Critics of the Mel Gibson movie, “The Passion of the Christ,” are confounded. That’s because the pope has seen the film and has extended his blessings. “It is as it was,” Pope John Paul II said. Thus did he drive Mel’s adversaries into a tizzy.

It was on December 17 that Peggy Noonan broke the story in “Opinion Journal,” an online editorial posted on the Wall Street Journal website. The Catholic League’s immediate response was to comment on those critics of Gibson—none of whom has seen the film—who harbor an agenda to discredit the film.

Consider, for example, some members of an ad hoc committee of Catholic and Jewish theologians. Paula Fredriksen has accused Gibson of promoting violence. Father John Pawlikowski has blasted the Catholic League for defending Mel, calling him a “heretic.” Moreover, Philip Cunningham and Sister Mary Boys have joined the other two in denouncing Gibson for allegedly violating their own trumped-up rules governing depictions of the Passion. “Acting like proponents of a neo-Hays code,” we said, “they arrogantly think Mel should have had to run the film by them for approval.” We then said, “He doesn’t have to—the pope’s on board.”

About a week before the pope bestowed his blessings on the movie, several top Vatican officials gave their unanimous approval to the film. Members of the Vatican Secretariat of State, the Pontifical Council for Social Communications, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (which oversees doctrinal issues) applauded Gibson for his efforts.

Father Augustine Di Noia, undersecretary of the doctrinal congregation, offered the most cogent statement on the question of who is to blame for the crucifixion of Christ. He said that “each of the main characters contributes in some way to Jesus’ fate: Judas betrays him; the Sanhedrin accuses him; the disciples abandon him; Peter denies knowing him; Herod toys with him; Pilate allows him to be condemned; the crowd mocks him; the Roman soldiers scourge, brutalize and finally crucify him; and the devil, somehow, is behind the whole action.” Only Mary, Di Noia observes, “is really blameless.”

When asked point-blank whether the movie is anti-Semitic, Di Noia said, “There is absolutely nothing anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish about Mel Gibson’s film.” Father Gus Di Noia, a Catholic League member, has said it just right.

Every December the Catholic League goes into high gear confronting those who attempt to censor Christmas. This year was no exception.

Unfortunately, the long-awaited ruling on the New York City schools did not come down. So another year went by without nativity scenes in the schools; Jewish menorahs and Islamic crescent and stars were allowed.

We fought the good fight all over the nation and won three major victories. We had a public library in Meriden, Connecticut restore paintings of Jesus that officials of the library had banned. We threatened a lawsuit against a public school outside of Philadelphia for removing a nativity scene (while allowing a menorah), and we succeeded in having the crèche restored. And we persuaded officials at Central Michigan University to remove a “Warning” to Christians—posted on the school’s website—on how to properly celebrate Christmas without offending others.

It is really getting out of hand. As William Donohue told Fox News Channel talk-show host Neil Cavuto, there is a South African element at work: the majority of the population seems to be losing its rights to the minority. In South Africa, black Africans comprised better than 90 percent of the population, yet the power was in the hands of the white minority. In the U.S., every December there is a war on Christian symbols—even though Christians comprise 85 percent of the population.
There is a lot more on these and related stories in this issue of Catalyst.

Every December the Catholic League goes into high gear confronting those who attempt to censor Christmas. This year was no exception.

Unfortunately, the long-awaited ruling on the New York City schools did not come down. So another year went by without nativity scenes in the schools; Jewish menorahs and Islamic crescent and stars were allowed.

We fought the good fight all over the nation and won three major victories. We had a public library in Meriden, Connecticut restore paintings of Jesus that officials of the library had banned. We threatened a lawsuit against a public school outside of Philadelphia for removing a nativity scene (while allowing a menorah), and we succeeded in having the crèche restored. And we persuaded officials at Central Michigan University to remove a “Warning” to Christians—posted on the school’s website—on how to properly celebrate Christmas without offending others.

It is really getting out of hand. As William Donohue told Fox News Channel talk-show host Neil Cavuto, there is a South African element at work: the majority of the population seems to be losing its rights to the minority. In South Africa, black Africans comprised better than 90 percent of the population, yet the power was in the hands of the white minority. In the U.S., every December there is a war on Christian symbols—even though Christians comprise 85 percent of the population.
There is a lot more on these and related stories in this issue of Catalyst.

William A. Donohue

It all happened quite accidentally. On June 11, 2003, I was asked to debate Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center on the MSNBC show “Scarborough Country.” The subject—the hullabaloo over a movie that virtually no one had seen, “The Passion” (the name has since been changed to read, “The Passion of the Christ”).

The debate, however, had little to do with the movie. It was all about the man behind the film, Mel Gibson. Here’s the proof. The first question Joe Scarborough asked of Rabbi Hier was, “What do you find troubling about the movie that’s coming up possibly in 2004 by Mel Gibson?” His answer: “Well, first of all, in the article in the ‘Sunday Magazine’ in the New York Times, Gibson made it very clear that he wants to go back to the good old days, before, he says, the Catholic Church was spoiled by Vatican II. Now, Vatican II was convened specifically—one of the highlights of Vatican II was that the document declared that the Jews were not responsible for the deicide—for the death of Jesus. And Gibson says he wants to go back to the time before that.”

This is revealing on several levels. Notice that Rabbi Hier’s objection was not the movie, it was the person behind it. Hier had read an article in the New York Times Magazine that was designed to paint Mel a reactionary Catholic who objects to Vatican II. But if Mel was mad, his father was worse: he raised questions over how many Jews died in the Holocaust. In Hier’s mind, this meant that Mel’s account of the Passion was bound to be anti-Semitic.

To begin with, readers should know that the smear merchants never say that Mel’s father questioned the number of Jews who died. What they say is that he is a Holocaust denier. Not only is this a bald-face lie, it impugns the integrity of Jewish scholars who say the real figure is closer to 5 million than 6 million. Be that as it may, it is amazing that Mel Gibson is being held responsible for anything his father allegedly said: the man is in his mid-eighties and has no reputation of hurting anyone.

As for Vatican II, here is what I said on the TV show: “I would take exception to what Rabbi Hier says regarding pre-Vatican II-type Catholics. I mean, I’ve never met Mel Gibson, but people have a nostalgia for the Catholic Church before Vatican II for all kinds of reasons having nothing to do with Jews, having everything to do with the liturgy and the sacredness of the Catholic Church and its teachings and the clear-cut message the Catholic Church had.”

Notice, too, that Rabbi Hier seems to think that Vatican II was all about Jews. Look what he said, before he corrected himself: “Now, Vatican II was convened specifically—one of the highlights….” Sorry, Rabbi, Vatican II was about a lot more than Catholic interpretations of the Passion.

One final point. Rabbi Hier was in such denial over the role some Jews played in the death of Jesus that I was forced to ask him whether it was the Puerto Ricans who were guilty. Later, I threw in the Aleutian Islanders and Pacific Islanders as possible culprits.

As it turned out, Mel saw the show that evening and soon asked to see me. On July 6, he came to our office in New York City and offered a private viewing; Father Eichner, chairman of the board, and league vice president Bernadette Brady, were also there. On July 22, I saw the movie again, this time at Sony Studios; Louis Giovino, the league’s director of communications, accompanied me.

The movie is the most powerful dramatization of the death of Jesus ever made. It will move you the way no movie ever has or will. To be sure, it is tough to watch at times, but then again there is no way to sugarcoat a scourging and a crucifixion, and Mel Gibson is not a sugarcoating kind of guy—he’s a Catholic League kind of guy. Which explains why he joined the league the day we first met. So much for his rejection of the Catholic Church today.

A small band of Catholic and Jewish theologians, as well as the ADL and Rabbi Hier, have been working to undermine Mel’s work, even though none has seen it. But the good news is this: they have become so unhinged, so drunk with ideology, that they have discredited themselves. That they are on the losing side of this strategic battle in the reigning culture wars is obvious. Mel has triumphed.

The Catholic League is not alone in defending Mel Gibson. But we are virtually alone in directly confronting those out to submarine him. Of this we are very proud, and we know you are too. That’s the Catholic League way—taking on our adversaries headfirst. We know of no other way.

By the time the March edition of Catalyst arrives in your home, “The Passion of the Christ” will have opened in theaters nationwide; it opens February 25. Be sure to keep this handy guide nearby so you can monitor what the critics will be saying. Here is a list of some of the most irresponsible remarks made by Mel’s critics, all of whom blasted the movie without seeing it.

Alex Beam, Boston Globe:
“Whatever Gibson’s intentions, the film will be perceived as anti-Semitic, because the Christian Bible holds that Jesus was a Jewish prophet rejected and betrayed by his own people.” (7/22/03)

Sr. Mary C. Boys, Professor of Practical Theology, Union Theological Seminary:
“I don’t believe that [given the divisive] result that he [Mel Gibson] could claim that the Holy Spirit is behind this. … Our concern is what happens after people see the film? Will anti-Semitic actions happen or will attitudes against the Jews be exacerbated by this film?” (Cybercast News Service, 11/7/03)

“For too many years, Christians have accused Jews of being Christ-killers and used that charge to rationalize violence…. This is our fear.” (Associated Press, 8/9/03)

“As a member of the Catholic Church, I regard [Mel Gibson’s] thinking as bizarre and dangerous, and suggest that Jews judge them similarly.” (The Jewish Week, 3/28/03)

Harold Brackman, Consultant, Simon Wiesenthal Center:
“It is Christians who bear the responsibility, after 2,000 years of religious-inspired anti-Semitism, to inhibit rather than inflame the excesses of their own haters. When filmmakers with a Christological agenda fail to accept this responsibility, the blood that may result is indeed on their hands.” (Forward, 8/8/03)

James Carroll, Boston Globe: 
“Even a faithful repetition of the Gospel stories of the death of Jesus can do damage exactly because those sacred texts themselves carry the virus of Jew hatred. … The religious anti-Judaism of the Gospels provided soil out of which grew the racial anti-Semitism of the Holocaust. Once Christians know where the falsely anti-Jewish Passion story led, it is criminal for them to repeat it naively—whether from a pulpit or on a movie screen.” (4/15/03)

Richard Chesnoff, Daily News (NY): 
“We’ve come a long way in Christian-Jewish relations. But now Hollywood’s Mel Gibson threatens to set it all back—maybe 2,000 years.” (8/8/03)

Michael J. Cook, Professor of Judaeo-Christian Studies, Hebrew Union College:
“Gibson’s film may reverse progress the Christian community has made in reinterpreting anti-Jewish New Testament passages.” (The Jewish Week [NY], 3/28/03)

Eric Fettmann, New York Post:
“Gibson’s insistence that the film ‘conforms to the narratives of Christ’s passion and death found in the four Gospels of the New Testament’ is hardly reassuring. Because, to be sure, the gospels, for various historical reasons, do paint Jews in the worst light.” (6/19/03)

Abraham Foxman, National Director, Anti-Defamation League:
” [Mel Gibson] entertains views that can only be described as anti-Semitic.” (Associated Press, 9/19/03)

“[Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos’s praise] makes the film worse, more damaging, more threatening because what we thought we had eliminated with Vatican II is coming back in a film.” (Daily Variety, 9/19/03)

“Can you imagine, if this film is not changed and it begins to play around the world, what—what it may possibly trigger?” (Minnesota Public Radio, “Marketplace,” 9/9/03)

If Gibson’s “message was tainted, [the movie] is dangerous. He is an icon. People will see this film without a guide, without their priest.” (Philadelphia Inquirer, 8/13/03)

Paula Fredriksen, Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture, Boston University:
“A movie like this could very possibly elicit violence against Jews.” (Cybercast News Service, 11/7/03)

“Jews are the objects of anti-Semitism, but Catholics and other Christians, inspired by Gibson’s movie, could well become its agents. … When violence breaks out, Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to.” (emphasis added; The New Republic, 7/28/03)

Steve Gushee, Palm Beach Post:
“Sure, Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion, is probably anti-Semitic. The less obvious but more dangerous problem is that the movie about the death of Jesus is probably not Christian.” (10/24/03)

Rabbi Abraham B. Hecht and Rabbi Joshua S. Hecht, Rabbinical Alliance of America:
“The message of this movie…is highly problematic for its historical inaccuracy and its message of intolerance and overt anti-Semitic overtones.” (Jerusalem Post, 9/12/03)

Rabbi Marvin Hier, Dean, Simon Wiesenthal Center: 
“This is a story for which millions of people throughout history paid with their lives. They were burned at the stake, killed in pogroms and the Inquisition, and it was also these ideas that served as the foundation of the Holocaust.” (Newsday [NY], 7/22/03)

Rabbi Marvin Hier and Harold Brackman:
“Any film about such a sensitive subject would set off alarm bells. But a film by Gibson is particularly alarming. … At this tinderbox moment in our new century, we need to be especially careful about a movie that has the potential to further ignite ancient hatreds.” (Los Angeles Times, 6/22/03)

New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind: 
“This film can potentially lead to violence directed against the Jewish community. …It will result in anti-Semitism and bigotry. It really takes us back to the Dark Ages…the Inquisition, the Crusades, all for the so-called sin of the Crucifixion of Jesus.” (Washington Times, 8/29/03)

Ken Jacobson, Associate National Director, Anti-Defamation League: 
“We have good reason to be seriously concerned about Gibson’s plans to retell the Passion. Historically, the Passion—the story of the killing of Jesus—has resulted in the death of Jews.” (New York Post, 6/21/03)

Amy-Jill Levine, Professor of New Testament Studies, Vanderbilt University:
“The reaction to the [Ad Hoc Committee] scholars’ objections could be interpreted as anti-Semitic.” (Beliefnet.com, 8/7/03)

Bill Maher, comedian:
“I do think Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic.” (“Imus in the Morning,” 9/24/03)

Christopher Orlet, freelance writer:
“It is a view guaranteed to stir anew the passions of the rabid Christian, and one that will send the Jews scurrying back to the dark corners of history.” (Salon.com, 8/14/03)

Fr. John T. Pawlikowski, Director of the Catholic-Jewish Studies Program, Catholic Theological Union:
“This was one of the worst things we had seen in describing responsibility for the death of Christ in many many years.” (New York Times, 8/2/03)

“Those who might see the film without much or any background in recent biblical interpretation will be terribly misled.” (The Jewish Week [NY], 3/28/03)

Frank Rich, New York Times:
“What makes the unfolding saga of ‘The Passion’ hard to ignore is…the extent to which his combative marketing taps into larger angers. The ‘Passion’ fracas is happening not in a vacuum but in an increasingly divided America fighting a war that many on both sides see as a religious struggle.” (9/21/03)

“These days American Jews don’t have to fret too much about the charge of deicide—or didn’t, until Mel Gibson started directing a privately financed movie…. Jews have already been libeled by Mr. Gibson’s politicized rollout of his film. His game from the start has been to foment the old-as-Hollywood canard that the ‘entertainment elite’ (which just happens to be Jewish) is gunning for his Christian movie. … But the real question here is why Mr. Gibson and his minions would go out of their way to bait Jews and sow religious conflict, especially at this fragile historical moment.” (8/3/03)

Tim Rutten, Los Angeles Times:
“And as the growing controversy over Gibson’s ‘The Passion’ spills more widely onto the nation’s op-ed pages, into political magazines and even into the halls of Congress, more than rhetorical bruises are likely to be suffered. Even in steady hands, the Passion narrative is as combustible as material can be.” (8/6/03)

Myrna Shinbaum, spokeswoman, Anti-Defamation League:
“Historically, treatment of the death of Jesus and the passion has led to the death of Jews. … Since Vatican II in the 1960s, Catholics and Jews have worked very hard to move away from a literal interpretation [of the New Testament]. We would hope this film wouldn’t set us back.” (Daily News [NY], 6/14/03)

Jessica Winter, Village Voice (NY):
“It may instigate violence….” (11/7/03)

Cathy Young, Boston Globe:
“But in its own way, the attitude of some champions of ‘The Passion’ is troubling…. The biblical account of Jesus’ life and death should not be sacrificed to political correctness. But the cry of ‘political correctness’ can also become a cover for very real bigotry.” (8/18/03)

Letter, New York Times:
“Mel Gibson’s ability to pervert and invert scriptural teaching while claiming to uphold it leads me to think his next movie will be a stirring account of Pope Pius XII’s life.”(10/5/03)

Letter, People Magazine:
“After the murder of 6 million Jews, the Jewish community in the United States and worldwide should be concerned about the message being sent by Mel Gibson’s film…. This dangerous revision is an insult to the memory of the Holocaust and the good Christians who have tried to make amends for the ultimate crime of anti-Semitism.” (9/22/03)

Letter, Newsday (NY):
“Gibson’s ‘The Passion’ is ‘just’ a movie in the same way ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ is ‘just’ a book.” (9/18/03)

Sign at protest urging News Corp. not to distribute “The Passion,” New York:
“THE PASSION IS A LETHAL WEAPON AGAINST JEWS.” (8/28/03)

When people say there is a December Dilemma, what they mean is that school officials are in a bind: how can they allow the celebration of Christmas without offending others? The answer? Censor Christmas.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is so worried about Christmas that it issues an annual document, “The December Dilemma,” on how to deal with this problem. (In response, the Catholic League offers, “The December Celebration.”) In a Q&A section, the ADL comments on what is excessive when it comes to Christmas decorations. After admitting that the courts have said Santas and Christmas trees are secular symbols, it warns, “Nevertheless, their inordinate usage is inappropriate.” It does not say what constitutes an inordinate number, nor does it say why secular symbols of any kind should be censored, regardless of their volume. But it does tell us a lot about how the ADL views Christmas.

Unfortunately, many school officials have been picking up on the ADL’s fear mongering. For example, Janet Jones is Principal of Adler Elementary in Southfield, Michigan. Scott Finnegan is Principal of Memorial and Burke Elementary in Medway, Massachusetts. Michael Ransaw is Principal of Powell Middle School in Spring Hill, Florida. All three resolved the “December Dilemma” in 2003 by taking a page from the ADL—they censored it.

In every instance, school officials say they must censor Christmas because the holiday is not inclusive. But if they were advised to censor Martin Luther King Day celebrations—on the grounds that it is not inclusive (it represents only a small minority)—they would respond by saying that white kids who feel left out should respect diversity. Why, then, should not those who are not Christian (a small minority) be told to respect the diversity that Christmas offers?

There is a game being played here: in one instance, those who complain are rewarded; in the other, they are denied. Such is the game of multicultural madness.

On December 18, the Catholic League issued a news release regarding the decision of Simmons Elementary School Principal Karen Davis to remove a nativity scene from the school. After threatening a lawsuit, the crèche was put back the same day. Here’s what happened.

Parents had put the nativity scene in the suburban Philadelphia school, but Davis had it removed because she said it was promoting Christianity. However, she allowed a Jewish religious symbol to remain in the school, namely the menorah. This inspired Dr. William A. Donohue to contact Dr. William A. Lessa, Superintendent of Schools for the Hatboro-Horsham School District. Donohue said that unless Lessa reversed Davis’ decision, there would be a lawsuit. The charge: religious discrimination.

After meeting with lawyers and outraged parents, Dr. Lessa ordered the nativity scene to be restored that evening. “To even begin to imply that the acknowledgment of a nativity is inappropriate doesn’t sound right to me,” he said. He said he would revisit the whole question of religious symbols in the school after the holidays.

Upon hearing the good news, the Catholic League issued the following statement to the media:

“Dr. Lessa did the right thing by putting back the nativity scene. He could have chosen to take out the menorah and thereby relieve the Catholic League’s objection that Simmons Elementary was guilty of religious discrimination. But instead he chose to put a Christian religious symbol alongside a Jewish religious symbol. In short, he prefers, as do we, to practice government neutrality by being tolerant.

“What Dr. Lessa did is in sharp contrast to what left-wing religious bigots do: they prefer to show their neutrality by banning all religious symbols from the schools. And in doing so they do what comes natural to them—they practice intolerance.

“The Catholic League takes no great joy in threatening lawsuits at Christmastime. But what we like less is to tolerate cultural pogroms every December.”

We thought this matter was over until Donohue received a faxed letter from Lessa on December 23 that was dated December 19. In it, Lessa said Donohue had misrepresented what he said, adding that “your potential lawsuit had no bearing on the Hatboro-Horsham School District’s final decision.”

Donohue answered him immediately. He wanted to know how he misrepresented what the school official said. Then Donohue unloaded: “And if you think you can avoid a lawsuit next year by discriminating against Christians, just try it.” There has been no reply from Dr. Lessa.

Officials of Meriden Public Library in Meriden, Connecticut, banned five images of Jesus from display in the library. The paintings, all of which were reverential, were nonetheless deemed violative of a policy that disallows “inappropriate” and “offensive” fare. The Catholic League protested and won: the paintings were allowed to be shown.

The paintings portrayed a nativity scene, Jesus carrying the cross, His crucifixion, resurrection and a portrait of Christ with a halo. Children, library officials argued, might be disturbed to see these images. The rest of the exhibit, “Visions, Hopes and Dreams,” was declared acceptable, but artist Mary Morley canceled it when she was told to censor Jesus. Portraits of Pope John Paul II, Mother Teresa, Moses with the Ten Commandments, as well as the prophet Elijah, were deemed acceptable; the exhibit was to start December 1.

When we heard about this, we issued the following news release on December 3:

“In 1996, Meriden Public Library received a $3,000 grant from the American Library Association (ALA) to fund a five-part book discussion on the values and attitudes that Americans bring to the workplace. One of those values surely is tolerance, yet for some reason this property never took root in the heads of the officials of the Meriden Public Library. In the name of protecting kids from seeing a portrait of Jesus, the censors are busy practicing intolerance. Perhaps they would have been more at home with a portrait of Lucifer.

“I am writing today to Keith Michael Fiels, Executive Director of the ALA in Chicago, to request that the ALA censure the Meriden Public Library for censoring Jesus. I will also ask that the ALA refrain from giving the library any future grants.

“On a larger scale, what is amazing about this is that for the past several years, public librarians all over the country have furiously objected to any technology that would protect kids from accessing pornography on library computers. But it’s not as though they are value-free—what some of them can’t stomach is an image of Jesus Christ. So they do make value judgments after all.”

On December 15, the library’s board of directors voted unanimously to allow Morley to display her paintings of Jesus. Morley called the Catholic League to thank us for defending her.

It’s not just the schools that are censoring Christmas; the corporate world is doing its part as well. So-called diversity specialists are the ones seeking to gut Christmas from the workplace.

We call them the Diversity Despots. Take, for example, Fraser Nelson, executive director of the Disability Law Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. Nelson, who is Jewish, is against any religious holiday in the workplace. She says she is “personally offended” when she sees a Christmas tree in the rotunda of the Utah State Capitol. Ergo, she censors Christmas for her employees.

Or take Susan Dunn, an internationally recognized Emotional Intelligence Coach. We honestly reported our ignorance to the media: “Though we have no idea what this is, what matters is that she warns against linking December with Christmas, counseling not to forget about Bodhi Day (for those with a low Multicultural IQ, this is a Buddhist holiday, a.k.a. Rohatsu).”

In order to have a true multicultural holiday party, Dunn advises that employees should be encouraged to bring various ethnic foods. “But remember,” she wisely observes, “it’s counterproductive to ask the Hungarian to bring goulash, etc.”

Then there is Myrna Marofsky, perhaps the nation’s foremost Diversity Despot. She runs ProGroup, a diversity firm in Minneapolis. Like the ADL, she speaks of the “December Dilemma.” Having herself created the dilemma for the rest of us, she is ever so kind to fix it for us.

“Consider scheduling celebrations or sending cards before or after the holiday season,” she says. She adds that “Santa Claus can be surprisingly divisive,” and suggests that employers “invite a magician instead.” The recommended tune to sing is “Frosty the Snowman.” Why? “There’s a lot of nice Christmas songs that don’t have anything to do with Baby Jesus.”

Our news release concluded by stating the obvious: “So that’s what this is all about—censoring Jesus.” We then congratulated Marofsky for her honesty.

As a coda, we couldn’t help saying, “We’re thinking about sending Marofsky a Happy Hanukkah card, but not until the Fourth of July. For a Hanukkah treat, we’ll send her some corned beef and cabbage, with a side of meatballs and spaghetti. And for holiday music, we’ll send her a CD by Marilyn Manson.”

In December, we learned that Central Michigan University’s affirmative action office publishes a calendar, available online, that denotes various holidays. In December 2003, it listed Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa and Las Posadas. But there was an asterisk next to Christmas: it read, “Warning of Holiday Decorations.”

By clicking on the “Warning,” it was possible to access a document titled, “How to Celebrate Christmas Without Offense.” Before going any further, it should be noted that there was no asterisk next to the other three holidays. The absence of any “Warning,” we reasoned, suggests that those who celebrate Christmas have found it difficult to do so without offending others. The implication is that Jews and African Americans, as well as Mexican Christians, have been able to celebrate their respective holidays without offending anyone.

In a news release, we commented what a gem the “Warning” document was. It said, “During the December Holiday season it is important to realize what may be offensive to others within a place of employment.” We pointed out to the media that those who celebrate the other holidays were spared the lecture about offending others. “The implication being,” we opined, “that celebrating Christmas enrages non-Christians.” We thought it fair to conclude that “if true, [it] suggests that Jews and Muslims are religious bigots.” This is quite a statement coming from an affirmative action office.

The document proceeded to instruct Christians on what is permissible: “It is inappropriate to decorate things with Santa Claus or reindeer or other ‘Christmas’ decorations.” This made us wonder, “So if the Multicultural Gestapo remove Santa, what do they do if they stumble on a nativity scene—smash it with their clubs?” In any event, the document went on to say, “Good ideas for decorations during this time are snowflakes, snowpeople, poinsettias to give a feeling of the winter.”

This provoked us to say, “Though this was obviously written by an illiterate—or by a dean—it’s a solid point. Any school that would allow a snowman is clearly sexist, to say nothing of dissing ‘a feeling of the winter.'”

No sooner had we issued our news release when the Fox News Channel was calling Central Michigan University for an explanation. In no time at all, the calendar was amended. Gone were the invidious “Warnings” to Christians.

We believe the school’s spokesman, Rick Morrison, who said that the top officials at the university were unaware of the invidious “Warning” document. But this is what happens when affirmative action personnel turn their office into their own fiefdom.

William Donohue accused those responsible of participating in thought control. “The cultural fascists in the U.S.,” he noted, “are more likely to be found in the salons than in saloons; more likely to be intoxicated with ideology than booze.” Donohue ended his remarks saying, “Given a choice between dealing with old-fashioned rednecks and the Multicultural Gestapo, I’ll take the former any day—at least they’re capable of sobering up once and a while.”

Indiana University Law Professor Florence Roisman complained about a Christmas tree on campus and succeeded in getting it removed. She said the 12-foot tree celebrated Christmas. Roisman, who is Jewish, opined, “To honor one religion and not honor others is exclusionary.” The tree had no religious ornaments on it.

The Dean of Students, Tony Tarr, acceded to her demands and had the tree replaced by two smaller trees, along with a sleigh stuffed with red and green poinsettia plants. He declared the first tree to be a “denominational” tree and the new ones to be “a normal Indiana scene.” Roisman objected to the new display as well.

Here is what we told the media:

“The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Christmas tree is a secular symbol. Indeed, it has said that religious displays like the nativity scene can be placed on public property by government agencies just so long as they are surrounded by secular items like a Christmas tree. But none of this is good enough to satisfy law professor Florence Roisman. She’s offended by Christmas. Ergo, anything that reminds her of Christmas must be censored.

“Professor Roisman has a reputation for protesting discrimination against public housing tenants. She now has a reputation for promoting discrimination against Christians. The fact that she did not seek to have a menorah displayed on the campus is telling: for if she had, she might have been able to conceal her animus against Christianity. Now we all know she’s a bigot.

“As for cowardly dean, Tony Tarr, he belongs in Ripley’s Believe It or Notfor his discovery of a denominational tree.”

Tarr contacted us saying, “Thank you for the kind description of ‘cowardly dean.'” But this was totally unnecessary—we were just trying to be accurate.