Paul Ryan’s Lame Critics – OpEd


The secular left is more terrified of religion than it is STDs, and indeed it treats people of faith as if they harbored some deadly infectious disease. Witness the hyperventilating over Rep. Paul Ryan’s statement of faith following the Texas killings.

When asked by Laura Ingraham to comment on what happened at the Texas church on Sunday, Ryan said, “The right thing to do is pray in moments like this because you know what? Prayer works!” He also said the “secular left” doesn’t get it. “People who don’t have faith, don’t understand faith.”

Everything Ryan said is true and none of it is controversial, unless, of course, it is interpreted through the lens of the secular left.

Huffington Post got so excited that it condemned Ryan for doing nothing, “especially after reportedly receiving more than $170,000 in contributions from gun rights groups in 2016.” (Its emphasis.)

Atheist blogger Hemant Mehta made another one of his middle-school observations, saying, “That’s what Paul Ryan has to offer the nation. A giant, steaming bowl of jack s***. And he wants credit for that meal because he says grace before gulping it down.”

Think Progress showed how theologically astute it is by exclaiming, “Ryan’s sentiment is also at odds with the teachings of Jesus.”

Ryan, of course, was simply noting the necessity of prayer “in moments like this.” He never said, or implied, that it was a necessary and sufficient response to this tragedy.

One quibble with Ryan. He is too generous in his comment that “People who don’t have faith, don’t understand faith.” There are lots of people who don’t have faith, and don’t understand the faithful, but they are respectful of us nonetheless. The ones condemning him are haters, pure and simple.

William Donohue

William Donohue is the current president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights in the United States, and has held that position since 1993.

One thought on “Paul Ryan’s Lame Critics – OpEd

  • November 8, 2017 at 3:42 pm

    Ryan’s faith would more believable if it was based on something other than Ayan Rand’s Objectivism.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *