Anti-Catholic Bigotry Alive and Well in DC

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on reddit
Share on delicious
Share on digg
Share on stumbleupon
Share on whatsapp
Share on email
Share on print

Just in time for Christmas:


The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority threw down the hammer on the Catholic Church last month when it rejected a rather benign Christmas ad for the Church’s website

The Church turned around and sued the DC Metro claiming a violation of First Amendment rights. The Archdiocese of Washington said it in a statement the ad “conveys a simple message of hope, and an invitation to participate in the Christmas season.”

The ad itself has no words with an overtly religious message. It shows a silhouette of shepherds gazing up at the stars. The ad mentions the website which has Mass times in the DC area as well as Christmas activities.

The website also encourages people to donate their time and treasure to help those who are less fortunate. There is a video promoting becoming involved in feeding the hungry through St. Maria’s Meals.

The Metro is hiding behind its 2015 policy which prohibits “issue-oriented advertising, including political, religious and advocacy advertising.” This policy is almost impossible to apply equally. The American Civil Liberties Union even took issue with these rules claiming they are “misguided and impossible to administer fairly” and previously sued the transit authority.

The Metro accepts advertisements for hookup websites but has become hostile towards the Archdiocese’s ad claiming it is offensive. Perhaps the Church’s ad would have been acceptable if Santa Claus was plastered all over it.

I guess it would be superfluous to observe that the DC government is completely controlled by Democrats?  The Democrat Party hates the Catholic Church and currently is none too fond of the First Amendment.

More to explorer

The True Meaning of Christmas

A Charlie Brown Christmas was first broadcast in 1965 on CBS.  I was 8 years old and I was stunned at the

Not Funny Professor

Melania is among the most opaque figures in our public life. One thing I’d bet the farm on, though, is that she’s

Saint of the Day Quote: Saint Crispina

ST. AUSTIN informs us, 1 that this glorious martyr was a lady of high birth, very rich, and engaged in the marriage


  1. Religion may be defined as man’s acknowledgement of The Supreme Sovereign Being in thought, word and deed and man’s acceptance of the gift of Faith from God.
    In acknowledging The Supreme Sovereign Being, man acknowledges the gift of sovereign personhood.
    Personality is who man becomes in his pursuit of Happiness, that is, in his pursuit of the TRUTH about God, nature and himself. Sovereign personhood is who man is endowed and brought into existence at conception. (Roe v. Wade never bore the burden of proof that the newly begotten sovereign person was not a person who institutes the state through his sovereign personhood and that his moral and legal innocence is the standard of Justice for the state)
    In acknowledging The Supreme Sovereign Being, Who exists and is Being, that is, Existence, the sovereign person who institutes the state acknowledges all other human beings endowed with sovereign personhood. Man’s acknowledgement of The Supreme Sovereign Being acknowledges the image of God in man: free will, intellect and moral conscience. The legal innocence of man’s sovereign personhood, that is, the discipline over himself, is established and recognized in that the laws of the state must accomplish the good will of man in Justice for the common good. Justice is the reward of having disciplined oneself in the TRUTH.
    Atheism is an ideology because the human being in his sovereign personhood rejects his Creator and refuses to accept the gift of Faith from God. Refusing to acknowledge The Supreme Sovereign Being, endower of all unalienable human rights, the atheist forfeits his own endowed human rights and the endowed, unalienable rights of all human beings, thereby infringing on the endowed human rights of all members of the community. In disallowing the unalienable human rights of all human beings, the self-proclaimed atheist, uses his God-give free will and sovereign personhood to deny his very being.
    Refusing to acknowledge the Supreme Sovereign Being and usurping those same endowed human faculties of intellect and free will to deny God is a leap of faithlessness that cannot be our legacy in good will for the common good to our constitutional Posterity.
    In the words of Mrs. Bullock in the film My Man Godfrey: “Why did I have to wait until now to discover that there is insanity in your father’s side of the family?”

  2. “In the words of Mrs. Bullock in the film My Man Godfrey: “Why did I have to wait until now to discover that there is insanity in your father’s side of the family?””
    This is shorthand for schizophrenia.

  3. The atheist, Madalyn Murray O’Hair thought that she had banned God from the public square. Many atheists believe that the atheist did. All the atheist did was prohibit the free exercise thereof to the citizens. As unconstitutional as the abuse of free will and as is treason to freedom.

  4. The source of this problem (like many others) may be found on the bench, at the bar, and in Democratic pols drawn from feminist and homosexualist constituencies. The first two have a grossly inflated conception of their proper role in formulating public policy and the last two cannot process opposition and are given to puerile displays. The two sets feed off each other.

  5. Art Deco.

    What you have brilliantly described is nothing short of a disease. A disorder that makes ill the body public.

  6. right on Mary DV – re: O’Hair thought she had banned God from the public square 🙂 God, pre-existing man, owns the public square. He by definition cannot be banned and indeed will make His ongoing presence felt.

  7. Forgive me for being so long…
    Dec 18 II The atheist is free to use his God-given free will to refuse the gift of Faith from God. The atheist is free to refuse to acknowledge his Creator. The atheist is free to deny The Supreme Sovereign Being, Who is existence.
    The atheist is not free to use his God-given free will to refuse to acknowledge the gift of Faith from God to the faithful. The atheist is not free to refuse to acknowledge “their Creator”; our “Creator”… from The Unanimous Declaration of Independence of the United States of America. The atheist is not free to deny The Supreme Sovereign Being, Who is existence, to any other sovereign person, inclusive

    The atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair did not exile The Supreme Sovereign Being from the public square. The public square belongs in joint and common tenancy to every sovereign person who institutes the state; the citizens of America.
    The atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair, through the power of the Supreme Court of the United State was enabled to remove the citizens’ freedom to exercise their religious freedom in the public square… “or prohibit the free exercise thereof…” The atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair did not, could not, remove The Supreme Sovereign Being from His creation. The atheist was able to remove God’s creation, herself, from God.

  8. Yes: A long history of Democratic Party anti-Catholic sentiment to which most Catholics are blissfully oblivious. From Nathan Bedford Forrest to Woodriw Wilson to Abu Obama and Shrillary.

    Or, shades of the ghost of Democrat, FDR-appointee, Supreme Court Justice, one-time member of the KKK and ardent Mason, Hugo Black. Black’s own son wrote about his father’s perduring bitter opposition to and distrust of the Catholic Church. Not a problem for FDR to make him a SCOTUS blackrobe.

    But most Catholics have drunk the Waters of Lethe regarding this history, re-igniting today, of the many historic Democratic Party icons, who were logical predecessors to the growing present-day bitter hatred. It is historically consistent in the party’s DNA.

  9. Mr. McClarey, you have made a little bit of a fool of yourself.

    1. WMATA is not an organ of the DC government. Republican Governor Larry Hogan has as much say over it as the Catholic Mayor of DC.

    2. There is no political party entitled “Democrat Party” on file at the FEC or the Register of Corporations.

    3. I think this particular decision was unfortunate. But It is a policy that was put into place to refuse ads that the same Archdiocese of Washington objected to. There is no evidence of anti-Catholic bias.

  10. Actually Kurt the DC Council appoints the two voting members from DC. Virginia, controlled by the Dems, appoints two voting members through the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission, dominated by Democrats. Maryland, controlled by the Dems, except for its governor, appoints two through the Washington Suburban Transit Commission. The Governor of Maryland appoints a grand total of one of the four members of that Commission. The only Republican involvement in the Washington Metro comes from the two Federal appointees, Trump replacing the Obama era holdovers in July.

    Democrats have been referring to the Democrat Party since the days of Andrew Jackson. For some reason they take umbrage when Republicans do it. I will be happy to refer to the Democratic Party when Democrats start referring to themselves as Democratics.

    Of course this decision is anti-Catholic, as indicated by the acceptance by the Washington Metro of a Red Kettle ad from the Salvation Army. I will let the right-wing radicals of the ACLU explain how this policy is of dubious constitutionality:

  11. The Democratic Party does NOT hate the Catholic Church. I have friends who are Catholics and love the Catholic Church AND happen to be Democrats. There are Republicans who hate the Catholic Church and there are Republicans who love the Church. I am very disappointed that “The American Catholic” would post such nonsense.

  12. I am often amazed at the cognitive dissonance of those who claim that one can be Democrat and a Catholic Christian – or even a Christian of any religious denomination for that matter. The Democratic Party Platform openly espouses homosexual marriage and abortion on demand. Both those things are intrinsic evil, and no matter how much the Democratic Party purports to serve the common good with its social justice programs, those are just a pretense – a facade – to conceal the evil that it advocates. That said, I dislike Republican hypocrisy as well and am reminded that the Psalmist advised us not to put our faith in the princes of this world. But any argument to say that Democrat “Catholics” (an oxymoronic term at best) love the Church is self-delusion at best. They may love our heretical Pontiff, Pope Francis (an Argentinian Marxist Peronist Caudillo). They may love the heresy that is Amoris Laetitia. They may love the demonic spirit (the smoke of Satan) of what is called Vatican II. But they do not love the Body of Christ, instead preferring largess from Caesar’s treasury over the Cross on which our Saviour was crucified and died. No. There is no way one can be a Christian and a Democrat. And it is increasingly difficult to be a Christian and a Republican. But whereas Republicans can be hypocritical and full of bluster without backing up what tthey say with action, rest assured that the Democrats are NOT hypocritical – they really truly do believe in homosexual marriage and abortion rights, and that makes them utterly vile, loathsome and evil. They are an infestation within and an infection on the Body of Christ, and only the Holy Spirit’s penicillin can eradicate this disease from Christ’s Bride.

  13. I have friends who are Catholics and love the Catholic Church AND happen to be Democrats.

    As you decided to declare other folks’ statements to be nonsense:
    How do they square the mandatory support for an intrinsic evil, abortion, with their religion?
    Furthermore, how do they justify supporting the political party that attempts to normalize sterilization, fornication, euthanasia, human experimentation, eugenics and forced support both direct and financially of the before-mentioned, with their proclaimed Catholic faith?

    I’ll take a wild guess: because “charity” on the cheap. Rather than sacrificing from their own pockets, they support the people who require that everyone do what your friends thing is best.

  14. Don, thank you for accepting my correction of your misstatement that WMATA is an organ of the DC government. And I certainly accept your point that bad grammar existed at the time of Andrew Jackson. Thankfully even then we had the Catholic school as its fierce opponent.

  15. Kurt, you’re the one who made that mis-statement.

    Don (correctly) pointed out that DC is Dem controlled, and when you first made your straw-man “correction,” he broke down each and every aspect to demonstrate the relevance of the original statement.

    This is why I love text based communication; the stuff is right there for anybody to see.

Comments are closed.