Christian Persecution: White House Petition Labels Catholic Church a Hate Group

When my Grandmother was totally flabbergasted, she would say, “If that don’t beat hens apeckin’ on  a hot griddle.”

I never knew exactly what that meant, since I had never seen hens apeckin’ on a hot griddle, but I got the gist of it from the situation and her tone.

That’s somewhat how I felt when I learned that a hater or haters out there had decided to put a petition on the White House web site asking the President to label the Catholic Church a “hate group.” The reason? The Catholic Church supports traditional marriage and that, as some people want us to believe, means that it is a hate group.

The press has already done a fine job of promoting this viewpoint. Anti-Christian propaganda of one sort or another is on most commercial channels on a regular basis. They have also done an even more aggressive job of promoting same-sex marriage.

This petition is a publicity stunt with the same motives: To create public hatred of Catholics and Catholicism and engender a culture in which discrimination against them is tolerated, and, as time goes by, codified into law. This petition has no official status … now. But the attitude it comes from is gaining power and beginning to move into legal changes, even as I type this. The HHS Mandate is perhaps the most egregious example.

Please be aware that this is NOT an official government action, and it has not been approved by the White House. These petitions come from the public. Any of us can start one. There is, for instance, a petition on this site asking the president to resign. (It only has a few signatures, and I am NOT suggesting that anyone who reads this should rush over there and sign it. That would be hateful and mean spirited. We need to focus on defending our rights in a positive manner.)

You can find the petition on the White House web site. If you want to, you can see the names of people who’ve signed it. I think I saw the names of a couple of people I know on there. Again, no one should be harassed for exercising their rights as free citizens to make public jerks of themselves by signing things like this petition.

This is the petition.


Officially recognize the Roman Catholic Church as a hate group.

In his annual Christmas address to the College of Cardinals, Pope Benedict XVI, the global leader of the Roman Catholic Church, demeaned and belittled homosexual people around the world. Using hateful language and discriminatory remarks, the Pope painted a portrait in which gay people are second-class global citizens. Pope Benedict said that gay people starting families are threatening to society, and that gay parents objectify and take away the dignity of children. The Pope also implied that gay families are sub-human, as they are not dignified in the eyes of God.

Upon these remarks, the Roman Catholic Church fits the definition of a hate group as defined by both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League.

Created: Dec 25, 2012





A account is required to sign Petitions.


If you’re logged in, but having trouble signing this petition, click here for help.

  • Dee

    Just to clarify who creates these petitions, it’s citizens who go to the White House’s gov website, click on the petition button and then click on the button to create a petition. If you see what some of the petitions are for, you’ll know so many of them will be ignored by the gov as senseless. What started out as a way, a means for people to tell gov what’s important to them has been hijacked by people, extremists, who have their own agenda. There’s too much hate and division happening within this country. And people’s wanting to start such a petition shows it. We could start our own petition to try to fight it, as if it’d do any good since there are too many haters, dividers out there now.

  • Martha Krieger

    I wonder if these people have any idea how many Catholics are Democrats in high places, the VP is supposed to be one, John Kerry another, Nancy Pelosi, the Kennedy’s, other ‘esteemed’ congressmen
    and senators. These are members of a ‘hate group’? Oh, why don’t these idiot petitioners grow up. If they want to take the slippery slop to hell, it’s their choice, but naming anyone opposed to their ideas as members of a hate group is not only juvenile but unAmerican. Actually, I’d have to classify them as a hate group.

  • Petro

    Hatred of Catholics and Catholicism has been an ongoing theme throughout the history of the United States. It has taken different forms from the anti-clerical writings of some of the founding fathers to the burning of crosses on the lawns of Catholic churches in the South and Jack Chick tracts. I suppose that maybe some forgot about some of this because Catholics hold some political and economic power. Nevertheless, I guarantee that you could find at least one neighboring Christian church in which you’d hear some interesting thoughts about the Church, just as you might at a meeting of atheists.

  • Bill S

    In regard toward its attitude toward gays, the Catholic Church does meet the criteria. I’ve said more on the subject but my comments were deleted.

  • Bill S

    I take that back. My comment was not deleted.

  • Sue N

    A hate group because is doesn’t believe what others do. How about labeling gays, and the ACLU as hate groups against Christians. Christians don’t hate gays.

    • Sus

      Gay don’t hate Christians. At least the ones I know don’t.

      They hate that Christians don’t want gays to have the same rights as Christians do. Kind of like “love the sinner, hate the sin”.

      • Dave

        They do have the same rights as everybody else does already. Part of loving the sinner means that you want to encourage them to stop sinning, not to redefine sin as good. By the way, a homosexual temptation is just a temptation. There is nothing wrong with a person for having those temptations. They simply have different temptations than most people do.

        This is one of those issues where a person has to decide if they are going to follow the constant teaching of God to His people all the way from the Old Testament to current times, or whether they are going to follow the easy way of the world.

  • grammasheila

    When man takes it upon himself to decide he knows better than God, what ensues is nothing but a mess. There is nothing hateful in the Pope’s speech. I actually read it.
    “TRUTH is the new hate speech.”

  • Pingback: <b>Christian Persecution</b>: White House Petition Labels Catholic Church <b>…</b> | Christian News

  • Pingback: Christian Persecution: White House Petition Labels Catholic Church a Hate Group – Patheos (blog) | Christian News

  • Bill S

    “They hate that Christians don’t want gays to have the same rights as Christians do. Kind of like “love the sinner, hate the sin”.”

    In a tolerant society, homosexuality is not looked at as a sin. Muslim and Christian religious fanatics look at it as a sin. Mental health professionals do not see it as any kind of illness or disorder. They are the ones that you should listen to, not the Church, the Pope or any other bigots.

    • Dave

      If God exists, we have to listen to Him as to what He says is a sin. If God doesn’t exist, there is no such thing as sin or mental disorder, except in our own minds.

      Why should we listen to the majority opinion of mental health professionals now, when they can’t even make up their own mind? The majority opinion now was not the majority opinion 50 years ago, and in 50 more years, who knows?

    • Ted Seeber

      In a tolerant society, Catholic beliefs are tolerated. What you are creating is a society based on hate.

  • Bill S

    “If God exists, we have to listen to Him as to what He says is a sin.”

    And as a country, we have to prohibit people from sinning? I don’t think that is conducive to promoting a free and open society.

    • Ted Seeber

      You have proven to me that we don’t have a free and open society by my definition of freedom. What we have is a group of rebellious teenagers who think they want freedom, but actually want to destroy the world.

      • Bill S

        Yes. Being tolerant to gay marriage will destroy the world. Speaking of teenagers, they are pretty sharp and can see right through hipocrisy. The Church has lost them as potential votes in the future. If it keeps up its fight against gays, it will lose a whole generation that has been taught tolerance and how not to encourage hate groups.

        • Dave

          “If it keeps up its fight against gays, it will lose a whole generation that has been taught tolerance and how not to encourage hate groups.”

          It is NOT fighting against gays. It is fighting to protect marriage. That is like saying those who favor laws protecting property are bigots against kleptomaniacs.

          If the Church loses a whole generation (1/3 have already been lost, to abortion), so be it. The Church’s job is not to craft the content of its message to gain the most followers. Christ did not do that, and neither will His Church. Tolerance does not equal capitulation to bad public policy. Gays are already tolerated.

        • jsweeney

          Hate the sin Love the sinner. Be on GOD “s side,do not have him on yours.

        • Sus

          Bill, I completely agree with you. Our young people are going to reject churches who do not want to allow same sex marriage. There are lots of schools going after bullying via programs which promote being nice and friendly to people who are different than you are. A side effect of that our kids are including gay people in that equation. They don’t want to hear that a church is rejecting people.

          The church was in trouble before SSM, and this issue is doing nothing to help.

          • Dave

            Being against SSM is not equal to rejecting people. Only a simpleton could think they are one and the same. Unfortunately, most people seem to be simpletons nowadays.

            • Dave

              For example, if I have a son who is a kleptomaniac, and he thinks it is unfair that he can’t just take what he likes, am I rejecting him if I tell him I cannot support his desire to demolish property laws, because those laws hurt his feelings?

              We have to decide whether certain actions are wrong/sinful or not. You (pro-SSM people) decide some actions are wrong. Does that mean you reject people who do those actions? I sure hope not. Jesus did not approve of adultery. Did he reject the woman caught in adultery? No.

              Hopefully, now you can see why I used the term “simpleton.”

              • Sus

                Stealing is against the law. Loving someone and wanting to spend your life with them isn’t against the law.

                I’m going back to my silence on this issue. It’s just too upsetting and messes me up in the head with the Church. I end up feeling guilty for exposing my children to the Catholic Church. It goes against my grain.

                • Dave

                  The point here isn’t whether we agree about the wrongness of a certain action or not. The point is that you can believe that someone is doing something wrong and still love them. Believing that someone is doing something wrong and telling them the truth does not mean that you reject them.

                  Also, whether something is “against the law” or not is not the determinant of whether something is right or wrong. It kind of scares me that you seem to imply that it is.

                  • Sus

                    I was responding to your comment about a son being a kleptomaniac. Nothing to be scared about.

  • Bill S

    “It is NOT fighting against gays. It is fighting to protect marriage.”

    It’s like saying: “we are not fighting against women, we are fighting to protect basketball” when your school proposes to start a women’s basketball team. No one is threatening the men’s basketball team.

    Same with gays and straights. There is something sinister in this.

    • Dave

      As long as there was something intrinsic about basketball which precluded the use of women, it would be fine to exclude them. But there isn’t. However, there is something intrinsic about marriage which limits it to the union of a man and a woman. To reason together, we must first answer the questions, “What is marriage?” and “Why does the state have an interest in marriage?”

  • Bill S

    “To reason together, we must first answer the questions, “What is marriage?” and “Why does the state have an interest in marriage?””

    Personal freedoms have nothing to do with meeting state interests. The state exists for its citizens, not the other way around. No one has to “reason together” to decide whether or not to allow people to live their lives as they see fit as long as they do not hurt or otherwise negatively affect anyone else. Married same sex couples do neither.

    • Dave

      I have noticed on many (actually, all) discussions when this issue is brought up that SSM advocates carefully AVOID the questions of “what is marriage?” and “why does the state have an interest in marriage?” What does that tell you when people are advocating for something, yet they wish to avoid defining what that “something” is?

      Someone does not have to be allowed to marry in order to live their life as they see fit. If I was not allowed to marry, it would not affect the personal freedom of my wife and I at all. And…you have assumed that they do not negatively affect anyone else. This point is not granted.

  • Bill S

    “Someone does not have to be allowed to marry in order to live their life as they see fit.”

    The Church doesn’t have to allow or prohibit anything except for its own members. Some (not all) Catholics allow the Church to tell them what they can and can’t do. That is the limit of its authority. It seeks to expand its authority by telling the members (who will listen to it) how to vote so as to try to control others through their government. Americans are wise to this.

    • Dave

      The Church is there to propose, not impose. If the majority of people want same-sex marriage, we will have it. But I don’t think we will like the results – that is why we struggle to preserve marriage.

      Looking at the history of destruction of institutions and ideas that have served us well for thousands of years, we’ll have the “What could it hurt?” phase (which we are currently in, with regards to SSM) and then we’ll have the “How were we supposed to know?” phase.

      • Bill S

        Fine. The party line for Catholics is that SSM will somehow affect traditional marriage, so Catholics should vote against it when it comes up on a referendum. I get it.