The Associated Press recently ran a story on the collapse of the Methodist church. It has lost roughly half its membership since the 1960s, and it is now at another turning point as many more are threatening to leave.

It is not alone. As the story notes, “the United Methodist Church is also the latest of several mainline Protestant denominations in America to begin fracturing, just as Episcopal, Lutheran and Presbyterian denominations lost significant minorities of churches and members this century amid debates over sexuality and theology.”

In other words, the more “relevant” a church is—meaning the more it changes its teachings to mirror the norms and values of the dominant culture—the more irrelevant it becomes to its congregants.

The Catholic League’s recent survey of Catholics, ably done by McLaughlin & Associates, found that six-in-ten said that those religions that tailored their teachings to what is popular went too far; this explains why they are losing members so quickly.

Also, a majority of Catholics think that sticking to principles and beliefs matters greatly. In fact, 66% of Catholics said that whether they agreed with most positions in the Catholic Church, or differed on some issues, the Church should not change its principles because of public opinion.

Catholics should learn from Protestants: being trendy is a recipe for suicide.

Any man who helps to kill his mother is capable of invoking the Bible to justify killing children. That man is California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

On September 15, he tweeted, “To any woman seeking an abortion in these anti-freedom states: CA will defend your right to make decisions about your health.”

This was a master spin job. States that pass laws protecting the right of an unborn baby to enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence, which includes the unalienable right to life, are labeled “anti-freedom.” Moreover, pregnant women who agree to abort their baby are, according to Newsom, making decisions about their own health, not decisions about the health of their baby.

Newsom didn’t settle for a tweet. On social media he showed pictures of billboards going up in Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Indiana, Ohio, South Carolina, and South Dakota. “Texas doesn’t own your body” is an example. A total of 18 pro-abortion billboards are being erected.

As vile as these billboards are, they are nothing compared to the ones slated for Mississippi and Oklahoma. Those billboards include a passage from Scripture: “Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no greater commandment than these.” Mark 12:31

This is not in bad taste—it is demonic. To advertise in other states for women to come to California to have their children killed—in the name of God—is demonic.

This is not the first time Newsom has engaged in behavior that can properly be called evil.

In May, 2002, his mother decided to end her life via assisted suicide. Newsom recalled, “She left me a message, because I was too busy. ‘Hope you’re well. Next Wednesday will be the last day for me. Hope you can make it.'”

According to his sister, Hilary, who has a cassette of what was said, he was consumed with his own well-being, not his mother’s. After he crossed his arms and jammed his hands into his armpits, he said, “I have P.T.S.D., and this is bringing it all back.” It was all about himself.

Newsom explained his role in his mother’s death with aplomb. “The night before we gave her the drugs, I cooked her dinner, hard-boiled eggs, and she told me, ‘Get out of politics.’ She was worried about the stress on me.”

This account has been ignored by the media.

Ordinarily, it’s a nice gesture when a son cooks dinner for his ailing mother. But what kind of man cooks dinner for his mother before putting her down? The same kind of man who invokes the Bible to entice women from out of state to come to California to get rid of their unborn babies.

If this isn’t bad enough, right on the heels of this story, another one surfaced making Newsom look just as bad.

Illegal aliens who crash our borders can find sanctuary in California.

On September 29, Newsom signed a bill, sponsored by a homosexual activist and state senator, Scott Wiener, that legally shields parents and young people who come to California for sex-reassignment surgery from being penalized in their home state. The goal is to undercut the right of states to ban this form of child abuse.

On August 30, California lawmakers heard the testimony of Chloe Cole, an 18-year-old girl who described what happened to her when she was 15. At the time she was considering transition surgery.

“My parents were told that the options were transition or suicide. They complied because they were not offered any other treatment solution for my distress. My distraught parents wanted me alive, so they listened to my doctors. I was placed on puberty blockers and testosterone after expressing my gender dysphoria to my therapists, and I was approved for a double mastectomy all by the age of 15.”

She then got pointed. “Who here really believes that as a 15-year-old, I should have had my healthy breasts removed or that should have been an option? SB 107 will open the floodgates for confused children like me to get the gender interventions that many so regret. I am the canary in the coal mine.”

No professionals were there to counteract the advice she and her parents were given.

“So I easily fell prey to the narrative that if I felt different and did not want to be a highly sexualized girl, I must be a boy. I obsessed over becoming a boy. I believed that all my insecurities and anxiety would magically disappear once I transitioned. The mental health professionals did not try to dissuade me of this delusional belief. I was fast-tracked into medical transition after I was diagnosed with dysphoria in California.”

The day after this young woman told her story, the state senate voted 30-9 to make California a sanctuary state for transgender youth and their families. Every Democrat voted for it and every Republican voted against it. And now Gov. Newsom has made it official.

Newsom ranks among the most dangerous governors in America, yet that doesn’t stop him from seriously considering a run for president. Time will tell.

The National Education Association (NEA) is the largest labor union in the nation, representing more than three million teachers and administrators. It is also a decidedly left-wing organization, and as such often evinces a hyper-critical perspective of the United States, and Western civilization, in general. Its frontal assault on Columbus is one such example.

Go to the NEA’s website and type in “Columbus” in the search engine. Guess what pops up? “Resources for Teaching About Indigenous Peoples.” There you will find information about people who migrated to America—just like the rest of us. These “indigenous peoples” came from Asia. We know them as American Indians.

The NEA has lots of resources for teachers on Columbus and the Indians, the most prominent of which is the Zinn Education Project. It is named after historian Howard Zinn, a man who hated America with a passion, so much so that he became a member of the Communist Party. He wrote the best-selling volume, A People’s History of the United States, the most dishonest book on American history ever written.

“Abolishing Columbus Day.” That is the goal of the Zinn Education Project, as stated on its website. It is a quick tutorial, but it is no substitute for Zinn’s famous textbook.

Mary Grabar is the author of Debunking Howard Zinn. The subtitle says it all: Exposing the Fake History That Turned a Generation against America.

One way Zinn created his false history is by selectively quoting from what Columbus said. His account is laced with ellipses, glaring omissions from the exact words written by Columbus. Grabar offers many examples of this sleight of hand, saying these “omissions are essential to Zinn’s dishonest retelling of the Columbus story. By leaving crucial words out of the quotation, Zinn makes Columbus say something very different from what he actually said.”
Just as bad, Zinn lifted much of what he said about Columbus from a book written by his radical friend, Hans Koning. The problem with that rendering is that “Koning was not a Columbus scholar any more than Zinn was. In fact, he was not even a historian, while Zinn was at least a college professor.”

Worse, “Koning’s slim volume does not cite any sources (our italic).”

As the author of many books, Bill Donohue can say without equivocation that no author of a non-fiction book should ever be taken seriously if he does not cite his sources. This is doubly true when the author seeks to counter the conventional wisdom on the subject. So when Christopher Hitchens wrote a 99-page book slamming Mother Teresa, offering not a single source to back up his libelous claims, Donohue told him to his face that he was not a scholar and cannot be taken seriously.

Zinn would have the reader believe that the Indians were doing just fine before the white man came along. Never once does he attempt to explain why many tribes engaged in savage warfare against each other (the Hurons and the Iroquois are one of many examples), nor does he discuss cannibalism, human sacrifice, and other acts of cruelty that existed before the Europeans arrived.

Just as important, Zinn does not comment on all of those Indians that helped the Europeans win by defecting to their side. They had had enough with the butchery they experienced at the hands of some tribes. None of this is taught to students.

Grabar notes that the Zinn Education Project has a role-playing exercise for students as young as elementary school. One of the questions is whether European life, called the “System of Empire,” made violence inevitable. “In effect such a trial is a show trial,” says Grabar, “with a jury of naive children who are manipulated by their teachers.”

She closes with the following observation. “It is Zinn’s book that should be put on trial. If the historian lies, there is no defense.”

If Zinn was a liar, what does that make the NEA? It is actively peddling his malicious falsification of American history.

A new American Family Survey found that when it comes to sex education in the schools, and related issues, liberal Democrats are the outliers—they are so far removed from the thinking of the average American that it is startling.

When asked if the schools are spending too little time discussing sexual orientation and gender identity, only liberal Democrats agree. That view is in the minority: most moderate Democrats, moderate Republicans and conservative Republicans do not believe the schools are spending too little time on these subjects.

Should transgender athletes (typically biological men who have “transitioned” to a woman) be allowed to compete against female athletes? Most Republican conservatives (90 percent) disagree. Among most moderate Republicans, 71 percent disagreed while moderate Democrats and Independents are both split 50-50 on this issue. The figure jumps to 77 percent for liberal Democrats who are okay with males competing with females.

Should biological boys be allowed to use the girls’ bathroom? A majority (59 percent) of liberal Democrats are in agreement, saying bathroom choice should be up to the student; however, most moderate Democrats, Independents, moderate Republicans and conservative Republicans disagree.

The moral compass used by liberal Democrats is foreign to that of most Americans. They are the true outliers. Unfortunately, they have outsized influence in running our institutions.