Bill Donohue comments on how National Public Radio (NPR) is responding to complaints about the offensive episode of “Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me” that aired December 6:

On December 8, I issued a news release objecting to the latest episode of “Wait Wait,” and also asked those on our email list to contact NPR. Many did. The episode was downright offensive: it made a veiled reference to Jesus with his hands on his genitals.

Here is how NPR responded to it critics. “Wait Wait is a comedy show that pokes fun at the news. The goal is always to make people laugh. I regret that we did not succeed in this case.”

The “news” that NPR decided to deride was neither a major national or international story: it was about an outreach program aimed at young people in the Diocese of Brooklyn. More seriously, NPR is very selective about who it wants its audience to laugh at. For example, never once has NPR come even close to mocking Muhammad, and no sexual references have ever been about him, including on “Wait Wait.”

When the Danish cartoons that poked fun at Muhammad were published in 2005 and 2006, NPR refused to publish them on its website. NPR explained its decision to self-censor by saying, “the cartoon is so highly offensive to millions of Muslims that it’s preferable to describe it in words rather than posting it on the Web….By not posting it on the Web, we demonstrate a respect for deeply held religious beliefs.”

We are asking House Speaker John Boehner to take up the issue of defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the parent company of NPR. Until Catholics are afforded the same degree of respect for their “deeply held religious beliefs,” they should not have to subsidize attacks on their religion. This is hardly the first time that NPR has ridiculed Catholics, but doing so at Christmastime makes it all the more egregious.

Contact NPR’s media relations director, Isabel Lara: ilara@npr.org

Bill Donohue says American Atheists President David Silverman is scared of Christmas:

Most atheists either celebrate Christmas in a secular fashion, or are wholly dismissive of it. Few are terrified of it. David Silverman is one of them. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what he recently said:

“Millions of American children are forced to go to church under the threat of being denied meals, losing household privileges, having their college tuition cut off, or being kicked out of their homes. Many atheists are forced to go to church under threat of divorce or lose custody of their children.”

In David’s imagination—he has no data—millions of children are given an ultimatum at Christmastime. Here’s how a Christian mom might put it:

“This is the final straw—I’m going nuclear. Go to church on Christmas Day you little heathens or starve. Here’s a reality check: If you don’t go goose-stepping off to church, you can walk the lousy dog and pick up his poop. Better tell your older siblings that if they don’t make it to church, the gravy train is over: no more tuition payments—they can join the unemployment line. And if any of you wise guys push me too far, you are out the door—see what it is like to live on the street with other homeless bums. As for your atheist father, if he doesn’t make it to church this year, I’m filing for divorce, charging him with child abuse. That way he’ll never see you brats again.”

Time for David to seek some counseling. I know of a great priest who….

Contact David: dsilverman@atheists.org

Bill Donohue comments on Minnesota Public Radio:

National Public Radio is no friend of Catholicism, but usually it tries to hide its bias. By contrast, Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) is so thoroughly anti-Catholic that it makes no attempt to be fair. Truth be told, it is a scam: its politics is pervasive. Here’s the latest proof.

On December 8, a jury acquitted Father Mark Huberty, a Twin Cities priest, of criminal sexual conduct; a woman claimed he took sexual advantage of her during counseling sessions.

Three media outlets in Minnesota have been tracking this story from the beginning: the Pioneer Press, the Star-Tribune, and MPR. When news reports surfaced clearing Father Huberty of wrongdoing, the two newspapers gave the jury verdict complete coverage. But not MPR.

For many years now, MPR has specialized in issuing lengthy reports on alleged priestly abuse; it ran a long story last week about a former priest. When a priest is found not guilty, however, that is of no interest to MPR. To wit: In 2013, MPR did four lengthy stories on salacious accusations against Father Huberty, but when he was exonerated this week, the best it could do was to offer a 134-word AP story. It had no motivation to recount its previous reporting, or to present its own story.

This is yellow journalism: the only Catholic news that excites MPR is dirt.

Contact Michael Popham, Director of Member and Audience services: mpopham@mpr.org

To read Bill Donohue’s latest Newsmax article, “Catholic Theologians Lack Self-Reflection on Race” in response to a statement on racial justice signed by hundreds of Catholic professors, click here.

Bill Donohue comments on two recent assaults on conscience rights:

What does the Obama administration and Marquette University have in common? Neither respects conscience rights.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has issued an important statement on a new Department of Labor regulation that implements President Obama’s Executive Order of July 21 prohibiting government contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It cited the Catholic Catechism.

The Catechism opposes all “unjust discrimination” against homosexuals, allowing for instances when drawing distinctions on the basis of sexual orientation accord with justice. It appears, the bishops indicate, that the Department of Labor regulation does not meet the test of justice.

The USCCB said that its early read on the regulation indicates that it prohibits “far more than that of ‘unjust discrimination.'” Furthermore, the executive order upon which it is based, the bishops said, was “objectionable.”

Referring to the regulations, the bishops said they appear “to prohibit employers’ religious and moral disapproval of same-sex conduct, which creates a serious threat to freedom of conscience and religious liberty, because ‘[u]nder no circumstances’ may Catholics approve of such conduct.”

Jesuit institutions such as Marquette University share Obama’s position. At a recent “anti-harassment” training presentation, employees of the university were told that merely voicing objections to gay marriage may be considered discriminatory; they were urged to report such offenses. Which begs the question: Would they bring the pope up on charges following a speech on marriage?

The contempt for conscience rights, our first freedom, is no longer coming from barbarians abroad—home-grown ones are inside our gates.

Amid a media outcry Rolling Stone’s editor has been forced to apologize for “mistakes” and “discrepancies” in a recent article about a young woman, “Jackie,” who claimed she was raped at a University of Virginia fraternity house. The sensational story described in detail the woman’s claims and the lack of any response from university officials. After the story was published, fact-checkers found that it just did not add up. The article in question was written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely.

This is not the first time Erdely has published this type of article with outlandish accusations, wild dramatization, and a lack of accuracy. The September 15, 2011 edition of Rolling Stone included an article by her, “The Catholic Church’s Secret Sex-Crime Files,” in the same vein as the University of Virginia story. That story focused on “Billy Doe” who claimed he was raped by two priests and a lay school teacher in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

In 2011 Erdely took the word of “Billy” and used it to smear Philadelphia priests, including three cardinals. Indeed she took the occasion to slam priests in general. When the article was published, Bill Donohue issued a lengthy retort: he pointed out the discrepancies, mistakes, lack of facts, and innuendo. There was no apology from Rolling Stone’s editors. There was no media outcry about the lack of journalistic integrity.

To read Donohue’s special report on Erdely’s yellow journalism, “Rolling Stone Gets Ugly: Vile Hit on Philly Archdiocese,” click here.

Bill Donohue comments on a National Public Radio (NPR) game show, “Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me” that aired Saturday night:

The astute atheists at NPR decided that the Brooklyn Diocese’s outreach program to millennial “hipsters” was worth a few jokes. After all, it’s Christmastime, so why not choose Catholicism for ridicule?

Most of the exchange between the characters was so inane that it is not worth repeating. There was a cheap shot taken about transubstantiation, and the Hail Mary was the source of laughter. By far the most offensive statement was made about Jesus.  Here is what somebody who goes by the name of Segal said:

“You can take a selfie with Jesus. The Catholic Church preaches that Jesus is always with us, in fact he’s right behind you. So this new app—Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn shows a woman sitting by herself. She’s holding out her phone to take a selfie like the kids do, but in the picture you see this woman and this bearded beatific man smiling behind her. It’s not some rando creepo who got into the church, it’s the Son of God. This raises all sorts of questions for the woman. For starters, why didn’t Jesus offer just to take the picture himself? His hands were occupied.”

Our friend Tim Graham of Newsbusters offered the following response to the closing part of this statement: “Is that a reference to his hands being nailed to the cross? Or is it a more sexual reference to the Savior’s hands being on himself (as could be joked about considering the image).”

Tim is too kind. Those who work at this taxpayer-funded entity have a record of bashing Catholics. Last year NPR reviewed a movie about a “devout” Catholic woman who masturbates with a crucifix. It scored the flick “recommended.” So we know which message it sought to convey: being low class is NPR’s natural step.

Contact NPR’s media relations director, Isabel Lara: ilara@npr.org

Bill Donohue comments on the reaction of Washington Post art critic Philip Kennicott to an exhibition, “Picturing Mary,” that opened today in the National Museum of Women in the Arts:

Kennicott is furious that the exhibition offers a reverential treatment of Our Blessed Mother. He likes his Virgin Mary adorned with feces.

In his Washington Post article, Kennicott blasted the museum for not including Chris Ofili’s “The Holy Virgin Mary” in the exhibit. That piece was unfurled at the Brooklyn Museum of Art in 1999: a portrait of the Virgin Mary was laden with elephant dung. Kennicott calls this crap “perhaps the most famous image of Mary painted in the last quarter century.” Really? Wonder what he would say about an African-American exhibit that featured a picture of Rev. Martin Luther King with human excrement in his mouth? Would that be a classic as well?

I led the protest against the Brooklyn Museum of Art in 1999 and got plenty of support from Catholics, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Africans. The latter took umbrage at the idea that putting elephant dung on pictures is considered honorific by Nigerians. Indeed, the Nigerians I spoke to called that understanding racist (it was usually made by liberal white boys).

Kennicott slammed the Washington museum for promoting “the dogmatic tradition of Catholicism rather than its rich, exuberant and open intellectual tradition.” In essence, art is enriched when it defiles Catholicism.

He invokes Simone de Beauvoir to make his case: she saw the Virgin Mary as the enemy of “women’s dignity and empowerment.” This French feminist was also pro-pedophilia and anti-women. She signed a petition in 1977 seeking the elimination of all laws on sex between adults and children. She is also known for her quip that “Women should not have that choice [of staying at home to raise their children] precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” So much for being pro-choice.

Contact this genius: philip.kennicott@washpost.com

Bill Donohue comments on a new coalition:

What do Americans United for Separation of Church and State have in common with Satanists? Everything—they’re on the same page. That’s why Barry Lynn of Americans United offered to represent the Satanic Temple in its quest to assault Christian sensibilities in Florida. The Devil worshipers sought, and the government agreed, to put a Satanist display next to a nativity scene in the Capitol rotunda later this month.

If I were advising Barry, I would counsel against this coalition. Why? Not because he is promoting hate speech at Christmastime—that doesn’t bother him—but because up until now he was at least able to fool some people into thinking that he is sincerely committed to the First Amendment. Now the mask is off.

Barry’s retort to critics, “Free speech is for everyone and all groups,” is lame. On the same day, December 3, that he announced his support for Satanism, the Michigan chapter of Americans United opposed a bill protecting the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Case closed.

Anyone familiar with the history of Americans United knows that its support for Satanism is hardly a shocker. It was founded after World War II as an expressly anti-Catholic organization called Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Its first director, Glenn L. Archer, said the Catholic Church was “more dangerous and clever than communism.” In all honesty, he lied—he believed that the Church was far worse. We know this because Archer loved Joseph Stalin: he defended the mass murderer even after Stalin launched the world’s first man-made famine; millions of Ukrainians were intentionally starved to death.

So now Barry has come full circle. From the anti-Catholic, pro-Stalinist origins of his organization, he has now laid anchor with Satanists.

Contact Barry: americansunited@au.org

Bill Donohue comments on the trailer to a documentary, “I Am Santa Claus”:

CNN executives are very excited that one of their own, Morgan Spurlock, is the man behind “I Am Santa Claus.” To prove how happy they are, they are flagging a supremely positive article about the flick by one of their online columnists, John D. Sutter. The source of their ebullience has nothing to do with the artistic quality of the documentary: it has everything to do with Santa’s homosexuality. They like that a lot.

How do we know that Santa is a homosexual? Not by his dress—he looks like a regular Santa. It’s by his behavior: he likes to kiss men and boasts about his job working in a strip joint. Reference is made, of course, to male genitalia. But at least Santa is prudent: he points to a sign above a food station that warns homosexuals to keep their pants on. This reminds me of San Francisco where homosexuals are told to put a towel below their bottom before sitting down in a restaurant. Warning signs are a thoughtful, if regrettable, gesture.

We will know the day when homosexuals are just like the rest of us when they stop stereotyping themselves. Until then, play it safe and “make the yuletide” straight.