Tag: religion

Islam’s Sexual Predator Problem

California is canceling Cesar Chavez because of allegations that he sexually abused women. As a result, Cesar Chavez Day has been renamed Farmworkers Day, and streets, schools, plazas, and libraries named after him are being renamed.

In place of the alleged sexual predator, California is considering adding not just one but two Islamic holidays that will indirectly honor another sexual predator. Rather than using their Islamic names, which most Americans don’t know or understand, let’s call them Muhammad Day 1 and 2. According to hadith reports, which Muslims consider sacred, Muhammad, the founder and prophet of Islam, was a pedophile, a serial rapist, and a sex trafficker.

For those unfamiliar with hadith reports, they are collections of Muhammad’s actions and sayings. The best-known collection is that of Bukhari, who compiled over 500,000 reports. However, he considered only about 5,000 trustworthy and suitable for inclusion. In other words, he discarded 495,000 reports, yet deemed reports of Muhammad’s pedophilia, serial rape, and sex trafficking credible. Bukhari and other hadith collectors could have excluded them as embarrassing or damaging to Muhammad’s character or legacy. However, they were included because being a pedophile, rapist, and sex trafficker is apparently who Muslims are and what Muslims do.

Pedophile Muhammad

Muhammad married Aisha when she was six or seven, but he waited until she was nine to consummate the marriage. Aisha stated that she was playing on a swing with her friends when her mother or some women came and took her to a hut where she was decorated, and then taken to Muhammad for the consummation of the marriage. Aisha noted that at the time of the consummation, she was still playing with dolls. When he was raping Aisha, Muhammad was also married to Sauda, who was described as widowed, bulky, and fat, while Aisha was described as a virgin and beautiful. Although Muhammad was required to spend equal nights with his wives, Sauda gave her night to Aisha, who noted that one of her responsibilities was to rub, scrape, scratch, or wash the semen from Muhammad’s clothing.

Keep reading

Accused of Funding Hate Groups, Southern Poverty Law Center Has History of Targeting Christians

A federal grand jury in Montgomery, Alabama, indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center on 11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering. The DOJ alleges that between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC paid at least $3 million to individuals affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan, United Klans of America, Unite the Right, the National Alliance, the National Socialist Movement, the National Socialist Party of America, the Aryan Nations-affiliated Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club, and the American Front.

The payments were made through fictitious entities, including “Fox Photography” and “Rare Books Warehouse,” and the SPLC never disclosed this informant program to donors. One informant received more than $1 million while affiliated with the neo-Nazi National Alliance; another was the Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the charges alongside FBI Director Kash Patel, who had previously severed the bureau’s relationship with the SPLC, calling it a “partisan smear machine.” The SPLC reported over $800 million in assets as of 2024. Interim CEO Bryan Fair called the allegations false, saying the SPLC’s sources had “risked their lives” and provided information to the FBI that “saved lives.” The indictment does not allege that funds went directly to the hate groups themselves, only to affiliated individuals.

The indictment is the latest development in a long record of the SPLC using its “hate group” designation against Christian organizations, a pattern that produced real-world violence, a nationwide Catholic surveillance program, and the systematic exclusion of Christian ministries from donor platforms. The irony is that the vast majority of African Americans the SPLC purports to defend are themselves Christians, particularly in the South.

The SPLC designated the Family Research Council (FRC) as a hate group in 2010. In August 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins II entered FRC’s Washington headquarters armed with a 9mm pistol and multiple magazines. He told the FBI, “Southern Poverty Law lists anti-gay groups. I found them online, did a little research, went to the website, stuff like that.”

Prosecutors said his mission was to kill as many people as possible; a security guard was shot but stopped the attack. Corkins pleaded guilty to committing an act of terrorism while armed and was sentenced to 25 years in prison in 2013. FRC President Tony Perkins stated that Corkins “was given a license by a group such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, who labeled us a hate group because we defend the family and we stand for traditional, orthodox Christianity.” A decade after the attack, FRC remained on the SPLC hate map.

The SPLC also designated the Alliance Defending Freedom as a hate group, an organization founded in 1994 by Christian leaders, including James Dobson, Bill Bright, and D. James Kennedy, which has since secured 64 victories before the United States Supreme Court. Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III wrote in the Wall Street Journal that placing ADF alongside KKK chapters was “not only wrong, it’s malicious.”

Keep reading

UK Police Arrest a Pastor for Preaching the Gospel: A Disturbing Sign for Christian Free Speech

On April 18, 2026, in the town of Watford just outside London, British police handcuffed a Christian pastor for preaching the Gospel in public. Pastor Steve Maile, a 66-year-old minister with decades of experience, was standing in the town centre doing what has long been a normal part of British life—open-air preaching—when officers moved in, restrained him, and led him away in front of his wife and children. As he was being handcuffed, Maile continued to address the crowd, insisting, “You cannot arrest me. I am a preacher of the Gospel… There is no offense being committed here.” It was a striking moment, not only for those present but for the thousands who later watched the footage online.

What makes the incident particularly troubling is what followed. No charges were ultimately brought against Maile. The allegations, whatever they were, did not stand. Yet he was still detained for hours and placed on bail. In other words, a man engaged in peaceful religious expression was treated as a criminal, only for the legal basis of that treatment to evaporate shortly afterward. For many observers, that raises a fundamental question: if no crime was committed, why was such force deemed necessary in the first place?

Pastor Maile is not an unknown figure or a fringe agitator. He has spent more than 35 years in ministry, preaching in over 50 countries and working to establish churches and support Christian communities. Alongside his wife Karina, he founded Oasis City Church in Watford in 1999, raising a family and building a reputation rooted in outreach and evangelism. This background matters because it underscores the nature of the incident—this was not disorderly conduct or confrontation, but a continuation of a long-standing and peaceful religious practice.

Nor is this an isolated case. In November 2025, Pastor Dia Moodley was arrested in Bristol after engaging members of the public in a discussion about theology. He was detained for eight hours and subsequently banned from the city centre during the Christmas season. As with Maile, the circumstances involved speech rather than violence, yet the response from authorities was significant. Taken together, these incidents point to a broader pattern rather than a one-off misjudgment.

Across the United Kingdom, Christian street preachers—once a familiar and largely accepted presence—are increasingly being treated as potential public order concerns. Complaints from passers-by, even when based on disagreement rather than genuine harm, can trigger police intervention. Meanwhile, other forms of public expression, including those that are equally or more provocative, often appear to receive a more permissive response. Whether intentional or not, the perception of unequal treatment is growing, and perceptions like that can be as consequential as policy itself.

At the heart of the issue is the legal framework governing speech in the UK. Unlike the United States, Britain does not have a single, entrenched constitutional protection equivalent to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, it relies on a range of statutes, including the Public Order Act 1986, which grant authorities discretion to act when speech is considered offensive or disruptive. While such laws are intended to maintain public order, their broad wording leaves significant room for interpretation—and, critics argue, for inconsistent enforcement.

Keep reading

Egyptian Christian Could Face Death Penalty on Terrorism Charges for Criticizing Islam

Said Mansour Rezk Abdelrazek (also spelled Saeid Mansour Abdulraziq) is an Egyptian Christian convert from Islam currently on trial in Cairo on terrorism-related offenses. If found guilty, he could face the death penalty. Under Egypt’s counterterrorism law, founders and leaders of terrorist organizations are subject to the death penalty or life imprisonment.

He converted to Christianity in 2016 and joined the Russian Orthodox Church in Egypt, enduring family rejection, societal hostility, and police intimidation for sharing his faith publicly.

In 2018, he traveled to Russia, where he sought asylum and began publicly criticizing Islam. His online posts angered segments of Russia’s Muslim community, leading to his arrest and a one-year prison sentence. Russia then revoked his asylum and deported him to Egypt in 2024.

That deportation violated international law: the UNHCR had previously determined Abdelrazek qualified for international protection, and a Russian court had issued a binding order on July 17, 2024, prohibiting his deportation. Rights advocates condemn the move as illegal refoulement.

Upon arrival in Egypt, Egyptian authorities held him incommunicado for approximately ten days, then interrogated him about his religious beliefs, pressured him to reconsider his faith, asked him to monitor other converts, and ordered him to delete his social media accounts. Authorities released him with instructions not to speak publicly or proselytize.

In July 2025, he asked a lawyer to help him obtain new identification documents reflecting his Christian faith. He was arrested on July 15 at the Al-Matareiah police station in Cairo. On July 22, Egypt’s State Security Court charged him with “joining a terrorist organisation,” “stirring unrest,” and “spreading false news.”

His trial opened April 21, 2026, before Egypt’s First Criminal Terrorism Circuit in Badr. His legal team submitted motions requesting time to prepare a full defense; the court granted the adjournment and scheduled the next hearing for June 15.

Prosecutors accused Abdelrazek of establishing and leading an unlawful group, joining a banned organization, financing it, promoting beliefs deemed harmful to national unity and social peace, showing contempt for Islam, and challenging its fundamental principles. Apostasy, leaving Islam for another faith, is not formally codified as a crime in Egypt, but is often prosecuted under broadly defined security charges. The pattern spans multiple cases and years.

Keep reading

The Pope Is Right – The US-Israeli War With Iran Violates Just-War Theory

On April 10th, Pope Leo XIV posted on Twitter/X, “God does not bless any conflict. Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs. Military action will not create space for freedom or times of #Peace, which comes only from the patient promotion of coexistence and dialogue among peoples.”

The Pope’s condemnation of war drew the ire of the self-proclaimed “Peace President” and his allies. On TruthSocial, President Trump described the Pope as “Weak on Crime, Weak on Nuclear Weapons” and “terrible for Foreign Policy.” At a Turning Point USA event, Vice President J.D. Vance remarked, “When the pope says that God is never on the side of people who wield the sword, there is more than a 1,000-year tradition of just war theory.” Speaker of the House Mike Johnson was likewise “taken a little bit aback.” He told reporters, “It’s a very well-settled matter of Christian theology. There’s something called the just war doctrine.”

Yet just war is precisely the Pope’s point. As Bishop James Massa, the chairman of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine, said in a statement:

“For over a thousand years, the Catholic Church has taught just war theory and it is that long tradition the Holy Father carefully references in his comments on war. A constant tenet of that thousand-year tradition is a nation can only legitimately take up the sword ‘in self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2308). That is, to be a just war it must be a defense against another who actively wages war, which is what the Holy Father actually said: ‘He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.’

Ultimately, this appeal to Just War Theory by Vance and Johnson is a desperate retort from a historically sinful administration. To date, Trump has authorized military strikes in 10 countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Iran. Currently, the Pentagon is reportedly preparing for military action against Cuba – a nation that Trump has repeatedly threatened to “take.” This invasion would come months after the Trump administration imposed a total oil blockade that is causing widespread suffering and starvation there. No interpretation of Just War Theory would ever justify such rampant and senseless violence.

Keep reading

Rental ads detected in London excluding applicants based on religion and offering “Muslims only” housing, a practice under scrutiny for potential illegality under UK law

A new controversy has emerged in London after the discovery of rental listings that explicitly restrict access to housing based on religion. Several ads published on digital platforms and social media include phrases such as “Muslims only” or “Muslim girls only,” raising concerns about discrimination and legal compliance.

This is not an isolated case. Independent reviews have identified multiple examples of such listings, prompting legal experts to warn of potential violations of the Equality Act 2010, which governs equal treatment in the United Kingdom. The law clearly prohibits discrimination in housing based on religion, among other protected characteristics.

The issue lies in a particularly sensitive legal area. On one hand, the principle is clear: landlords cannot exclude tenants based on their faith. On the other, limited exceptions exist in shared housing situations, where lifestyle compatibility may be considered.

This is where ambiguity arises. Some listings may relate to rooms within occupied homes, where landlords seek tenants who align with certain customs or religious practices. However, legal experts emphasize that explicitly stating religious exclusion in advertisements can still breach the law.

The growth of digital platforms has made it easier for such listings to circulate without prior oversight. Online marketplaces, social media groups, and rental apps allow users to publish ads instantly, complicating enforcement efforts.

This trend comes amid intense pressure on London’s housing market. Limited supply and rising costs have created conditions where demand far exceeds availability, opening the door to irregular practices.

Equality advocacy groups are now calling for stronger institutional action. They argue that allowing discriminatory listings, even sporadically, risks normalizing behavior that undermines legal standards.

Keep reading

Biden administration sourced discredited SPLC to target Catholics, met with them at least 11 times at White House

The Biden administration worked hand-in-hand with the Southern Poverty Law Center, which was indicted on numerous fraud charges for funding the very “hate groups” they claimed to be fighting. The administration used documentation from the SPLC to target traditional Catholics and worked with the group prior to its adding parents groups to their so-called “hate map.”

The charges come after it was discovered that the group was clandestinely funding the very “hate groups” they told donors they were fighting. The group funded members of the KKK, Nazis, and those who were part of the leadership in organizing the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, VA.

In 2023, it was revealed that Biden’s FBI was relying on documentation from the SPLC to classify traditional Catholics as having an “adherence to anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ and white supremacist ideology.” The way these Catholics could be identified, per the FBI bulletin, was through their “rejection of the Second Vatican Council.” The sources cited on that bulletin include materials from the SPLC and that discredited group’s list of “Radical Traditional Catholicism Hate Groups.” 

In January 2023, as the Biden administration continued to declare that white supremacy and right-wing extremism were the biggest threats facing America, the SPLC’s director of their Intelligence Project, Susan Corke, met with the White House’s National Security Council’s counterterrorism director John Picarelli. It was shortly thereafter that the SPLC added Moms for Liberty, Parents Defending Education, and other parent groups to their “hate map.”

It turns out that the SPLC met with both Biden and his White House officials 11 times by 2023, which was just two years into his presidential term. The Biden administration brought the SPLC in to serve on their antisemitism coalition.

Multiple members of the SPLC, including LaShawn Warren, Brandon Jones who was the SPLC director of Political Campaigns, head of the board of directors Joseph Levin, board member Joshua Bekenstein, Kirsten Johnson of the SPLC’s Economic Justice Practice Group, and director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Mississippi state office Waikinya Clanton, all met with the Biden administration during his first two years in office.

Keep reading

Appeals Court Sides With Texas on 10 Commandments in Classroom, Overruling Lower Court

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state of Texas can require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public school classrooms, marking a victory for upholding the nation’s Christian foundation of the law.

The 9-8 decision overrules a preliminary injunction put in place by a federal district court judge in November, who concluded that “displaying the Ten Commandments on the wall of a public-school classroom as set forth in S.B. 10 [Senate Bill 10] violates the [First Amendment’s] Establishment Clause.”

The First Amendment says in part that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” But the Supreme Court has ruled that the Amendment’s protections apply to state law.

In the 5th Circuit’s majority opinion, Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote, “To Plaintiffs, merely exposing children to religious language is enough to make the displays engines of coercive indoctrination. We disagree.”

“S.B. 10 authorizes no religious instruction and gives teachers no license to contradict children’s religious beliefs (or their parents’). No child is made to recite the Commandments, believe them, or affirm their divine origin.”

Keep reading

UK Blocks Entry for Anti-Islam Politician

The Home Office’s decision to block Valentina Gomez from entering the UK ahead of a next month’s London rally has re-opened the debate over free speech and government overreach. Gomez, a US-based anti-Islam commentator, had planned to speak at the “Unite the Kingdom” march on 16 May. However, the Home Office has now revoked her electronic travel authorisation, saying her presence is “not conducive to the public good”. The ban followed pressure from Muslim organisations and political figures who pointed to her previous remarks on muslims and immigration.

Gomez is a 26-year-old Christian conservative originally from Colombia. Last week, her Electronic Travel Authorisation was approved, but the Home Office revoked her permit on April 20th. Reports suggest that officials acted after renewed scrutiny of remarks she made during a similar appearance in London in 2025, where she delivered “inflammatory” comments about Islam and immigration. It’s also reported that Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood personally intervened to revoke the permission.

In its April 17 open letter, the Muslim Council of Britain urged the Home Secretary to revoke Valentina Gomez’s entry permission on the grounds that allowing her into the UK to speak at a Tommy Robinson rally showed “double standards” in how the government applies freedom of speech and entry rules. The MCB argued that Gomez’s past anti-Islam rhetoric risked making the UK’s streets “less safe”, and said others had previously been denied entry for inflammatory remarks aimed at different faith groups, making her case appear inconsistent by comparison. Its core case was therefore not only that Gomez was divisive, but that admitting her would signal uneven enforcement of the public-interest test used in immigration decisions.

The “Unite the Kingdom” marches have become a focal point for a growing anti-establishment constituency centred on immigration, Islam, public disorder and distrust of political institutions. The European Conservative reported that more than 100,000 people attended the September 2025 London march, presenting it as one of the largest demonstrations of its kind in recent years, though crowd figures at such events are often disputed.

The decision to exclude Gomez sits awkwardly with the UK’s self-image as a country committed to open political speech. It is one thing to prosecute criminal conduct or incitement; it is another to use border powers to decide which foreign political voices may be heard on contentious public questions. Once that principle is applied, the state is no longer merely keeping order. It is deciding, in advance, which arguments are too dangerous to enter the country. That is a serious threshold for a liberal democracy to cross.

Keep reading

The IDF’s Attack on Christ Reveals a Larger Pattern

Many political figures have weighed in on the latest IDF controversy this week, as images posted online clearly depict an Israeli soldier taking what appears to be a sledgehammer to the face of a statue of Jesus Christ in southern Lebanon. The IDF issued a statement condemning the attack, saying the soldier’s actions were “wholly inconsistent with the values expected of its troops,” and adding that a criminal investigation would be launched, assuring there would be “harsh disciplinary action” against those involved. But we’ve seen this movie before.

First, I would be remiss not to mention the hypocrisy of the situation. Israel has killed thousands of civilians in southern Lebanon since the major escalation resumed and has displaced over 1.2 million Lebanese civilians, according to the Lebanese Health Ministry and disaster management agencies. But predictably, the IDF has not issued a single statement condemning the civilian deaths or displacement of Lebanon’s citizens. The IDF has shown a consistent tolerance for the havoc wreaked upon Lebanese civilians, yet when faced with damaging PR from a vile attack on a statue of Jesus, they move almost immediately to condemn it — because Benjamin Netanyahu knows he cannot afford to lose favor in the predominantly Christian West.

The theme behind the IDF’s statue attack becomes even more apparent when you consider how Christians are treated in Israel today, where they are often met with violence or harassment. In 2025, there were reportedly more than 155 attacks against Christians in Israel, ranging from physical assaults to the vandalism of churches, according to the Rossing Center for Education and Dialogue. Notably, this marks a sharp increase from 2024, when 111 incidents were reported.

The treatment of Palestinian Christians has been far worse, with both Israeli settlers and IDF soldiers carrying out relentless attacks and mass displacements of Christian communities in Palestine. These actions are often dismissed as unrelated to religion, but the pattern suggests otherwise.

Keep reading