Many members have asked for advice on how to handle attempts to censor manger scenes from public property. Here’s some straight talk.

When a petition to erect a crèche on public property is denied, offer a substitute: ask if it would be okay to put a sign on the grounds where the nativity scene was to be placed. The sign should simply say: “We sought to display a manger scene on this spot, but we were censored by the authorities from doing so.” Win or lose, invite the media to cover this story (you can also sue in the event you lose).

An unusual manger scene development that caught our eye occurred in Naples, Italy. The Italians are famous for creating novel nativity scenes, but this year they outdid themselves by including President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle.

Bill Donohue told the press: “Look for the ACLU to import the Obama crèche and have it erected on the White House lawn, making the case that this is a free speech issue, not a church and state matter. And because some of the figurines hold a sign that says, ‘God Bless America,’ look for Obama’s fans to thank him for his blessing.”

Bill saved his best for last: “Shame on the Italians for overlooking Joe—there are any number of animals he could have represented.”

By the time Christmas comes, there will be more manger scene scenarios to address. Despite this craziness, it’s important not to lose a sense of humor.

In the matter of just a few days, the cultural elites on both coasts suppressed the speech of the Catholic League.

First it was the New York artistic community that reacted with intolerance; then the Hollywood community got in the game. In both instances, the elites started by bashing Catholicism, and then resorted to censorship when we challenged them. Rarely has there been such an explosion of bigotry and hypocrisy on display within a matter of days. That all of it was uncoordinated made it all the more disturbing.

On September 27, the Catholic League held a press conference outside the Edward Tyler Nahem gallery in midtown Manhattan. We were there to protest an exhibit by Andres Serrano featuring “Piss Christ,” the infamous photo of a crucifix submerged in a jar of the artist’s urine. After addressing the media, Bill Donohue sought to see the exhibit but was stopped in the building’s lobby by gallery officials. He was the only person denied. His offense? They objected to the content of his remarks to the media.

The West Coast example involved two confrontations. In September, we learned that the cable TV channel, FX, was scheduled to air “American Horror Story: Asylum” on October 17. The entire series depicts a habit-wearing promiscuous nun who beats inmates in a home for the criminally insane; for good measure, a doctor tortures his patients in this evil Catholic institution.

Donohue decided to write a full-page ad critical of the series, seeking to place it in The Hollywood Reporter. We were led to believe that everything was fine, including our credit card info, but then we learned via an e-mail on October 1 that the ad had been rejected. Lynne Segall, the publisher, nixed it saying the ad’s message “was not appropriate.”

The next day, October 2, we contacted Variety. Once again, everything from the initial exchange to our credit card info was deemed just fine. But then we learned via an e-mail that the ad had been rejected because of its “mudslinging” title (“FX Trashes Nuns”). Donohue refused to amend it (Variety has run many stories with the word “trashes” in the title); thus the ad never ran.

We got the last word. On October 15, two radio stations in Los Angeles, KFI (it carries Rush Limbaugh) and KTLK (the favorite liberal station) ran several taped statements by Donohue that were critical of FX, The Hollywood Reporter and Variety.

It is not at all surprising that it was the elites in New York City and Los Angeles who waged war on Catholicism. It’s what they do.

We paid for the ads with funds raised from the October appeal.

On Election Day, Bill Donohue will appear on set with Glenn Beck in Dallas to discuss developments in the presidential election.

Donohue will join Beck between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. ET on his new station, TheBlaze TV (it is available on DISH network and by online subscription). Because the discussion will occur while the polls are open throughout the nation, the focus will be on likely scenarios at both the national and state level.

There is much to discuss. At the national level, Catholics have been implored by the bishops to weigh the Health and Human Services mandate and its likely effects on religious liberty. Besides health care, pressing policy matters involve the budget deficit, economic growth, the national debt, immigration, education, and the on-going problems in the Middle East.

At the state level, issues range from gay marriage and abortion to the Blaine Amendment and doctor-assisted suicide. Virtually all House seats are up for election, and many seats in the Senate are at stake. Economic issues dominate in all states.

Donohue has appeared with Beck many times before, but this is the first time he has joined him on Election Day. Catholic League members can take heart knowing that their views will get a fair hearing. Moreover, Beck and Donohue have been at the forefront of the religious liberty issue.

Donohue returns from Dallas to go to a Philadelphia dinner on November 9 where he will receive an award from the Catholic Leadership Institute.

Bill Donohue was scheduled to be in Dallas with Glenn Beck on Election Day but could not make the trip due to the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.

With the November elections almost upon us, all signs show a very polarized electorate. There are many key issues at stake, both at the national level and in the states. Surveys show the Catholic community is just as split as the rest of the country.

The Catholic vote is not hard to determine. Practicing Catholics, for whom the life issues are paramount, have mostly left the Democratic Party for the Republicans. The other half, the non-practicing Catholics, are not exercised over abortion or euthanasia; most have stayed with the Democrats. Independent Catholics, like independents generally, can swing either way, motivated more by economic issues than social ones.

There was no controversy over religion at the Republican National Convention, but the Democrats experienced plenty at theirs. God was thrown out of the Democratic Platform, only to be reinstated after a rigged vote. As Democratic stalwart, and loyal Catholic, Cokie Roberts pointed out, the Democrats did themselves no favor with Catholics by inviting speakers who uniformly endorsed the radical abortion agenda.

At the state level, gay marriage is on the ballot in Maine, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington. Homosexual activists have been raising a ton of money from all over the nation to affect the outcome. In Florida, voters will decide the fate of the anti-Catholic Blaine Amendment that is still on the books. And in Massachusetts, physician-assisted suicide is on the ballot.

Several attempts to silence Yakima Bishop Joseph Tyson in Washington over the gay marriage issue have been made; he has bravely stood up to the bullies. Gay marriage is legal in Washington, but the voters were never asked to cast a ballot on this issue. The bishops rightfully sought to have a referendum, and on election day it will happen.

Boston Archbishop Sean Cardinal O’Malley has made very cogent arguments against doctor-assisted suicide. He points out that the way the law is written, friends and relatives would be granted considerable power to determine the fate of a person said to be dying. The sad news is, as O’Malley told Raymond Arroyo, the majority of those who live in Massachusetts these days are secularists. Which means in all likelihood that most were once practicing Irish Catholics.

Keep your eyes on this issue. Doctor-assisted suicide is already legal in Washington and Oregon. Not surprisingly, the residents there, like those in Massachusetts, are disproportionately agnostic or atheist. Unfortunately, they have turned a deaf ear to Catholic teachings on human dignity, the net losers being the elderly and the disabled.

In the last edition of Catalyst, we covered the controversial case of a professor under the gun for publishing an allegedly biased article; we also published Bill Donohue’s scathing indictment of the person who lodged the complaint. We are happy to report that there will be no investigation of Professor Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas, Austin.

Regnerus had published a serious article in a peer-review journal documenting the negative effects of gay parents on their adopted children. Scott Rose, a homosexual freelance writer with no academic credentials, filed a complaint asking for an investigation of Regnerus’ allegedly biased research. Donohue weighed in with a letter to the president of the university, William Powers, Jr., documenting Rose’s clear bias against Catholicism; Regnerus is a recent convert to Catholicism.

The University of Texas has a policy that requires an inquiry into all complaints against a professor accused of shoddy scholarship. After the inquiry is completed, either an investigation is launched or the case is  dismissed. The Regnerus case has been dropped.

Donohue got involved because (a) he is an academic (b) both he and  Regnerus are sociologists, and (c) Rose has a history of Catholic bashing. Though Donohue has never met Regnerus, he admires his work. Regnerus was appreciative of Donohue’s help.

Gay intimidation of honest scholarship is a growing problem in academia. That those responsible for this condition boast of tolerance makes the situation even sicker.

After a doctor blew the whistle on rampant child sexual abuse at the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation in North Dakota, he was punished by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for doing so. We immediately intervened by calling for an investigation. The next day the physician was reinstated.

The whistle-blower, Dr. Michael R. Tilus, director of behavioral health at the Health Care Center on the reservation, tried in vain for five years to get HHS to do something about this issue. After he blew the whistle, he was reprimanded, reassigned, barred from promotion, and threatened with the loss of his professional license.

We contacted three senatorial offices about this matter, noting that there was no outcry from those who have been quick to condemn the Catholic Church. Justice was swiftly delivered. Here is a list of the conditions:

• a 2-month-old baby girl died in July 2012 after tribal officials received warnings of child abuse

• last year a 9-year-old girl and her 6-year-old brother were found dead, raped and sodomized inside their father’s home

• foster children have been sent to homes where registered sex offenders live

• the tribe hired a convicted felon as a child case worker

• a teenage girl who was sexually abused was placed in a tribal home where she was then raped

• a one-year-old child covered with 100 wood ticks was discovered by a social worker yet was not taken to a hospital

• foster children have been illegally removed from homes and then assigned to new ones without conducting a safety check

• mandated background checks are not made by the tribe before placing foster children in new homes

• monthly visits by the tribe to check on children in foster care are not being made

• American Indians are 9 percent of North Dakota’s population but Indian children constitute nearly 30 percent of the state’s child abuse victims

After the doctor was reinstated, Bill Donohue sought to uncover what disciplinary measures, if any, were taken against the HHS official who called for his punishment. He wrote a letter to Dr. Yvette Roubideaux, director of the Indian Health Service, copying Senator John Barrasso; he is the vice chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.

Donohue said he wants to know whether Dr. Candelaria Martin, the official who initially sought to punish Dr. Tilus, has been reprimanded. We are awaiting a response.

Over the summer, Michelle Obama told members of the African Methodist Episcopal Church in Nashville, Tennessee something quite revealing: “And to anyone who says that church is no place to talk about these [political] issues, you tell them there is no better place—no better place. Because ultimately, these are not just political issues—they are moral issues.”

Perhaps unwittingly, the First Lady presented us with a gift: she opened the IRS door by beckoning the clergy to talk as freely as they want about politics from the pulpit. The next time the IRS goes after a member of the clergy for mixing politics and religion, they should direct the agent to Michelle’s remarks and then say they were only following her advice.

In all honesty, the First Lady was only following in the footsteps of her husband when she called for the politicization of religion. President Obama has explicitly called for “congregation captains” to organize for his reelection. We all know what that means.

Since the Obamas have taken the gloves off—in effect calling for Americans not to be restrained by separation of church and state legalisms—others should follow suit. We hope that the bishops, priests, evangelical ministers, and the orthodox members of all religions are taking note.

We don’t have two constitutions: if the Obamas are giving the green light to those in their faith community to merge politics and religion, there are no more red lights left for anyone to obey.

The U.S. Supreme Court upholding the ObamaCare legislation puts Catholic rights in jeopardy. The only way Catholic non-profits could have survived the encroachment of the federal government on their right not to buy insurance for services they deem immoral was if the entire ObamaCare legislation had been struck down. That did not happen.

The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the right of the Obama administration to force Catholic non-profits to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization in their insurance plans; this Health and Human Services (HHS) edict was issued after the high court accepted the ObamaCare bill. Eventually, this particular issue will reach the Supreme Court. Indeed, there are 23 lawsuits pending on this matter.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops raised objections to the ruling on three grounds: (a) in an unprecedented move, ObamaCare allows federal funds to be used in elective abortions and for plans that cover abortion (b) it does nothing to ensure conscience rights, thereby setting the stage for the HHS mandate to become operative, and (c) it does nothing to protect immigrant workers in need of healthcare.

While all three are troublesome, the most direct impact negating Catholic rights is the second objection. But there are three ways in which we may be spared this draconian HHS mandate: (a) the Obama administration could expand its definition of what constitutes a religious exemption (b) new laws could be passed guaranteeing religious liberty, and (c) the Supreme Court could eventually strike down the HHS mandate.

It is important to note that in the high court ruling, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said that enforcing this law must not trespass on the constitutional right to religious liberty. She seemed to signal to the Obama administration that they dare not tread on Catholic rights.

If the Supreme Court decision lacks clarity, the Catholic response will be anything but ambiguous: the battle lines between the bishops and the Obama administration are now brighter than ever. Fortunately, not only do practicing Catholics overwhelmingly support the bishops, tens of millions of non-Catholics also do.

ObamaCare may have survived, but it is by no means a lock that the HHS mandate will. It is one thing to levy a tax, quite another to level the First Amendment.

In December, the Catholic League filed a complaint against Rebekah Nett and Naomi Isaacson for anti-Catholic comments made in a Minnesota courtroom. Nett was counsel to Isaacson, herself an Orthodox Jewish attorney. In June, the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, the office that we filed complaint with, issued charges against Nett.

It is not certain what the outcome will be; the final decision is made by the Lawyers Board Panel. If there are sanctions, they could range from a reprimand to disbarment. We called for disbarment.

Nett called the judge, Nancy Dreher, and other court personnel, “dirty Catholics,” adding that “Catholic deeds throughout the [sic] history have been bloody and murderous.” Dreher, who is not Catholic, was called by Isaacson “Popess Dreher,” and “a secret Catholic Knight Witch Hunter.” There were many other anti-Catholic smears made by these attorneys.

Nett got into further trouble when she refused to pay a $5,000 fine; she wanted to pay $300 a month, but was ordered by Judge Dreher to pay $1,000 a month. Dreher agreed to a new pay schedule.

In April, we were asked by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin (Nett is licensed to practice law in Minnesota and Wisconsin) to reply to Nett’s contention that she is really not anti-Catholic, and that she has Catholic friends. Bill Donohue wasn’t buying it. He told the Supreme Court, “No doubt the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan has been known to consort with his black buddies.”

In all the years of monitoring anti-Christian bigotry, seldom have we seen something as vile as what happened on April 16. On Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show,” they flashed a picture on the screen of a naked woman with her legs spread and a nativity scene ornament in between. He called it the “vagina manger.” We called it hate speech.

Stewart was angry with the Fox News Network for not being exercised over the alleged “war on women” that is going on. Ironically, in the name of defending women, he degraded them. And he did so by unnecessarily assaulting the sensibilities of Christians; they constitute the vast majority of the population.

We did not call for Stewart to be fired, but we did call for him to apologize. After hand-delivering our request to the offices of Comedy Central (it carries the show), and failing to garner a response, we contacted ten of his major sponsors; they were asked to put pressure on the network seeking an apology.

Delta quickly apologized for Stewart’s obscene stunt. Within days, the airline company went further and pulled its advertising. What upset us the most was the response by Kellogg’s—they blew us off. So we took them on. Bill Donohue did a lengthy interview on the number-one radio show in Battle Creek (home to Kellogg’s). Interestingly, Kellogg’s refused to dispatch a spokesman to explain its dismissive attitude. We also called for a boycott of Kellogg’s cereals, and took out an ad in the Kalamazoo Gazette (click here).

We know we got to Stewart because during a performance in Tampa on April 21, he switched gears—going from comedic to serious—and made an oblique swipe at the Catholic League.

Our campaign against Stewart extended to the board of directors and the senior management of Viacom, the parent company of Comedy Central; we mailed them a copy of the offensive photo. Then we sent a copy of it to all the bishops, as well as to religious leaders in every faith community.

We also hit the op-ed page of the New York Times. On May 21, Bill Donohue’s ad, “Jon Stewart’s Legacy,” was published, reaching millions of readers (click here). No one in public life can afford to have his reputation damaged, not even cultural gurus like Stewart.

The avalanche of very sick e-mails we received from Stewart’s fans was disturbing. It indicates that these angry young white men have a misplaced sense of priorities: if Stewart is their hero, it doesn’t bode well for our nation’s future. But we also received a ton of positive responses, suggesting that the culture war is still up for grabs. As always, we were relentless in our campaign.