Church Attacks Increase 800% in 6 Years

[Vambram]

https://washingtonstand.com/news/church-attacks-increase-800-in-6-years-frc-report

If you believe anti-Christian attacks have skyrocketed over the last decade, you’re right. Attacks on churches have increased 800% in less than six years — and more than doubled over the last year, according to a new report released today by Family Research Council. Documented acts of anti-church hostility include attempted bombings, shootings, satanic vandalism, and numerous attacks based on anti-Christian bias due to support for abortion or extreme transgender ideology. Some constituted unpunished election interference.

The report identified 915 acts of hostility against churches between January 2018 and November 2023, including:

• 709 acts of vandalism
• 135 completed or attempted arsons
• 32 bomb threats
• 22 gun-related incidents
• 61 other incidents, including assault, threats, and interruption of worship services.

These acts of “religious intimidation” send the message “that churches are not wanted in the community or respected in general,” Arielle Del Turco, who authored the report, told The Washington Stand. “Regardless of the motivations of these crimes, everyone should treat churches and all houses of worship with respect and affirm the importance of religious freedom for all Americans.”

The report shows that church attacks, and acts of violence, continued to explode in 2023. During the first 11 months of last year, researchers verified at least 436 acts of hostility against U.S. churches — more than double the number of attacks in all of 2022, including:

• 315 acts of vandalism
• 75 completed or attempted arsons
• 20 bomb threats
• 10 gun-related incidents
• 12 instances of satanic graffiti
• 59 churches faced repeated acts of hostility

These statistics likely understate the extent of the problem, because “[m]any acts of hostility against churches are likely not reported to authorities and/or are not featured in the news or other online sources from which we collected data,” says the report. “[T]he number of acts of hostility is undoubtedly much higher.”

Acts of anti-church hostility blanketed the country in 2023, taking place in 48 states and Washington, D.C. California experienced the largest number of incidents, with 91. Texas churches endured 62 incidents; New York had 58; and Florida had 47.

“The rise in hostility we identified in our December 2022 report has neither slowed nor plateaued; rather, it has accelerated,” says the new report. “The rise in crimes against churches is taking place in a context in which American culture appears increasingly hostile to Christianity. Criminal acts of vandalism and destruction of church property may be symptomatic of a collapse in societal reverence and respect.”

The raw numbers paint a grim picture of escalating anti-Christian action boiling over into bigoted action. The report totals:

• 50 acts of hostility against churches in 2018
• 83 in 2019
• 55 in 2020
• 96 in 2021
• 195 in 2022
• 436 in 2023

 

[JustOneWay]

Most of the attacks (70%) were vandalism against structures.

How is this topic political? Again, no direction from the OP.

 

[iluvatar5150]

These numbers don’t pass the sniff test. About the only thing that climbs that quickly are tech stocks and crypto (it works out to an annual growth rate of 41%). I skimmed over the FRC report and didn’t see anywhere where they describe their methodology. The best I can infer from what they did explain is that they got their numbers from compiling news reports. The problem with that method ought to be obvious to anyone who’s ever complained about media bias or selective reporting.

 

[MForbes]

The problem with that method ought to be obvious to anyone who’s ever complained about media bias or selective reporting.

The FRC is biased and practices selective reporting? NAW......say it ain't so!!!!

 

[A2SG]

These numbers don’t pass the sniff test. About the only thing that climbs that quickly are tech stocks and crypto (it works out to an annual growth rate of 41%). I skimmed over the FRC report and didn’t see anywhere where they describe their methodology. The best I can infer from what they did explain is that they got their numbers from compiling news reports. The problem with that method ought to be obvious to anyone who’s ever complained about media bias or selective reporting.

Church not vandalized, film at 11.

-- A2SG, and later, an update on the ongoing lack of burglaries...

 

[iluvatar5150]

The FRC is biased and practices selective reporting? NAW......say it ain't so!!!!

I was actually being nice to FRC here. If all they did was look at newspapers, and if they accurately tabulated all of the news reports, but newspapers did an inconsistent (at best) job of reporting on things like this, then the FRC’s numbers will be skewed, because the data set on which they were relying was skewed.

Of course, I trust the FRC about as far as I can throw them, but I don’t even have to impugn them in order to point out the flaws in this report.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Church not vandalized, film at 11.

-- A2SG, and later, an update on the ongoing lack of burglaries...

Skimming over the report, they appeared to have enumerated and cited each incident they counted. To their credit, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a paper do that.

 

[DaisyDay]

Some constituted unpunished election interference.

How so?

This, “election interference” seems to be the buzzword du jour, catch-all accusation.

 

[Fantine]

You fail to mention the mosques and synagogues...

Our far-right governor has a grants fund for security for religious organizations. She gave out four--one synagogue, one mosque, two Catholic churches (one owned by monks.)

Looks like you've been looking for hate in all the wrong places. But don't fear. There is new AI technology that can serve as an unseen metal detector for your church.

My school district is purchasing it. It's expensive to protect the rest of us from the excesses of the Second Amendment extremists, but money that must be spent. Ugh.

 

[iluvatar5150]

How so?

This, “election interference” seems to be the buzzword du jour, catch-all accusation.

On a few occasions, churches had yard signs showing support for certain ballot initiatives (e.g. "Vote No on X") and those signs were removed or defaced.

I also notice that the report doesn't seem to make any distinction between garden-variety burglaries and attacks where religion was a motivation. Here's the report for anybody who's interested:

https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF24B78.pdf

 

[DaisyDay]

On a few occasions, churches had yard signs showing support for certain ballot initiatives (e.g. "Vote No on X") and those signs were removed or defaced.

I read that one church's "Vote No" signs were replaced by "Vote Yes" signs.

I also notice that the report doesn't seem to make any distinction between garden-variety burglaries and attacks where religion was a motivation. Here's the report for anybody who's interested:

https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF24B78.pdf

None whatsoever. The report links back to the website: "This report can be read online at "rc.org/HostilityAgainstChurches" but it is not on the page it links back to.

 

[rambot]

These statistics likely understate the extent of the problem, because “[m]any acts of hostility against churches are likely not reported to authorities and/or are not featured in the news or other online sources from which we collected data,” says the report. “[T]he number of acts of hostility is undoubtedly much higher.”

There is absolutely no logical rationale given for this understanding; nor is there factual in my estimation.

 

[Valletta]

These numbers don’t pass the sniff test. About the only thing that climbs that quickly are tech stocks and crypto (it works out to an annual growth rate of 41%). I skimmed over the FRC report and didn’t see anywhere where they describe their methodology. The best I can infer from what they did explain is that they got their numbers from compiling news reports. The problem with that method ought to be obvious to anyone who’s ever complained about media bias or selective reporting.

You're in denial. FRC states the following methodology was used:

To conduct this research, FRC analyzed open-source documents, reports, and media outlets to assess
the number of acts of hostility against churches that have taken place since 2018. We looked at
incidents of vandalism (including the destruction, defacement, ransacking, and theft of property), arson,
and arson attempts. Gun-related incidents that took place on church property and bomb threats
(including false ones) made against churches were also included.
Most of the incidents identified were acts of vandalism. From January 2018 to November 2023, there
were at least 709 occurrences of vandalism, 135 arson attacks or attempts, 22 gun-related incidents, 32
bomb threats, and 61 other incidents (assault, threats, interruption of worship services, etc.). In 39
cases, multiple types of hostility occurred (e.g., vandalism and arson)

https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF24B78.pdf

 

[iluvatar5150]

You're in denial. FRC states the following methodology was used:

To conduct this research, FRC analyzed open-source documents, reports, and media outlets to assess
the number of acts of hostility against churches that have taken place since 2018. We looked at
incidents of vandalism (including the destruction, defacement, ransacking, and theft of property), arson,
and arson attempts. Gun-related incidents that took place on church property and bomb threats
(including false ones) made against churches were also included.
Most of the incidents identified were acts of vandalism. From January 2018 to November 2023, there
were at least 709 occurrences of vandalism, 135 arson attacks or attempts, 22 gun-related incidents, 32
bomb threats, and 61 other incidents (assault, threats, interruption of worship services, etc.). In 39
cases, multiple types of hostility occurred (e.g., vandalism and arson)

https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF24B78.pdf

I'm not in denial about anything. You just apparently don't understand just how shallow and meaningless that description is. Taken at face value, the statement itself is non-sensical: What is an "open-source document"? Open source software is that with a license that's free to use and code that's open to modification by the public, but what is an "open-source" document? An online wiki? Is wikipedia a reliable source? Do they mean official documents that are publicly available? I honestly don't know.

And how does one analyze a "media outlet"? The outlet is the organization that publishes the media report. Analyzing the "media outlet" would be like analyzing the NYT or WaPo business.

But assuming they just worded that sentence poorly and were referring to publicly-available documents and media stories, how did they go about compiling those sources? How did they determine that the quantity of sources they found was representative of the entire number of incidents? The headline is about an 800% increase over 6 years - making that sort of determination requires that your start and end values be close to accurate, but how did they even try to make sure that they were counting everything? They don't say. You could get the same trend by not spending much time looking for stuff in 2018-19.

FRC had an opportunity here to do a respectable bit of research, but instead, they did this, which, honestly, seems about on brand for them.

 

[Valletta]

I'm not in denial about anything. You just apparently don't understand just how shallow and meaningless that description is. Taken at face value, the statement itself is non-sensical: What is an "open-source document"? Open source software is that with a license that's free to use and code that's open to modification by the public, but what is an "open-source" document? An online wiki? Is wikipedia a reliable source? Do they mean official documents that are publicly available? I honestly don't know.

And how does one analyze a "media outlet"? The outlet is the organization that publishes the media report. Analyzing the "media outlet" would be like analyzing the NYT or WaPo business.

But assuming they just worded that sentence poorly and were referring to publicly-available documents and media stories, how did they go about compiling those sources? How did they determine that the quantity of sources they found was representative of the entire number of incidents? The headline is about an 800% increase over 6 years - making that sort of determination requires that your start and end values be close to accurate, but how did they even try to make sure that they were counting everything? They don't say. You could get the same trend by not spending much time looking for stuff in 2018-19.

FRC had an opportunity here to do a respectable bit of research, but instead, they did this, which, honestly, seems about on brand for them.

So maybe you think it's only 700%. This is not software, try not to be confused about open-source documents. In relation to crime open-source documents are statistics published by police departments and various government agencies. And remember, just because MSNBC or CNN doesn't cover a story doesn't mean it isn't true.
Don't "shoot the messenger," the increase in hatred against religion needs to stop.

Church Vandalism on the Rise Locally Is Also Occurring Across the U.S. - The Tablet

The New York Catholic Churches that have recently been vandalized are not alone. Across the country in the past two months, statues of Mary have been attacked in Washington and Nebraska. In Philadelphia, stained glass windows were broken at one church and outdoor Nativity scene statues were...

thetablet.org

Goth vandals seen in bizarre footage damaging NYC church’s crucifix, stained-glass window

A spokesman for the Diocese of Brooklyn said the footage showed the vandals trying to pull a cross off the church exterior and puncturing its base.

nypost.com

 

[iluvatar5150]

So maybe you think it's only 700%.

I have no idea what the numbers are.

This is not software, try not to be confused about open-source documents.

I know it's not software. I'm not confused about anything, except what they were trying to convey, because the term doesn't apply here.

In relation to crime open-source documents are statistics published by police departments and various government agencies.

I'm fine accepting the claim that they meant "publicly available," but that's not what the term "open source" means. One of the hallmarks of an open-source license is that the end user has the right to modify the content, which would be ludicrous for the sorts of documents you're describing.

And remember, just because MSNBC or CNN doesn't cover a story doesn't mean it isn't true.

But it does mean that it wouldn't be counted by FRC, which is exactly the problem with their methodology that I was getting at.

Don't "shoot the messenger," the increase in hatred against religion needs to stop.

FRC isn't merely "the messenger" here. They're heavily invested in crafting this narrative; they did a poor job of generating the data; and they were clearly too liberal in their accounting for what constituted an "attack" or "hatred" against religion. Swapping out some election signs isn't an "attack." Breaking in to steal some computers isn't "hatred." Fire of an undetermined origin isn't necessarily either.

 

[RileyG]

This doesn't surprise me by any means. There's a lot of hatred against Christians in general.

 

[BCP1928]

This doesn't surprise me by any means. There's a lot of hatred against Christians in general.

No, not in general, I'm afraid.

 

[RileyG]

No, not in general, I'm afraid.

That's entirely my opinion. If you don't agree, that's ok.

Blessings

 

[Laodicean60]

This doesn't surprise me by any means. There's a lot of hatred against Christians in general.

We have created the hatred.