One week from today, “Jerry Springer—The Opera” will open a two-day run at Carnegie Hall. Commenting on this is Catholic League president Bill Donohue:

“Never before in its illustrious history has Carnegie Hall been home to Christian bashing, but that is all about to change on January 29 and 30. Incredibly, it is allowing a patently obscene and viciously anti-Christian musical to be performed on its stage. Thus has it got into bed with the bigots, making a mockery of art in the process. This isn’t art—it’s license.

“Is it art when a world religion is trashed on stage in a totally obscene way? This is what the officers of Carnegie Hall seem to be saying, which is why they are allowing ‘Jerry Springer—The Opera’ to soil its stage next week. And do they agree with Max von Essen, the actor who plays a transsexual in the show? Here is what he told the Internet-site BroadwayWorld: ‘I’m a New Yorker. I’m liberal and open-minded. Things don’t really shock me. But I was reading the second-act today and thinking that if you’re religious, you could be. But you shouldn’t.’ (Italics in the original.)

“How telling. Max has a mind that is so open that it allows him not to be shocked at cultural assaults on someone else’s religion, even in instances when he is doing the trashing. When some are offended, he is just liberal enough to tell them they shouldn’t be. Is this the road Carnegie Hall wants to travel?

“Those who think that we are overreacting should read what ‘Jerry Springer—The Opera’ is all about. Click here to find out.”

Contact: publicaffairs@carnegiehall.org

“All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.”

This quote, attributed to the 18th-century British philosopher Edmund Burke, is often used as a rallying cry when it comes to attacks against the Catholic Church. Perhaps we can fine-tune the quote this way for our purposes: “All that is necessary for anti-Catholicism to succeed is that good Catholics do nothing.”

This quote appropriately exhorts all of us to fight against the vices of laziness and cowardice and do our part in standing up for the Church. However, there is another implied exhortation embedded in this quote: We can’t take for granted that any of us, let alone the majority of Catholics, are “good.” While we might disagree as to what precisely constitutes a “good” Catholic, we can say that ordinarily a “good” Catholic would not sit by idly while the Church is attacked. And even if he or she did so temporarily, that person should easily be stirred to action when confronted with the reality of anti-Catholicism. But, given the inroads anti-Catholicism has made in our culture with relatively little resistance, it’s fair to ask, are the “good” Catholics doing nothing, or are many Catholics not as “good” as we’re called to be? At the end of the day, what is a “good” Catholic?

A theology professor once asked his class, “What’s the biggest problem in the Church today, ignorance or apathy?” One student flippantly responded, “I don’t know, and I don’t care.”

The student’s answer, upon further examination, is very close to the mark. Ignorance refers to a defect in the virtue of faith, and apathy refers to a defect in the virtue of charity. With the virtue of hope, these three theological virtues are the necessary building blocks of a thriving Catholic life and culture. I suggest that we need to renew this foundation, in ourselves and collectively as the Church, as the necessary prerequisite for effectively addressing anti-Catholic forces in society.

We are approaching the 40th anniversary of the publication of Pope Paul VI’s Credo of the People of God (1968), issued at the conclusion of the “year of faith.” The Holy Father recognized the crisis of faith in the Church, and he issued his Credo to articulate orthodox Catholic teaching to counteract the rise of ignorance and confusion regarding our faith.

Forty years later, while we see some promising signs of renewal, we have also witnessed the devastating effects of the “crisis of faith” that has ravaged two, going on three, generations of Catholics in our midst.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes that “‘ignorance of God’ is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations” (no. 2087), and it further describes several sins against the faith, including heresy, which are routinely ignored today. We are all too familiar with widespread rejection of key Church teachings, from the papacy and Real Presence to the hot button morality issues that challenge men and women to turn away from deviant, immoral behaviors.

We can never lose sight of the fact that our faith is not merely a moral code or abstract body of teachings, but rather a dynamic relationship with the living God. Even so, our faith in the person of Jesus Christ necessarily implies a content of faith. For example, when Our Lord sent out His apostles to make disciples of all nations, He told them to teach all men and women “to observe all that He has commanded” (Mt. 28:20). Similarly, Our Lord also said, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord’ and do not do what I tell you?” (Lk. 6:46). Our Lord denies knowing those who claim to be His followers yet do not accept and put into practice His teachings, communicated through His Church (see also Mt. 7:21-24; Lk. 10:16).

Organizations that are serious about their principles will not tolerate views within their own ranks that undermine their efforts. Imagine the NAACP allowing members to push for “separate but equal” facilities, or Planned Parenthood allowing its representatives to publicize the harmful effects of abortion on women and to admit that it’s a form of homicide. It’s not going to happen.

Yet, we have to admit that our Catholic faith has not been adequately taught and embraced in recent decades, such that outright dissent is simply considered an alternative opinion. The deposit of apostolic faith is one of the central bonds of unity that unites Catholics (cf. Catechism, no. 815), but today many people see the Church as a vague cultural reality, not demanding more than loyalty to Notre Dame football and wearing green on St. Patrick’s Day. That’s why abortion-rights advocates such as Frances Kissling or Ted Kennedy can get away with holding themselves out as Catholics in good standing. If we’re not serious about what we believe, how can we expect the “world”—which is the sworn enemy of the Gospel anyway—to treat our beliefs with respect?

In response, we must pray for the grace to live this passage from the Catechism: “The disciple of Christ must not only keep the faith and live on it, but also profess it, confidently bear witness to it, and spread it” (no. 1816).

Meanwhile, the virtue of hope is all about putting our trust in the Lord and His promises, especially when the going gets tough. In the midst of attacks from without and scandals from within, many Catholics might be tempted to despair. They may well conclude that the Church is going to hell in a hand basket, and they wring their hands of any responsibility for setting things aright. Or, in the midst of their despair, they may conclude that the project of Christianity is no match for the relentless secularism of our culture. The best that we can hope for is to get in a good kick to the shins here or a minor victory there, but the war is lost. Clearly such a mindset betrays a lack of trust in the living God.

As significant of a problem as despair is, the alternate failure of hope—presumption—can be just as deadly. Presumption denies the need to seek God’s grace—either because we think we can save ourselves or because God will give us His grace no matter how we conduct our lives. We commonly see this latter mindset in funerals today, which often seem to be “mini-canonizations.”

An objective observer could easily conclude that it really doesn’t matter how one lives, because everyone seems to end up in a “better place.” Many poorly formed Catholics embrace just such an implicit universalism. There are probably many reasons why people think that way, including the natural desire that our loved ones make it to heaven. Yet, when we give in to such presumption, then we are not really serious about the claims our faith makes on us. And if we’re not willing to go to the mat for our faith, if we’re not willing to admit the practical reality and consequences of mortal sin, then we’re not going to get worked up about attacks on the Catholic Church. A mushy, uncommitted Catholicism is no match for the anti-Catholic forces that have been unleashed against the Church.

The Catechism identifies two of the principal sins against charity as being indifference and lukewarmness (no. 2094). These sins reveal a lack a passion and zeal in our commitment to God and neighbor. How we respond to attacks against the ones we love can vary greatly, but a failure to respond at all is unacceptable. When we encounter a bully we need to have sufficient self-esteem to defend ourselves the best we can. And what husband would not go ballistic if someone attempted to harm his wife or children? That’s why it’s so scandalous when some Church leaders have failed to show sufficient outrage when their spiritual children have been abused.

In today’s culture, many people want Christ without His Church. They want “spirituality” without the demands and perceived corruption of “organized religion.” (Some might respond that the Catholic Church is not all that organized!) Clearly the work of the new evangelization is to help men and women rediscover the intimate, saving connection between Christ the King and His Kingdom, the Church. We must rekindle love for the Church among her members—manifested not as a spineless tolerance, but as a Christ-centered desire for the good of all.

Christ Himself teaches us about this intimate connection. When Saul of Tarsus encountered Our Lord on the road to Damascus, He said, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?” (Acts 9:4). Christ had already ascended to the Father at that time. Saul had never even met Our Lord. Rather, he was persecuting His followers. Yet Our Lord took this very personally. Indeed, Christ from the earliest days identified Himself with His Church, His beloved bride. Attack the Church, and you attack Christ Himself.

Do we experience attacks against the Church as attacks against Our Lord? If more of us did, anti-Catholicism would meet the decisive, unified resistance that has been lacking in our time.

The Catechism says that in every age “saints have always been the source and origin of renewal in the most difficult moments in the Church’s history” (Catechism, no. 828). Everyday saints like you and me are called to be the difference-makers. For Catholicism to succeed, we need “good” Catholics to live with God’s grace the virtues of faith, hope, and charity, thus radiating the light of Christ in an otherwise dark, hostile world.

Leon J. Suprenant, Jr. is the president of Catholics United for the Faith (CUF) and Emmaus Road Publishing and the publisher of Lay Witness magazine, all based in Steubenville, Ohio. His email address is leon@cuf.org.

The  following is an excerpt from Donohue’s “John Jay Study on Sexual Abuse: A Critical  Analysis.” The longer version was sent to all the bishops and is available online at catholicleague.org.

In the aftermath of the media blitz in 2002 exposing sexual abuse by Catholic priests, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) commissioned researchers from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice to study what happened. In 2004, the first studied the nature and scope of the problem, covering the years 1950-2002. Its latest study addresses the causes and context of abuse. Despite many strengths, what seriously mars the new report is its ideological reluctance to deal forthrightly with the role of homosexuality.

Both studies report that the crisis extended from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s, peaking in the 1970s. This was a time of increased levels of deviant behavior in society, and the authors properly cite the role played by the sexual revolution in shaping the environment. This is not a justification—it is an explanation. It should be clear by now that the cultural winds of promiscuity that hit the larger society in the 1960s and 1970s came smashing through the windows of the Catholic Church; it is not an insular institution.

Celibacy as a cause is quickly dismissed, and pedophilia is similarly rejected as an explanatory variable. The report astutely notes that “Celibacy has been constant in the Catholic Church since the eleventh century and could not account for the rise and subsequent decline in abuse cases from the 1960s through the 1980s.” The logic is sound.

Importantly, pedophilia is discounted: less than 5 percent of the abusive priests fit the diagnosis of pedophilia, thus, “it is inaccurate to refer to abusers as ‘pedophile priests.’”

The bishops have commonly been criticized for not sufficiently responding to the problem of abusive priests. As it turns out, the report does much to question the validity of this charge. It provides plenty of evidence that when this issue became well known in the mid-1980s, several initiatives were forthcoming.

Unfortunately, much of what the bishops tried to do, we now know, was in vain. To be exact, they were being briefed in the late 1980s and the early 1990s about the wrong problem, and were similarly misled about the right remedy. It must be stressed that this is not the conclusion of the authors—it is mine. But it is reached by reliance on the data contained in the report.

The report says the bishops were offered several presentations by clinical psychologists about pedophilia at their meetings. But we now know that pedophilia was never the problem. So why didn’t the authors flag this? It is not hard to surmise that to do so would be to raise questions about the role which homosexuality played. As we shall see, the authors did everything they could to downplay this issue.

The report also makes it plain that therapy was being sold to the bishops as the right remedy. “Prior to 1984,” it says, “the common assumption of those who the bishops consulted was that clergy sexual misbehavior was both psychologically curable and could be spiritually remedied by recourse to prayer.” It also says that after 1985, “prompt psychological treatment for the priest was seen as the best course of action and became the primary intervention.”

Well, it is painfully obvious by now that the psychologists oversold their competence. It is not hard to surmise that the reason why the authors do not flag this matter—they don’t even include treatment in their concluding recommendations—has something to do with their reluctance to indict their own profession.

Regrettably, the authors allowed political considerations to color their conclusions on the role homosexuality played in driving the scandal. Let it be said at the outset that it is not my position that homosexuality causes predatory behavior. Indeed, this argument is absurd. As I have said many times, while it is true that most gay priests are not molesters, most of the molesters have been gay. Nothing in the report changes my mind, and indeed there is much in it that fortifies my position.

“Interestingly,” the report says, “an increase in the number of male victims occurred during the peak years of the abuse crisis.” From my perspective, it would have made more sense to say, “Unsurprisingly” than “Interestingly.” Here’s why.

Four related events emerged at the peak of the crisis that account for what happened:

• there was an exodus of heterosexual priests after Vatican II, a large percentage of whom got married

• the effect of this exodus was to leave behind a greater proportion of homosexual priests

• a tolerance for sexual expression in the seminaries was evident at this time, leading many previously celibate homosexual priests to act out

• there was a surge of homosexuals into the seminaries. It was the interaction of these four factors, I would argue, that accounts for the increase in male victims at the height of the sexual abuse crisis.

The authors insist that homosexuality played no role in the abuse crisis, but their own data undermine this conclusion. For example, they plainly admit that “81 percent of the victims [between 1950 and 2002] were male,” and that 78 percent were postpubescent. So if the abusers weren’t pedophiles, and the victims were mostly adolescent males, wouldn’t that make the victimizers homosexuals? What else could we possibly be talking about if not homosexuality?

“What is not well understood,” we learn, “is that it is possible for a person to participate in a same-sex act without assuming or recognizing an identity as a homosexual.” Yes, it is entirely possible for a homosexual not to recognize that he is a homosexual. So what? Isn’t it behavior, not self-perception, that objectively defines one’s sexual orientation?

Here is a good example of the flawed thinking on homosexuality that colors the study. “More than three-quarters of the acts of sexual abuse of youths by Catholic priests, as shown in the Nature and Scope study, were same-sex acts (priests abusing male victims). It is therefore possible that, although the victims of priests were most often male, thus defining theacts as homosexual, the priest did not at any time recognize his identityas homosexual.” It is a false segue to say, “It is therefore possible…” Such twisted logic suggests a failure to confront the obvious.

Let us grant that it is possible for gay priests to think they are not homosexuals. However, this changes nothing. If someone eats nothing but vegetables and does not consider himself to be a vegetarian, this is surely an interesting psychological issue, but it does not change reality. Subjectively, the vegetarian may think of himself as carnivorous, but his behavior belies his self-perception. Homosexuals, like vegetarians, are defined by what they do, not by who they think they are.

In the endnotes section, the study says, “it is possible for a man to identify himself as ‘heterosexual’ because he is sexually attracted to adult women; however, he may commit an act of sexual abuse against a male youth.” Let us concede the point. Yes, this may happen. But social science analysis, the authors well know, is informed by what is generally true, and is not driven by anomalies. In this vein, it would hardly change the status of a vegetarian if he were to experiment with hot dogs at a ballpark: he would not always be a practicing vegetarian, but it would not affect his master status.

The authors gathered clinical data from treatment centers, places where troubled priests were assigned. What they found was that “three quarters of the priests whom we have data had sexual relations with an adult and/or minor after ordination.” Given that the minors were mostly male, and beyond puberty, is this not clearly an issue of homosexuality?

Here’s another example of skewed logic. They say, “after considering pre-seminary and in-seminary sexual behavior separately, only in-seminary (not pre-seminary) same-sex sexual behavior was significantly related to the increased likelihood of a male child victim.” In other words, those studying for the priesthood who had sex with other seminarians—that would make them homosexuals—were more likely to abuse a child (male, of course) than gays who were active before they entered the seminary and then stayed celibate.

The problem of focusing on the sexual identity of the priest, as opposed to his behavior, is evident in the finding that “Those who identified themselves as bisexual or confused were significantly more likely to have minor victims than priests who identified as either homosexual or heterosexual.” But if these “bisexual and confused” priests chose to abuse mostly males—and they must have since 81 percent of the victims were male (and nearly 80 percent were postpubescent)—wouldn’t that mean that these abusive priests were practicing homosexuality? Again, the emphasis on self-identity gets in the way of reality. Indeed, the attempt to skirt the obvious is not only disingenuous, it is bad social science.

The authors try to say that much of the abuse was situational, a function of opportunity. For example, they note that after girl altar servers were approved by the Catholic Church, there was a “substantial increase in the percentage of female victims in the late 1990s and 2000s, when priests had more access to them in the church.”

However, if having access only to boys accounts for the high number of male victims at the peak of the crisis, then this should have been a problem before things got out of control. But the report emphatically shows this was not the case. “A review of the narratives of men who were seminarians in the 1950s, and of published histories of the seminaries themselves does not reveal any record of noticeable or widespread sexual activity by seminarians.” The reason it wasn’t a problem is because most priests put a lid on their libido in the 1940s and 1950s. When the lid came off in the 1960s, the crisis began.

There is also something unseemly about the opportunity-based argument. It suggests that if men don’t have access to females, they will start hitting on men. This is patently sexist and flatly absurd. Men don’t have much access to females in boarding schools and in the armed services, but virtually no one, save for homosexuals, finds himself tempted to choose other men to satisfy his sexual urges. Comparisons with the prison population are also flawed: the men housed there typically suffer from a host of deviant qualities.

There is too much evidence to plausibly conclude that there is no relationship between the overrepresentation of active homosexuals in the priesthood, and their overrepresentation in the sexual abuse scandal.

Bill Donohue wrote to every New York City Council member on September 19 asking for an investigation into a coalition backing the Khalil Gibran International Academy (KGIA), a New York City public school billed as an “Arabic-themed” institution. The coalition, “Communities in Support of KGIA,” formed following the August 10 resignation of the school’s first principal, Debbie Almontaser. She was pressured to quit following her refusal to condemn a T-shirt that read “Intifada NYC.” The term “intifada” is widely understood today to mean a terrorist “uprising.”

Donohue called for the probe due to a link on the coalition’s website,kgia.wordpress.com. The “Pages” section links to “Mumia on KGIA,” which runs an endorsing statement by Mumia Abu-Jamal (along with a link to his FreeMumia.org website). Abu-Jamal is the convicted cop-killer and hero to anti-American left-wing extremists, who still rally to his side even though his appeals have been heard and rejected by over a dozen judges.

As we expected, extremists have been backing this so-called Arab school. What perked our interest initially was the stonewalling we got this past summer when we asked routine questions regarding the KGIA. Where was the curriculum? What textbooks would be used? Why were imams serving on an advisory board—some of whom are militants—if this wasn’t an Islamist school? Why is the Association of Muslim American Lawyers playing an integral role in the school? Why have the Arab Women Active in the Arts and Media, who made the “Intifada NYC” T-shirt, been a sponsor to the coalition supporting the KGIA? Most important, why has this coalition embraced a cop-killing thug?

William A. Donohue

In all my years as president of the Catholic League, few victories have been as sweet as the victory over the Miller Brewing Company. Miller proved to be a tough foe, but in the end they didn’t get their way. We did.

There are many people who played an important role in this victory, but there is one person whom I would like to single out—Mike Setto. I have never met him, though I have spoken to him and his wife, and yet I feel like I’ve known him for many years. Let me explain.

On Friday evening, October 5, I appeared on Ray Arroyo’s EWTN show, “The World Over.” The real purpose of the show was to discuss the upcoming movie, “The Golden Compass.” But, of course, we touched on other issues as well, one of which was the Miller controversy.

One of the viewers was Mike Setto, a Chaldean Catholic from Michigan. Mike owns Orion Keg & Wine Party Store in Lake Orion, Michigan. The day after he heard me call for a boycott of Miller beer, he started unloading cases of Miller from his store. As it happened, a reporter from the Oakland Press, a local newspaper, was in his store at the time. She was there to do a survey about Michigan’s bottle return policy, and when she saw Mike dumping Miller, she decided to write a piece about the boycott.

It was that story which led other Chaldean Catholics—many of whom own beer and wine stores in Michigan—to join the boycott. Indeed, the Chaldean community posted the names of store owners who had agreed to participate in the boycott on its website, chaldean.org, and they even went so far as to say that boycott monitors would check to see if any owner was cheating on his pledge not to carry Miller. Moreover, they said they would post the names of Chaldean store owners who did not abide by the boycott. My kind of people!

The Miller salesman who Mike usually buys from complained to Mike’s wife that he wasn’t making enough sales and that he might as well go home early. He added that it wasn’t a good time for him to face a slump in sales. Her reply was priceless. She asked him if he thought it was a good time for Jesus when they nailed Him to the cross.

Soon after, a 90-year-old priest learned of Mike’s participation in the boycott and decided to drive 20 miles with some friends to meet him. They shook hands, prayed and broke out into tears.

When Chaldean Bishop Ibrahim N. Ibrahim learned of the boycott, he pledged his support. Just as fantastic was Milwaukee Archbishop Timothy Dolan. I spoke with both bishops, and I can honestly say that they are two of the greatest men I’ve ever had the pleasure of working with—they are a huge asset to the Catholic Church. Both of them met with Miller officials and both stood by the Catholic League all the way. I can’t thank them enough.

There are many others who helped us win. All of those who registered their complaints with  Miller were critical to this effort. The Knights of Columbus, especially those in Illinois and New York, were important. The Fox News Channel provided many opportunities for me to discuss this issue. The Thomas More Law Center offered their services. Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center—always a good friend of ours—was active in his support. Milwaukee leaders whom we contacted let Miller know of their outrage. And so on.

While we are happy that we won, and while we know what a significant marker in the culture war this is, it says something very disturbing about our society that we had to fight tooth and nail to win. It is not a good sign when a major U.S. corporation sides with anti-Catholic bigots against the  rank-and-file members of the Catholic population. That Miller would support a festival where men committed sex acts in the street is just as incredible.

The average gay person would not even attempt to justify the bigotry and depravity that Miller sponsored, so it makes one wonder what was going on in the minds of Miller officials who wouldn’t budge—even after it was made plain to them what they were supporting.

The Miller brass also proved to be extremely dumb. Didn’t they know the reputation of the Catholic League? Did they think we would just lay down and die when we learned of their stubbornness? Didn’t they know that we wrote the book on stubbornness? They do now.

Persistence is the key to success for advocacy organizations. Too often people on our side give up quickly if they don’t get what they want right away. It takes a while to mobilize people, but once the ice is broken—and this is what Mike Setto did for us—then matters change dramatically.

We have the greatest members in the world. Every time I ask for your help, you deliver. Never have you let us down. You write letters, make phone calls, pray, write checks, communicate with others—you do it all. Without you, we’re an army of generals and no troops. Which means we lose.

God Bless you all. And, most especially, God Bless Mike Setto. Merry Christmas from all of us.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue announced a national boycott of Miller Beer on this morning’s “Fox and Friends.” He explains why today:

“Never have we experienced greater corporate arrogance than in this dispute with the Miller Brewing Company. Miller is sponsoring an incredibly outrageous and palpably anti-Christian event in San Francisco: the Folsom Street Fair (see its website at folsomstreetfair.com and be prepared to see the shocking photos of what goes on). Be sure to access our website at catholicleague.org to see the pictures not only of the fair, but of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, an anti-Catholic group that is holding a mock Last Supper dinner tonight in San Francisco. The Sisters is one of the organizations that is receiving funding from this Miller-sponsored event.

“This all started when we learned that Miller was sponsoring an event that featured an obscene ad thrashing the Last Supper. After being pressured, Miller offered a lame statement of regret and said it was pulling its logo from the ad. Not only has it not done so—it is still posted on the website of the street fair—Miller refuses to withdraw its sponsorship. To top it off, when we informed them that some of the money being raised at this festival was being funneled to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, they were unimpressed.

“Accordingly, Miller leaves us with no options: we are calling on more than 200 Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu organizations to join with us in a nationwide boycott of Miller beer. We feel confident that once our religious allies kick in, and once the public sees the photos of an event Miller is proudly supporting, the Milwaukee brewery will come to its senses and pull its sponsorship altogether. If it doesn’t, the only winners will be Anheuser Busch and Coors.”

Contact: Miller spokesman Julian Green at green.julian@mbco.com

Phone: 1-800-MILLER 6 or 414-931-2000

On August 10, Debbie Almontaser resigned as principal of the Khalil Gibran International Academy [KGIA], a New York City public school billed as an “Arabic-themed” institution. She was pressured to resign following her response to a T-shirt that read, “Intifada NYC.” Though the term “intifada” is widely understood today to mean a terrorist “uprising,” Almontaser said that the word originally meant “shaking off oppression.” When the controversy continued, she quit. Now her supporters want the New York City Council to investigate the events leading up to her resignation; some want her reinstated.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue also wants an investigation:

“We are contacting every member of the New York City Council asking for an investigation of the coalition, ‘Communities in Support of KGIA.’ To be specific, on the coalition’s website, kgia.wordpress.com, it provides a link (see ‘Pages’) to ‘Mumia on KGIA.’ There one finds an endorsing statement by Mumia Abu-Jamal (with a link to his FreeMumia.org website). He is the convicted cop-killer and hero to anti-American left-wing extremists. Though there were five eyewitnesses to the murder, and five other witnesses who said that Abu-Jamal admitted killing the officer, the crazies still rally to his side; his appeal has been heard, and rejected, by more than a dozen judges.

“The mask is off. Just as we expected, extremists are backing this so-called Arab school. What perked our interest initially was the stonewalling we experienced over the summer when we sought to ask routine pedagogical questions regarding the school. Where was the curriculum? What textbooks were going to be used? Why were imams serving on an advisory board—some of whom are militants—if this wasn’t an Islamist school? Why did Almontaser refuse to condemn the pro-terrorist T-shirt? Why is the Association of Muslim American Lawyers playing such an integral role in the school?

“And why, now, are those who made the T-shirt serving as a sponsor to the coalition? Most important, why does this coalition embrace a cop-killing thug?”

On September 8, at the 59th Annual Creative Arts Emmy Awards, comedian Kathy Griffin won Outstanding Reality Program for her Bravo show, “My Life on the D-List.” In her acceptance speech, Griffin said, “Suck it, Jesus, this award is my God now.” Fox will televise the Primetime Emmy Awards on Sunday, September 16 from the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded as follows:

“Mel Gibson. Michael Richards. Isaiah Washington. Imus. Jerry Lewis. Every time a celebrity offends a segment of the population, he pays a price, in one way or another. The question now is whether Kathy Griffin will pay a similar price for her outburst. And as we have learned, her verbal assault was calculated.

“In an interview with Houston’s gay magazine, OutSmart, Griffin described herself as a ‘complete militant atheist.’ Unfortunately, her kind of vulgar in-your-face brand of hate speech found a receptive audience on Saturday: The Hollywood Reporter says her foul remark ‘drew laughs.’

“It is incumbent upon Dick Askin, chairman and chief executive officer of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, to denounce Griffin’s obscene and blasphemous comment; a statement should also be read on Sunday. After all, it is his organization that is responsible for the Creative Arts Emmy event. Moreover, given the way the Hollywood crowd received Griffin’s remark, it falls to Askin to distance the Academy from this outrageous incident. We are contacting Griffin’s agent as well.

“It is sure bet that if Griffin had said, ‘Suck it, Muhammad,’ there would have been a very different reaction from the crowd and from the media who covered this event. To say nothing of the Muslim reaction.”

Contact Askin at dick.askin@emmyleader.org