NATALIE WINTERS. MAR 20, 2026
EXCLUSIVE: LEFT-WING FOUNDATIONS BANKROLL PUSH TO BRING THE QUR’AN INTO AMERICAN CHURCHES
ROCKEFELLER-LINKED FUNDING AND GRANTS FROM THE COMMUNITIES FOUNDATION OF TEXAS ARE UNDERWRITING THIS CAMPAIGN ---ALL FRAMED AS A FIGHT AGAINST “ISLAMOPHOBIA.”
(1/2)
A Chicago-based “interfaith” group is pushing churches toread the Qur’an from the pulpit --- and to confront what it calls “Islamophobia in the Church.”
Challenging Islamophobia Together Chicagoland(CITC) has quietly rolled outinitiatives like its “Reading the Qur’an in Churches” campaign, while promoting a broader effort toreshape Christian teachingfrom within. Thepremise is not subtle:
Christianity itself must be re-examined --- its theology reconsidered, itstraditions reframed, its posture toward Islam fundamentally reoriented.
But this is not just a local outreach effort.
Behind CITC sits a national advocacy network --- the Interfaith Alliance — backed by millions in foundation funding. Public records show that network has drawn support frommajor institutional playersincluding the Henry Luce Foundation, which awarded a $300,000 grant in 2025, as well as the Rockefeller Family Fund , the Collaborative for Gender and Reproductive Equity, and theCommunities Foundation of Texas. In 2023 alone, theInterfaith Alliance Foundation reported roughly $2.87 millionin total revenue, including about $1.4 million in contributions and grants. (Governor Abbott allowed to build their city in TX, and the Americans are pissed because they are basically stealing all the land and homes, and Texans can’t find homes or afford them. The Muslims also buy homes in towns and cities there. Some of the neighborhoods are run by Muslim led HOAs)
What looks like a small, regional interfaith initiative is,in reality, part of a much larger ecosystem, one financed by progressive-aligned philanthropy anddeeply embedded in the political and cultural battles over religion in America.
CITC itself is led by Anna Piela and Michael Woolf, both clergy figures operating within interfaith activism networks. But the structure of the organization makes clearthis is not simply Christian outreach.CITC operates with a Muslim Leadership Councilthat helps guide its priorities, programming, and messaging. As the group explains:
“Having the Muslim Leadership Council helps ensure that our efforts andinitiatives are informed by the lived experiences, concerns, and insights of those directly affected by Islamophobia.
Leaders in Muslim communities can provide valuable perspectives on issues they face, guide the organization’s priorities, and help shape programs and policies to be more effective and culturally relevant.”
That model places Muslim leadership not at the margins, butat the center of how Christian-facing initiatives are developed and executed.
The implications of that structure become clearer when looking at CITC’s programming. One of its most prominent efforts --- the “Reading the Qur’an in Churches” campaign — encourages congregations to engage directly with Islamic scripture inside church settings. This is not framed as academic comparison or optional dialogue. It is positioned as a corrective to Christianity itself.
That same visionis formalized in a new book by the group’s leaders,Confronting Islamophobia in the Church: Liturgical Tools for Justice. The summary leaves little ambiguity about the scope of the project:
“Confronting Islamophobia in the Church: Liturgical Tools for Justice challenges Christians to stand up against Islamophobia as an expression of discipleship. Anna Piela and Michael Woolfexpose the Church’s role in fostering anti-Muslim prejudice and equip congregations to dismantle it.Blending sharp history, “holy envy” theology, and ready-to-use resources thatweave Islamic scripture into the lectionary calendar, they make interfaith engagement both practical and transformative.
This is a call to replace fear with solidarity---and to live the Gospel fully in a pluralistic world.”
The key phrase is not subtle: “weave Islamic scripture into the lectionary calendar.” This is not simply about understanding Islam --- it is about integrating it into the rhythms of Christian worship.
(https://nataliegwinters.substack.com/p/exclusive-left-wing-foundations-bankroll
1/2
No. That is all.
Agree.
Lefties are too stupid to realize they'll be first to be beheaded
They won't be beheaded as long as they wear pig skin necklaces around their necks. Muzzies won't touch 'em. Kek.
1A should prevent this. There’s a reason religion is the first right recognized in 1A.
Lololol….try that on a small town.
Not hapnin in the gogues is it.
Church's need to wake up and pull their heads out of their asses.
(2/2)
That broader framework has also been articulated publicly by the group’s leaders. In a lecture at Georgetown University discussing the book, they outlined how their approach extends beyond theology into social and political questions. As they put it, “Islamophobia intersects with our immigration crisis and also with anti-blackness,” while also arguing that “soft Islamophobia is saying women have a subservient role.” Their framework draws on the concept of “Holy Envy” and is explicitly positioned as a “theological counterweight to white Christian nationalism.”
In that same discussion, they emphasizedthe role churches can play in reshaping perceptions of Islam, arguing that “Churches are very powerful in being able tosituate Islam not as an other not as a security threat but as a really interestingtheological tradition you ought to know about,” and urgingChristians to “be as generous a reader of the Quran as you are of the Bible.”
That agenda mirrors the priorities of the Interfaith Alliance, which has madeopposition to “Christian nationalism” a central pillar of its work. Through initiativeslike “Democracy Not Theocracy,” the organization frames its mission as combating what it describes as An“authoritarian theocracy” and theinfluence of conservative Christianity in public life. It’s also been involved with high-profile political battles, including opposition to Supreme Court nominees such as Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, alongside support for Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The through-line is difficult to ignore. Foundation money tied to reproductive policy, “democracy” initiatives, and progressive social causes flows into Interfaith Alliance, which in turn supports affiliates like CITC --- groups that are actively working inside churches to redefine how faith is taught and practiced.
What presents itself as alocal campaign against Islamophobiais, in reality, part of a broader effort --- one that sits at the intersection of philanthropy, politics, and theology.
And the deeper question is not whether interfaith dialogue is valuable,or whether religious prejudice exists.
It is why a network funded by some of the most prominent institutions in progressive philanthropy is investing in efforts thatgo beyond dialogue--- into the terrain of liturgy, doctrine, and theinternal life of the American church.
Because at that point, this is no longer just about tolerance.
It is about transformation.
https://nataliegwinters.substack.com/p/exclusive-left-wing-foundations-bankroll
A peaceful Islam?
Harlan Johnson’s claim that Islamic terrorists betray the teachings of the Quran was very much misguided. Presumably, in his desire to believe that Islam is a religion of peace, he assumed a lot about what the Quran actually says.
The Quran has 123 verses that call for fighting and killing anyone who does not agree with the statement, “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.” Jews and Christians are specifically included among such “infidels.”
The Quran’s Sura 5:33 says about infidels, “They shall be slain or crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off.” Sura 9:5 says, “Slay the infidels wherever you find them ... and lie in wait for them ... and establish every stratagem (of war against them).” Sura 47:4-9 promises paradise to whoever cuts off the head of an infidel.
There are, of course, other verses that call Muslims to lead a peaceable life, but the underlying theme in the Quran is that there never can be true peace until everything is submitted to Allah. Thus violence to that end is justified.
The surahs (chapters) of the Quran are generally organized by length, with the longest surahs appearing first and the shorter ones toward the end. They are NOT arranged chronologically or thematically.
This is important because if the surahs were arranged chronologically, you would see the "peaceful" ones first. They then become progressively more violent. The reason is that when Islam was starting out, they had few followers, so they were not in any position to pick fights. However, as they grew in number over time, they could afford to be more belligerent and aggressive, leading to the exhortations to fight and kill the infidels.
Will the Mahdi(Islam's Messiah) call for the death of those who reject worshipping him?
Imam al-Mahdi (a.t.f.s.) will not call for the death of those who reject worshipping him in the sense of personal worship. However, according to Shia Islamic traditions, he will enforce the acceptance of Islam as the true religion through a strict policy during his uprising.
He will offer Islam to all people, including Jews, Christians, Sabians, materialists, and non-believers. Those who accept Islam voluntarily will be required to perform prayers, pay zakat, and fulfill other Islamic duties. Those who refuse to accept Islam will be beheaded, as stated in several hadiths, with the aim of eliminating disbelief from the earth. This is seen as a divine command to establish justice and the true faith. In summary, according to traditional Shia hadiths, yes, the Mahdi will command the execution of those who reject Islam, but this is understood as a divine, final judgment during a specific era of global transformation, not a call for personal vengeance.
Muslims were the first enemy of the newly formed USA. When the British stopped protecting USA shipping the Muslims wreaked havoc on US ships. Hence the fight took to them…to the shores of Tripoli…leather necks nickname for the marines to help fend off muslim swords.
Muslims have been most prolific slavers. Way back then and today.
The msm and politicians are not telling facts.
Christians: The Quran and Holy Bible are not equal.
The Holy Bible is far holier, and Christ's lessons far greater. Christ pointed out the narrow path that cannot be traversed with the violence condoned by the Quran.
Which church? I’m bringing bacon and beer! Absolute haram!
A wood stove would be nice too, convenient place to store Quran and cook bacon.
This is seriously fucked up.
Everybody has a sword, right?
My sword makes this weird “pew pew” noise. Is that okay?
Nope. It needs to make a big KABOOM!!!! Go big or go home.
Well darn.
Agree.
Ocum's razor is pretty sharp 👆
Plan B:
Accept the Quran but do what the MSM does, only present one side of the argument. So, concentrate on the "love thy neighbour" and "turn the other cheek" parts of the Bible and contrast that to the "kill the infidel" parts of the Quran.
It’s Not a ‘Phobia’ When They Really Are Trying to Kill You RAYMOND IBRAHIM | 1:47 PM ON MARCH 30, 2022
(AP Photo/Achmad Ibrahim) The United Nations recently named March 15—also rather ominously known as the Ides of March—as “the International Day to Combat Islamophobia.” In doing so, they have accepted and seek to mandate the idea that whatever fear (literally, phobia) non-Muslims have of Islam is unfounded and irrational and therefore must be “combatted.”
In reality, aversion to Islam is not new or something that “just happened”; nor is it a byproduct of temporal circumstances (say, resentment towards Muslims due to the terror strikes of 9/11, etc.). Instead, it is something that all rational non-Muslims have felt from the very inception of Islam in the seventh century.
Western peoples, for instance, including many of their luminaries, have always portrayed Islam as a hostile and violent force—often in terms that would make today’s “Islamophobe” blush. And that wasn’t because Europeans were “recasting the other” to “validate their imperial aspirations” (to use the tired terminology of Edward Said that has long dominated academia’s treatment of Western-Muslim interactions). Rather, it was because Islam has always treated the “infidel,” the non-Muslim, the same way ISIS treats the infidel: atrociously.
According to Muslim history, in 628 AD, Muhammad summoned the Roman (or “Byzantine”) emperor, Heraclius—the symbolic head of “the West,” then known as “Christendom”—to submit to Islam; when the emperor refused, a virulent jihad was unleashed against the Western world. Less than 100 years later, Islam had conquered more than two-thirds of Christendom and was raiding deep into France. While these far-reaching conquests are often allotted a sanitized sentence, if that, in today’s textbooks, the chroniclers of the time make clear that these were cataclysmic events that had a traumatic impact on, and played no small part in forming, Europe proper, that is, the unconquered portion and final bastion of Christendom.
But it wasn’t just what they personally experienced at the hands of Muslims that developed this ancient “phobia” to Islam. As far back as the eighth century, Islam’s scriptures and histories—the Koran, hadith, sira, and maghazi literature—became available to those Christian communities living adjacent to, or even under the authority of, the caliphates. Based solely on these primary sources of Islam, Christians concluded that Muhammad was a (possibly demon-possessed) false prophet who had very obviously concocted a creed to justify the worst depravities of man—for dominion, plunder, cruelty, and carnality (see Sword and Scimitar for copious documentation, especially Chapter 2).
This view prevailed for well over a millennium throughout Europe, and it was augmented by the fact that Muslims were still, well over a millennium after Muhammad, invading Christian territories, plundering them, and abducting their women and children. The United States’ first brush with Islam—its very first war as a nation, soon after its independence—came by way of Muslim raids on American ships for booty and slaves in the name of Allah.
A minuscule sampling of what Europeans thought of Islam throughout the centuries follows:
Theophanes, important Eastern Roman (“Byzantine”) chronicler (d. 818):
He [Muhammad] taught those who gave ear to him that the one slaying the enemy—or being slain by the enemy—entered into paradise [see Koran 9:111]. And he said paradise was carnal and sensual—orgies of eating, drinking, and women. Also, there was a river of wine … and the women were of another sort [houris], and the duration of sex greatly prolonged and its pleasure long-enduring [e.g., Koran 56: 7-40, 78:31, 55:70-77]. And all sorts of other nonsense. Thomas Aquinas, one of Christendom’s most influential philosophers and scholastics (d. 1274):
He [Muhamad] seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh urges us …. and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine…. Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants [i.e., his “proof” that God was with him is that he was able to conquer and plunder others]…. Muhammad forced others to become his follower’s by the violence of his arms. Marco Polo, world-famous traveler (d. 1324):
According to their [Muslims’] doctrine, whatever is stolen or plundered from others of a different faith, is properly taken, and the theft is no crime; whilst those who suffer death or injury by the hands of Christians, are considered as martyrs. If, therefore, they were not prohibited and restrained by the [Mongol] powers who now govern them, they would commit many outrages. These principles are common to all Saracens. When the Mongol khan later discovered the depraved criminality of Achmath (or Ahmed), one of his Muslim governors, Polo writes that the khan’s
attention [went] to the doctrines of the Sect of the Saracens [i.e., Islam], which excuse every crime, yea, even murder itself, when committed on such as are not of their religion. And seeing that this doctrine had led the accursed Achmath and his sons to act as they did without any sense of guilt, the Khan was led to entertain the greatest disgust and abomination for it. So he summoned the Saracens and prohibited their doing many things which their religion enjoined. Alexis de Tocqueville, French political thinker and philosopher, best known for Democracy in America (d. 1859):
I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. As far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself. Theodore (“Teddy”) Roosevelt, 26th president of the United States and an accomplished student of history (d. 1919):
Christianity was saved in Europe solely because the peoples of Europe fought. If the peoples of Europe in the seventh and eighth centuries, and on up to and including the seventeenth century, had not possessed a military equality with, and gradually a growing superiority over the Mohammedans who invaded Europe, Europe would at this moment be Mohammedan and the Christian religion would be exterminated. Wherever the Mohammedans have had complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared.” Winston Churchill, a leader of the Allied war effort against Hitler during WWII (d. 1965):
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism [Islam] lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Lest it seem that these and other historic charges against Islam are mere byproducts of Christian/Western xenophobia and intolerance for the “other,” it should be noted that many of Islam’s Western critics regularly praised other non-Western civilizations, as well as what is today called “moderate Muslims.” Thus Marco Polo hailed the Brahmins of India as being “most honorable,” possessing a “hatred for cheating or of taking the goods of other persons.” And despite his criticisms of the “sect of the Saracens,” that is, Islam, he referred to one Muslim leader as governing “with justice,” and another who “showed himself [to be] a very good lord, and made himself beloved by everybody.”
Churchill well summed up the matter as follows: “Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities—but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”
The UN can say whatever it wants; it can claim that, unlike every other major religion, and for some odd reason, Islam is forever and perpetually “misunderstood.” But fear and dislike of Islam has been the mainstream position among non-Muslims for nearly 1,400 years—ever since Muhammad started raiding, plundering, massacring, and enslaving non-Muslims (“infidels”) in the name of his god. And it is because his followers, Muslims, continue raiding, plundering, massacring, and enslaving “infidels” that fear and dislike of Islam—what is called “Islamophobia”—exists to this day.
Rather than openly address and seek to ameliorate this issue, the UN, like all the other powers that thrive on rewriting history, if not reality itself, seeks only to suppress and silence truth—including by demonizing the victim, the so-called “Islamophobe.”
Tell me you're a Satanist without actually saying you're a Satanist.