Dallas. New York is especially troublesome given that the Catholic population has actually increased; Pittsburgh’s situation is more understandable given the loss of the Catholic population.

There are many reasons why Catholics are doing better than mainline Protestants in the U.S. and the U.K. The latter suffer from mixed messages on sexual issues, and from a misguided attempt to be “relevant.” The data clearly show that the more “relevant” a religious community tries to be—in terms of accepting the norms and values of the dominant culture—the more irrelevant it becomes for its adherents.

This may seem counter-intuitive. But it isn’t: the desire for continuity among the faithful is strong and seriously unappreciated. If Christianity is about truth—which is what it is supposed to be—then constant challenges to settled teachings is not only unappealing, it is subversive.

We should have known by now that attempts to secularize Christianity are an utter failure. Archbishop Mullally will either move toward orthodoxy and succeed, or she will continue the slide toward heterodoxy, and fail.

Bill Donohue

The Taliban are known as among the world’s most brutal terrorists, yet they exhibited more humanity at the end of Ramadan than New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill.

On March 20, the last day of Ramadan, the Taliban released an American, Dennis Coyle, whom they had imprisoned for over a year, citing the holiday as the reason for doing so. They said his release was “based on humanitarian sympathy and goodwill.” Now contrast this with the way Mamdani and Sherrill acted that day. They were not guided by one ounce of “humanitarian sympathy and goodwill.”

Mamdani made his first visit to Rikers Island, home to the most violent inmates in the city. This may appear to some as an outreach to the marginalized, but when we learn that he habitually reaches out to murderers and thugs, but not their victims, a different picture emerges.

One New York City police veteran told reporters that Mamdani “hasn’t visited any victims of the heinous crimes some of these guys have committed.” He gave as an example a man who tried to knife police officers in Queens, noting that “he visited the criminal’s family in that case too.” He added, “He can go visit inmates in Rikers, but he can’t go visit a cop who gets hurt during an Isis-inspired attack outside the Mayor’s home earlier this month.”

Sherrill was just as insulting. It is one thing to visit a mosque at the end of Ramadan, quite another to choose one that has been linked to terrorism since its founding in 1989; the co-founder was convicted of funneling money to Hamas.

She met with Imam Mohammad Qatanani, pretending she was a Muslim (she wore a large cloth wrapped around her head, extending down the front of her body), offering her well wishes. This cleric has called for “a new intifada,” and has met with Hamas leaders in Gaza saying, “our wish should be we carry out Jihad to death.” That was his message to Jews—you should all be killed.

Ramadan is a month that begins in mercy, followed by an emphasis on forgiveness, and ends with a prayer asking for emancipation from hell. The Taliban’s decision to release Coyle evinced mercy and forgiveness.  Mamdani and Sherrill turned these two virtues on their head, showing mercy and forgiveness for murderers and terrorists

Thus were New York City’s mayor and New Jersey’s governor outclassed by the Taliban. What a sorry state of affairs.

Bill Donohue

When Jews and Protestants are being considered for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, they are rarely, if ever, asked by legislators to explain how their religious convictions might affect their legal thinking. The same is not true of Catholic nominees: their faith often becomes center stage at the hearings.

Sometimes it gets really ugly, as when Senator Dianne Feinstein tried to smear prospective Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett. “When you read your speeches,” she said, “the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.”

This was not Feinstein’s first rodeo. In 2005, she questioned John Roberts about his suitability to sit on the Supreme Court. She specifically asked him if he shared President John F. Kennedy’s 1960 convictions about not mixing church and state. Other prospective federal judges who are Catholic have been subjected to the same line of questioning.

It must also be asked, why is it that nominees who are known secularists are not probed to learn if they harbor an animus against public displays of religious expression? Why is it always Catholics who are asked to explain themselves?

Now our Catholic Supreme Court Justices are under the microscope again, only this time liberal commentators are afraid they may not be Catholic enough!

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has filed an amicus in a case before the high court asking the Justices to reject the Trump administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship for some babies born in the U.S. Without addressing the merits of this case, what interests the Catholic League is the media reaction to the Catholics on the high court.

Maureen Groppe is a senior reporter for USA Today. A recent column she wrote says it all. “Will the Majority-Catholic Supreme Court Listen to the Church on Immigration?” She is particularly impressed that the USCCB is making a moral case against Trump’s position, as well as a legal case; the bishops branded it “immoral.”

The USCCB uses stronger language with regard to abortion. It labels it “intrinsically evil.” Yet when Catholic Justices overturned Roe v. Wade, sending the issue of abortion back to the states, pro-abortion groups blasted them and law journals ran articles about conflating religious convictions and legal reasoning. The American Bar Association held a webinar on this subject.

“Will the Majority-Catholic Supreme Court Listen to the Church on Same-Sex Marriage?” Imagine a news story on this subject that invites the reader to question the autonomy of Catholic Justices. Would USA Today run it?

We all have biases, but when it comes to being clueless about harboring them, no one beats liberals. They live in a world where their political thinking is constantly reinforced, leaving them hopelessly blind to their own prejudices.

Bill Donohue

We are asking New York State Attorney General Letitia James and New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg to investigate an apparent cover-up of sexual abuse that took place at Columbia University and New York-Presbyterian Hospital. The twin entities failed to adequately deal with a serial sexual abuser, Dr. Robert Hadden, and they have been able to get away with their delinquent decisions for far too long.

To read my letter to the two of them, click here.

Bill Donohue

There is nothing phobic about disliking someone, unless it is wholly irrational. For example, lots of people dislike New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, and with good reason: they find his policies to be downright inane, even dangerous. Yet he and his supporters never stop accusing his critics of “Islamophobia.”

A phobia is an “extreme or irrational fear or dislike of a specified thing or group.” The word should be used judiciously, and not trivialized. This certainly applies to Mamdani. Quite frankly, he and his backers are milking “Islamophobia” for political gain.

The latest iteration of Mamdani’s linguistic politics occurred after two Muslim men came to New York City from Pennsylvania armed with a cache of bombs looking for trouble. They wound up throwing them at anti-Mamdani protesters outside the mayor’s residence on March 7. Though the bombs did not detonate, the madmen told the cops they wanted the death count to be “even bigger” than the 2013 Boston marathon bombing.

Mamdani appeared more vexed by his non-violent foes than by his violent allies, accusing them of—you guessed it—“Islamophobia.” This is getting old. Consider the following.

Last year, a New York Post editorial noted that Mamdani “wrote and sang a rap song giving his ‘love’ to the Holy Land Five, American Hamas financers convicted and sent to prison for up to 65 years.” It was correct to say this has nothing to do with “Islamophobia.” It is a statement of fact.

Similarly, Jonathan Tobin, writing for the Jewish News Syndicate, warns us, “Don’t Fall for Mamdani’s Islamophobia Gaslighting.” He offers as proof a 9/11 example. “Muslims have been speaking as if they, and not the nearly 3,000 persons murdered by Islamists on that awful day, were the real victims of Al Qaeda’s assault on America.”

When Andrew Cuomo ran against Mamdani for mayor last year, Mamdani’s staffers claimed it was “Islamophobic” for the Cuomo team to shop a photo of their hero showing him with a “darker and thicker” beard. It apparently never occurred to them that it might have more to do with making him look grubby, and therefore unappealing.

We know that Mamdani lied when he said his aunt was afraid to wear her hijab after 9/11. His only aunt lived in Tanzania on 9/11 and photos of her show her without a hijab. The “aunt” he was referring to was actually his cousin. But the urge to deceive, to claim “Islamophobia,” proved to be irresistible.

Jonathan Greenblatt, the head of the ADL, said Mamdani never visited a synagogue. He was wrong about that. Most people would conclude he made a mistake. Yet the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the anti-Israeli Muslim civil rights group, called it “Islamophobia.”

Actor Michael Rapaport criticized Mamdani for eating at pricey restaurants while living in a rent-stabilized apartment. He was accusing him of hypocrisy, but that is not the way his fans saw it. They accused Rapaport of “Islamophobia.”

The Center for the Study of Organized Hate published a report the day before the mayoral election titled, “Islamophobia And The New York City Mayoral Election.” It was cited by many who are convinced this phobia is ubiquitous. On closer inspection, it fails miserably in making its case.

The Report boasts that “we focus on the overt Islamophobia that permeated and substantially increased from June 24 to October 31.” The document says, “we identified 35,522 original Islamophobic and xenophobic posts authored by 17,752 unique accounts on X.” The Report considers the following words used by Mamdani’s critics to be evidence of “Islamophobia.” “Extremist,” “Radical,” “Radical Muslim,” “Unamerican,” “Anti-American,” “Enemy,” and “New York Has Fallen.”

If using these words to describe Mamdani is phobic, what would we call it when he called Obama “evil”? Was he suffering from a phobia when he said, “Hasn’t Barack Obama shown that the lesser evil is still pretty damn evil?”

Mamdani may not like it when he is labeled an “extremist” or a “radical,” but those are the kinds of words that reasonable people use to describe someone who refuses to recognize the state of Israel; welcomes a pro-Hamas activist into his home; promotes a boycott of Israel; accuses Israel of “genocide”; and still refuses to condemn those who want to “globalize the intifada.”

The Communist Party USA is one of Mamdani’s leading cheerleaders. His frequent invocation of Marxist terms, calling for the “abolition of private property,” for instance, also gives just cause to those who see him as the “enemy.” His hatred of Columbus, and his refusal to march in the Veterans Day Parade, give rise to reasonable charges that he is “Anti-American.”

Mamdani’s primary campaign received lavish funding from CAIR: it funneled $100,000 to the largest pro-Mamdani PAC. No wonder many regard Mamdani as a radical Muslim—CAIR was named as a co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case; it provided over $12 million to Hamas.

By routinely hurling charges of “Islamophobia” at his critics, Mamdani and his supporters are trying to silence them, branding them as fear-mongers. But like the proverbial “boy who cried wolf,” they are overplaying their hand.

Bill Donohue

Last April, I wrote a scathing review of a book that smeared the Catholic Church, and Opus Dei, in particular. The following letter to the pope explains why I felt compelled to write to him.

March 18, 2026

Secretariat of His Holiness Pope Leo XIV
00120 Vatican City

Your Holiness:

Your service to the Catholic Church is appreciated the world over, by Catholics and by those who belong to other faith communities. It is in this vein that I write to you regarding your meeting on March 16 with Gareth Gore, the author of Opus: The Cult of Dark Money, Human Trafficking, and Right-Wing Conspiracy Inside the Catholic Church. After the meeting, Gore said that you found his book to be a “rigorous piece of work.”

I have no idea if this is true, or whether you actually had the time to read it. I read it and published my review in the April 2025 edition of Catalyst (see enclosed), the journal of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. I hasten to add that I am not a member of Opus Dei. I am a sociologist who has published twelve books, and I am president of the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization.

Quite frankly, Gore’s book is anything but rigorous. I labeled it “sloppy,” saying it is “strewn with hyperbole, innuendo and out-and-out falsehoods. Yet he had the audacity to say in an interview that his book is ‘100 percent correct.’” To cite one example, any author who portrays the late Cardinal George Pell as a pedophile is either ignorant or malicious. I detail many other examples of his irresponsible commentary.

“To be fair,” I concluded, “there are conspiratorial kooks on the right who claim bogeymen are trying to undermine America. However, they are mostly without effect, owing to their notorious stupidity. But those on the left, especially those who write books which appear to be well sourced, are not so easily identified. That’s why they are a much bigger  menace.”

I respectfully request that you take another look at Gore’s book. I honestly don’t want to see him take advantage of your goodwill.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

William A. Donohue, Ph.D.
President

Bill Donohue

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani made an 11th-hour decision to march in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade, an event he previously eschewed for political reasons. But he couldn’t resist bringing his politics to bear at a breakfast he hosted at Gracie Mansion, kicking off the St. Patrick’s Day festivities.

Mamdani’s obsession with demonizing Israel was on full display. He whined about the “deafening silence from so many” about the “genocide” in Palestine. Thus did he hijack St. Patrick’s Day celebrations by turning them into a radical Muslim rant.

He fooled no one by inviting the former president of Ireland, Mary Robinson, to be there. She is a hard-core leftist who not only sides with the enemies of Israel, she sides with the enemies of the Catholic Church on matters sexual.

Mamdani is a master of the politics of victimization. He delighted his left-wing Irish friends by saying, “The story of the Irish, both in Ireland and in New York City, is at one time a story of oppression, of subjugation, and of discrimination.”

This is the mentality of the Left. He sees oppression everywhere, nicely teeing it up for guys like him to rescue victims from their oppressors. I have news for him: This is a happy day for the Irish, and we do not take kindly to those who want to wallow in negativity, or to those who seek to exploit it for political capital.

By the way, this is an Irish Catholic day, something Mamdani refuses to acknowledge. We know why.

Contact his deputy communications director, Lekha Sunder: Lsunder@cityhall.nyc.gov

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.