Well, whose problem is that? ;-)
Seriously, maybe part of the difference is the size of the Catholic Church in the US and a history (Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion anyone?) of Catholicism being a political issue. Being Catholic may have had an influence, many say, on the candidacy of Al Smith. it certainly was some kind of big deal in the Kennedy candidacy. Currently Teddy the Hutt has pretty much reassured the world that he is an non-observant Catholic, so it's not a deal for him.
Catholicism was an issue in the Mexican American War. It is referred to disparagingly in the writings of Thomas Jefferson. It was an issue for the reconstituted Klan.
It stays with me (not in a painful way but as significant) that when we were gathering at the church for my mother's funeral, the wife of an old friend of ours who had just found out that I had become, 8 years or so earlier, a Catholic, lit into me about how dreadful Catholicism is. I suggested that maybe a few minutes before the funeral of my mother was not the best time for such a conversation. But it reminded me that for some their notion of the dreadfulness of Catholicism is so great and arouses such passion that they forget where they are!
I recommend reading the article. You may find that the text sheds great light on the commentary, as one of my Bible profs said.
I don't see it as a problem.
What produces the need for anti-defamation conferences is political intent as viewed over a very long course of history. If Christians don't intend to use influence through earthly church denominations or hierarchies, and if the denominations don't have anything in their history that suggests that they want to rule over kings, they won't likely be viewed with very much suspicion.
If an earthly church organization, on the other hand, has anything in their history (or its doctrines and pronouncements) that suggests an interest in controlling the course of governments, then there will perpetually be deep suspicion with regard to their intent.
I am not speaking of merely using Christian heritage as a basis for structuring and maintaining a society. I believe that all Christians should be involved in the political sphere to that degree through the voting process, influencing referendum, and through their communications with elected representatives. And further by using a free press to further Christian thought and teach the Christian world view. I believe Christians should be missionary in their intent, on a personal and local church level to spread the Gospel (I speak of a specific Gospel message of redemption in Christ, not a general “gospel” that tends to mean anything religious, much less political).
I am talking about looking back in history and seeing whether any earthly church or religious organization has ever actually attempted to control (by force, by intimidation, by threat of spiritual bondage) kings, queens, princes, presidents, prime ministers, and the like.
Let me give you an example. Bishops of the Church of England were able for a time (1700s) to convince British forces in North Carolina to use military means to intimidate and frighten non-Anglican Christians (mostly Baptists) in the NC Piedmont. This continued until some of the people in that region took up arms, even against the wishes of their pacifist pastor, Shubal Stearns, and give the the British forces a black eye.
The Bishops’ use of influence with the British army caused deep suspicion of the Anglican church in NC for decades, and actually contributed to a declension of the Anglican Church in that region of the colonies (even prior to the War for Independence.
I believe that the USA should maintain its CHRISTIAN heritage. I believe on the other hand that NO particular, named Church or religious society (not mine or anyone else's either)should be viewed as a state church. I don't believe either that the Federal Government should favor any earthly religious organization anywhere. I don't believe we should have embassages to any “church” anywhere, either.
If history reveals any intent to control earthly governments on the part of any “church,” deep suspicion of it should continue.
But, the fact that they do attack just reinforces Jesus’ words about persecution. If the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church wasn't THE CHURCH, no-one would bother.
Their attacks are just affirmation. Do you see them attacking Baptists, Assembly of God, Methodist, Presbyterian...?