Andrew Bolt: ABC’s apology refusal after attack on Christianity was all wrong

WE know the ABC is at war with Christianity when it refuses to apologise for spreading a vicious falsehood, writes Andrew Bolt.

ABC presenter Julia Baird.

• ABC’s most ridiculous attack on Christianity
• BOLT: What hope does Pell have of fair trial?
• BLOG WITH ANDREW BOLT

WE know the ABC is at war with Christianity when it refuses to apologise for spreading a vicious falsehood.

ABC presenter Julia Baird last week claimed “evangelical men who sporadically attend church are more likely than men of any other religious group (and more likely than secular men) to assault their wives”.

This obvious falsehood was repeated by the ABC’s 7.30 in hyping Baird’s articles accusing churches of breeding domestic violence. But as I showed here last week, Baird was wrong.

The most likely wife-bashers are Aboriginal men, with Aboriginal women at least 31 times more likely to be hospitalised.

And I noted Baird’s single source — Arizona theology professor Steven Tracy — in fact cited surveys showing Christian men were less likely to hit women.

So how did the ABC respond? By issuing a tweet attacking “those who want to dispute the women’s stories by quibbling over footnotes”. How dishonest. I am not disputing the victims’ stories, nor “quibbling over footnotes”. I simply say Baird’s central claim in attacking Christianity is false.

MORE ANDREW BOLT

ABC presenter Julia Baird.

Andrew Bolt. Picture: Andrew Henshaw

The ABC also issued a statement in Baird’s defence, but nowhere did it present evidence for that claim. It simply repeated her source was Tracy, who “cites five other studies to support his claim: Ellison and Anderson 2001; Brinkerhoff et al 1991; Ellison and Anderson 1999; Wilcox 2004; Fergusson et al 1986”.

In fact, at least four of those sources don’t support Tracy and Baird. Canadian Professor Merlin Brinkerhoff found “religion had little, if any, relationship to spousal abuse”.

US Professor Christopher Ellison found men who often go to church were 72 per cent less likely to abuse their partners than were men who never went, adding: “Religious involvement, specifically church attendance, protects against domestic violence.”

And New Zealand Professor David Fergusson was clear: Christianity saves women. Tracy summed up his findings: “11.2 per cent of husbands who never attended church assaulted their wives.

But only 2.2 per cent of husbands who attended church at least monthly assaulted their wives, while 6.2 per cent of husbands who attended church sporadically assaulted their wives.”

Only the Wilcox study supports Baird, but it claims non-Christian men are less violent than even regular churchgoers, which Baird herself rejects.

So why did Baird ignore surveys which contradicted her claim? And why does the ABC protect her?