Monday, January 14, 2008

Who is Mr. Peter Majoy and what is his agenda?

In an article which may be found here:, and entitled "Town Residents express concern about Catholic group," we read that Peter Majoy is "a Buddhist and member of the Richmond Planning Board" who is "currently teaching a Holocaust course at Camp Takodah in Richmond, to improve the town's image with Tom White, educational outreach coordinator for the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies at KSC."

Now, we have seen how Mr. Tom White has attempted to defend the anti-Catholic remark made by Mr. Henry Knight [ the Director of the Cohen Center] at this Blog. We have also seen Mr. White suggest that, "..any interpretation of his Papacy [Pius XII's] are at best, ongoing, as the Vatican has only recently totally opened their archives on this subject." And we have exposed this assertion as a lie.

As I mentioned in a previous post here at La Salette Journey:

Mr. Peter Majoy has left a comment at the Cohen Center Blog which is critical of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights: 'Dear Readers,Reference to The Catholic League has been made in the context of claims that anti-catholic bigotry has been practiced by the Cohen Center, SBCWatch, and certain individuals. Please go to the following web site to read information about The Catholic League:


Pete Majoy'


The link provided by Mr. Peter Majoy takes one to a website belonging to a group calling itself Talk to Action. This organization has a statement of purpose:

"Statement of Purpose

Talk to Action is a platform for reporting on, learning about, and analyzing and discussing the religious right -- and what to do about it. There is an editorial framework for this site than that is different than you will find on other major blog sites, so please read this carefully: We are pro-religious equality and pro-separation of church and state. We are prochoice, and we support gay and lesbian civil rights -- including marriage equality. Therefore, debates about the validity of abortion and gay rights are off topic."

Now we can see what is driving Mr. Majoy, an individual closely associated with the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies at Keene State College. It also helps to explain the organization's use of the word "homophobia." Apparently the Cohen Center is using the Holocaust to advance a political agenda which is at odds with Catholic moral teaching. Why else would Mr. Majoy recommend a link to an organization promoting abortion, homosexuality and even same-sex "marriage"? -

It is most interesting that Mr. Majoy is described as a Buddhist. Why do I say this? Because, in the words of Dr. David Carlin:

"Secularists are hostile toward religion in general and toward Christianity in particular. They regard Christianity as both intellectually foolish and morally wicked. Their special hostility toward Christianity, however, isn't based on a belief that Christianity is worse than other major religions; all of them are seen by secularists as bad. But Christianity just happens to be the dominant religion in Western history generally and American history in particular; even today it's the dominant religion in America, a very powerful force. And so, to secularists, who feel called to fight against the evils of religion, Christianity is the obvious and most important enemy...

Secularists considerably tone down their opposition to religion, however, when it comes to certain special cases. Many make something of an exception for Buddhism, which they regard as having considerable merit. But the Buddhism they have in mind isn't Buddhism as actually practiced by ordinary people in East Asia. Rather, they have in mind Buddhism as it originally came from the hands of Gautama himself, or more exactly what they have in mind is original Buddhism as represented by present-day Western proponents of Buddhism. And this kind of Buddhism is more a philosophy than a religion; indeed, it's a philosophy one of whose aims is to undermine popular religion. It's represented as a non-theistic or atheistic religion - just the kind of 'religion' that might prove popular with the kind of people who are on the lookout for 'spirituality' but don't like religion or belief in God." (Can a Catholic be a Democrat: How the party I loved became the enemy of my religion," Sophia Institute Press, pp. 152, 153).

There is cause for real concern here. Although Mr. Majoy has denied that he's anti-Catholic at The Keene Sentinel Talkback thread entitled "Richmond: A Town Divided," he has attempted to defend anti-Catholic sentiments expressed at the SBC Watch Blog in the form of a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson which was posted by another supporter of the Cohen Center. Additionally, Mr. Majoy [as noted above] left a comment at the Cohen Center's Blog which was obviously intended to undermine the credibility of The Catholic League.

What is the real purpose of the Holocaust course being taught by Mr. Majoy? And why is it that Mr. Majoy has recommended a website which is secularist in nature and which portrays opposition to abortion and homosexuality in political terms: as the result of the "religious right"?

I'll ask the question again: Is the Cohen Center for Holocaust Studies at Keene State College politicizing the Holocaust to promote a liberal, secularist agenda? And isn't it interesting that while a woman named Terri O'Rorke wrote me several emails a couple of months ago indicating that Mr. Majoy wanted me to speak at this "Holocaust course," the invitation was apparently withdrawn when I went on record as defending the Church and Pius XII?

Dialogue? Invitation to discussion? Don't you believe it.

* Note: At The Keene Sentinel Talkback, a Blog sponsored by that newspaper, Mr. Pete Majoy has asserted that he never rescinded his invitation for me to speak at his "Holocaust Course" which is held at Camp Takodah in Richmond. I have offered (to anyone who is interested - and this apparently does not include the purveyors of anti-Catholicism who frequent that Blog) a copy of an email which shows that I accepted Mr. Majoy's invitation and that I was looking forward to hearing from him.

Some relevant reading: John 8. And especially verse 44.


Dale said...

It's easy to see what the agenda of the Cohen Center is. Just look at the background of those associated with this anti-Catholic entity. The fact that Mr. Majoy - who is very prominently associated with the Cohen Center - would go on record as defending Tom Matson's hateful quotation, would go on record as defending the Provosts who tried to compare Ave Maria University with the SBC, the fact that he would go on record as denigrating The Catholic League says it all.

Is Pete Majoy using his Holocaust Course to undermine religion? Of course he is.

Susan said...

Why am I not surprised that the invitation for you to speak at Camp Takodah was rescinded? All the talk of "hospitality," "free speech" and "discussion" by supporters of the Cohen Center is a farce. If you disagree with their attitudes toward the Church, you are denounced and compared with the SBC. Just read the Sentinel Talkback and you will see this for yourself.

Free speech? Only if you agree with their ideas. Discussion? If you disagree with their anti-Catholicism, they close the discussion at their Blog and rescind their invitation for you to speak.

These people are interested in a free exchange of ideas. They are every bit as intolerant as those at the SBC who denounce their critics.

Blake said...

Your Blog post rips the lid off of the Cohen Center and the hypocrisy of those who insist the organization wants to foster an "invitation to discussion."

The invitation for you to speak at the Holocaust Course would not have been taken back if you had simply capitulated to the Cohen Center's anti-Catholic agenda. As it is, you decided to defend the Church's historical record of opposing anti-Semitism. Therefore, you were no longer welcome to participate at the discussion and were even less welcome to speak. The Holocaust course may be seen for what it is: an exercise in anti-Catholicism. If these people are not anti-Catholic, as they claim, they would not have taken back the invitation to speak. They didn't want you to contradict their own distorted and biased view of history.

John Ansley said...

I still believe, as I stated in a comment at the Keene Sentinel blog, that it is not necessary to disparage Roman Catholicism or the Catholic Church when opposing anti-Semitism. Sadly, some of those who have been involved with SBC Watch have engaged in anti-Catholicism. This fact was acknowledged by a member of the Cohen Center's Board. On December 13, 2007 this Board member wrote, "I think that individual critics of SBC have drifted into making anti-Catholic statements. For instance, I absolutely couldn't understand why Ave Maria was being discussed or why Thomas Jefferson was being quoted by opponents of SBC."

But still, those who have engaged in anti-Catholic statements have not apologized for their hurtful attacks on the Catholic Church.

No one at the Cohen Center has apologized either. Moreover, it has now been shown that there has been an orchestrated effort to silence Catholics from being part of the discussion. Paul Melanson's Blog was ignored as another authored by an atheist was prominently cited; Paul was invited to speak at Camp Takodah but those organizing the classes reneged on the invitation when they noticed that Paul wouldn't go along with their smear campaign against the Church; Catholics attempting to express their concerns regarding the Cohen Center's anti-Catholicism were silenced as the discussion was shut down.

There will never be any real and meaningful dialogue on these issues because Catholics who oppose historical revisionism are not invited to the table.


Marie Tremblay said...

I read the email (Paul still has a copy), where Paul informed Terri O'Rorke that he would be happy to speak at Camp Takodah as part of the Holocaust course being offered in the Monadnock area. Although Paul indicated that he would definitely be interested in speaking, Ms. O'Rorke never got back to him about this. Open discussion? Hospitality? Hardly.

At this point Paul told me that he wouldn't be interested. And who could blame him after reading the hate-filled anti-Catholic diatribe at the Sentinel Blog.

Anyone who would like a copy of this email may contact either myself at: or Paul Melanson at his email address.

Michael Cole said...

Marie, I spoke with Paul about this. Seems like more "peekaboo tolerance" - now you see it, now you don't. Lines are being connected. A picture is beginning to emerge. And what a disturbing portrait it is. Anti-Catholic propaganda is being promoted under the guise of "Holocaust education." There are way too many items of concern to dismiss. This goes way beyond legitimate citizen concern about anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. This is a concerted effort to undermine the credibility of the Catholic Church and to advance a political/moral agenda. By portraying opposition to their political agenda as "anti-Semitic," "homophobic," and as religious fanatics striving to impose "theocracy," these people hope to further their own political goals throughout the Monadnock area and beyond.

Claire Plourde said...

I was just both shocked and dismayed when I went to the Talkback forum to read what people were saying. The anti-Catholicism in evidence is simply horrendous. One writer suggested that Catholics should stop crying or whining about anti-Catholicism. I wonder how Keene State and the local community would react if Brother Andre Marie told people to stop whining about anti-Semitism just because they took exception to his remark that Jewish people undermine public morals? The bottom line: there is in fact a double standard at work here. It's fashionable to bash the Catholic Church; it's in vogue. But anti-Semitism is intolerable. Shouldn't they BOTH be intolerable? I am at a loss to undertand how the anti-Catholic statements made by a few are defended by the very same people who are so quick to condemn anti-Semitic statements.

Claire Plourde said...

Just another thought. If this Mr. Majoy is really interested in stimulating an open exchange of ideas and a discussion which is open to all, why then does he promote the organization Talk to Action? After all, read their mission statement. They state clearly that they are: "pro-separation of church and state. We are prochoice, and we support gay and lesbian civil rights -- including marriage equality. Therefore, debates about the validity of abortion and gay rights are off topic."

In other words, this organization won't even consider discussing these topics. For them, these issues are not up for debate. This isn't hospitality. It's exclusion. But then, Mr. Majoy and his comrades are evidently even more exclusionary than the SBC. Why else would they be so anxious to silence Catholics at the Talkback forum and elsewhere and to exclude us from the discussion?

Paul Anthony Melanson said...

Marie, I will happily forward a copy of that email to anyone who requests it. On November 15, 2007 at 4:31 PM, I wrote an email to Ms. Terri O'Rorke in which I stated (in part)that, "I would be more than happy to hear from Pete Majoy regarding the sessions on the Holocaust.."

I never heard from Mr. Majoy. And now I wouldn't have anything to do with his efforts any way. But here's the thing. An individual (who shall remain nameless to spare her further embarassment) has left a comment in which she asserts that, "As you and Marie both were supposed to get in touch with Mr. Majoy.."

Actually, that this is not the case is proven by my email. I specifically told this woman that "I would be more than happy to hear from Pete Majoy regarding the sessions on the Holocaust." Therefore, the duty was his to contact me and not the other way around. This woman was acting as a go-between as it were. I'm not sure as to why Mr. Majoy didn't just contact me himself. But I nevertheless expressed my interest at the time.

I'll state it clearly as I have so many times in the past. I will not publish comments at this Blog which are slanderous or which are inappropriate to this Catholic Blog because of obscene language or any other valid reason.

I am not suggesting that this woman's comment included obscene language. It did not (thanks be to God) include such language. The comment was, however, slanderous.

Susan said...

Good point. Why didn't Pete Majoy contact you himself? If he REALLY wanted you to speak at the Holocaust classes, why didn't he ask Terri O'Rorke for your email? Why didn't she provide him with it? I think it's obvious what happened. Seeing that they couldn't manipulate you Paul, they decided to jettison their "offer" to come and speak at their classes. You wouldn't have fit in with their anti-Catholic agitprop.

Paul Anthony Melanson said...

Ann thank you for the more mature comment. Perhaps you could let others know that it's possible to post a comment without resorting to slander or insults? You wrote, "I believe individuals commenting on Talk Back were asked how they felt about free speech going too far in a public forum as it pertained to SBC at KSC. It appears the frustration with some is that the blog went off topic almost immediately to something other than the stated question. I do not believe anyone was attempting to silence Catholics specifically. Not at all."

You are correct in saying that the thread is about the SBC at Keene State College. But can you understand why Catholics might be frustrated? It seems as if those who are liberal and/or anti-Catholic (in some cases) want to set the tone and to decide which issues will be discussed and which will not.

Susan left this at the thread in question, "Dale asked a very important question at the beginning of this thread:

'Just as important a question: Should a secular institution such as Keene State College which promotes intolerance toward those who oppose homosexual acts by labelling them as being mentally ill (or "homophobic") receive federal funding? Should taxpayer monies go to people and organizations that openly express such exclusionary views?'

Another valid question: Should a secular institution such as Keene State College which promotes anti-Catholicism receive federal funding? Should our tax dollars go to people and organizations which openly promote anti-Catholic bigotry? I say no. I don't want my hard-earned tax dollars to be spent on promoting anti-Catholic bigotry.”

Professor James Hitchcock, in his important book Catholicism and Modernity, says: "The media's alleged commitment to 'pluralism' is at base a kind of hoax. The banner of pluralism is raised in order to win toleration for new ideas as yet unacceptable to the majority. Once toleration has been achieved, public opinion is systematically manipulated first to enforce a status of equality between the old and the new, then to assert the superiority of the new over the old. A final stage is often the total discrediting, even sometimes the banning, of what had previously been orthodox." (p. 86).

We see this final step underway in the United States and in many areas of Western Europe. As laws supportive of Christian morality disappear, the place once allotted to Christian people in society severely narrows. Already, educationis being used as a tool for secular humanist indoctrination.

Why hasn't The Keene Sentinel initiated a discussion thread the topic of which addresses the concerns of Catholics regarding anti-Catholicism? What about the concerns addressed by Susan and Dale? Are these not valid?

Something to think about.

Roger Vaste said...

Pete Majoy just left the following at the Keene Sentinel Talkback:

"I am slowly but surely writing a paper that deals with all that has been asserted by those who have initiated the accusatory campaign of “anti-Catholic” directed at individuals and the Cohen Center."

Let's hope he addresses his own anti-Catholicism and explains why he defended this quote left at SBC Watch:

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government, and, In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.."

Ellen Wironken (and others including myself) objected to this anti-Catholic quote being left at SBC Watch. Ellen explained her objections in detail. To which Pete Majoy responded: "for many reasons, I don't share your assessment of the quote.." But he never explained these "reasons." That comes as no surprise to me. What "reasons" can justify such a horrible quote? Does Pete Majoy agree with what this quote says about priests and the Church in general? Of course he does. That's why he told Ellen that he doesn't share her "assessment" of the quote.

This, to me, is clear evidence of anti-Catholic bigotry on the part of Pete Majoy.

Roger Vaste said...

Paul, thanks for sendng me a copy of the email which proves you accepted Pete Majoy's invitation to speak at Camp Takodah. I guess it is expecting too much of some people who frequent the Sentinel Blog to tell the truth. One of these dishonest persons in my view is Victoria Provost. To listen to her, she hasn't exhibited any anti-Catholic or anti-religious attitudes. I just wrote this for the Sentinel:

"As far as Victoria's ugly comment, it speaks for itself. Her and her husband have exhibited anti-Catholicism at their Blog SBC Watch. Their attempt to compare Ave Maria with the SBC was just one example of their hateful anti-Catholicism. Their decision to post Tom Matson's hateful quotation another. Victoria left a comment at the Cohen Center Blog which was a clear attempt to smear the Church as having been anti-Semitic and cited Pope John Paul II's apologies for Christians who failed to live according to Church teaching. What she didn't do, being the ardent anti-Cahtolic propagandist that she is, is to tell the whole truth: that papal apologies were not for the Church or her teaching (there is no need for an apology there) but for Christians who failed to live up to that teaching.

I and others will not be intimidated by Victoria's hateful and bigoted approach toward Catholicism and the Church. And we enjoy much support. We have no need of hers."

Of note, although Victoria would have us believe that she has "nothing to do" with SBC Watch, on Chronicle she stated that her and her husband Russell decided to stay in Richmond and fight and she has written comments for that Blog.


ARichmondCatholic said...

I am leaving this comment because of concerns I have regarding a rising anti-Christianity in Richmond. Reading about how your invitation to speak was cancelled because you defended the Church from slanderous allegations of anti-Semitism sends chills down my spine.

My thoughts are below. I can't get involved personally. I'm afraid of what these people could do if they knew my identity. Ever since they started opposing the Saint Benedict Center, lawsuits and other problems such as police reports being filed have erupted. So much turmoil. This is not just a bunch of people Blogging anymore. These people seem - to me - to be very anti-religious and litigious.


I am so deeply concerned here. When I first became aware of the campaign of Russell and Victoria Provost and others to oppose the Saint Benedict Center, I was at first a bit uneasy. It seemed strange to me that a retired couple from the Cape would spend so much time and effort to combat what they insisted was a dangerous anti-Semitic group. I mean, how many retired couples spend their golden years creating a Blog and returning constantly to other Blogs to combat a group because they don't care for its agenda or perceived agenda? But then I thought, well, I guess their just conscientious people who are concerned about an issue which is dear to their hearts and this is why they are willing to spend the time, effort and even money to combat the Saint Benedict Center.

But then, after reading the Blog posts at The Keene Sentinel and La Salette Journey, something very odd began to emerge. While Russell and Victoria Provost and others from Richmond and the surrounding area would nitpick about such things as a supporter of the Saint Benedict Center using the word "Jewess," they seemingly had no problem with the whole notion that the priest has "always been in alliance with the despot" and that Catholic monasticism breeds "ignorance and superstition." And then I discovered the Provosts use - a regular use - of the word "Theocracy." They always seemed to be warning of the dangers of this "Theocracy." And that is when something finally registered I guess. Since when is this country in danger of being controlled by some sort of religious oligarchy such as the Taliban? The public square has been so stripped of just about any reference to Christianity that it seems ludicrous for a couple in their senior years to be so filled with dread about the dangers of what they refer to as "Theocracy." There had to be something else at work here.

That blank space has been filled by Paul Melanson. What at first looked like honest concerns over anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial soon began to take on a very different shape. Soon, one could read Blog comments from Victoria Provost and Bette Jose which were critical of not just the Saint Benedict Center, but the Catholic Church as well. Victoria Provost wrote something for the Cohen Center's Blog in a vain attempt to convince people that Pope John Paul II had issued an apology for the Church's "anti-Semitic" teachings. But this was a falsehood. And then Betty Jose complained about sexual abuse in the Church and tried to blame such abuse on the wider Church community.

A word of caution to people living in Richmond and the surrounding communities. Something the "cure" is worse than the disease. In rejecting the strident anti-Semitism of the Saint Benedict Center, let's not replace it with an even more vicious and strident anti-Christianity.

Thank you.

Marie Tremblay said...

Russell Provost has decided to defend Pete Majoy at The Keene Sentinel forum without having sufficient facts to do so. My response:

As one who has read Paul Melanson's email accepting Pete Majoy's invitation, I can also testify to the fact that Pete Majoy has not been honest. Further proof that Catholics are not welcome at the discussion. Russell Provost should read this email before commenting on this situation. He is coming across as foolish. Once again, a copy of this email may be obtained by writing Paul Melanson at:

Russell Provost has once again proven that he will automatically take the side of someone who is anti-Catholic and just naturally assume that it is the Catholic who is engaging in falsehood.

Happily, Paul's email proves the lie.

Alan said...

Right Marie. Russell Provost's bias is again showing. He refuses to acknowledge the FACT that an email shows Pete Majoy to be engaging in falsehood. Paul accepted his invitation but the anti-Catholic powers that be simply decided to uninvite him.....his forceful arguments defending the Catholic Church were deemed "inconvenient."

So much for Keene State's contribution to authentic dialogue. So much for hospitality. So much for diversity. It's all a lie. If you're an orthodox Catholic who is well-versed in Churhc teaching and history, you are not welcome.

Samantha Pellier said...

Obviously, this Pete Majoy and his followers do not believe in a free exchange of ideas but prefer to engage in censorship. Ideas they don't like are ignored and history is also ignored if it is "inconvenient" to their agenda and purposes.

How very un-American!

Site Meter