“THE TEN” AMUSES CRITICS; DOUBLE STANDARD IS NAUSEATING

“The Ten” is billed as an irreverent comedy (rated “R” for crudeness) that ridicules the Ten Commandments; it opens on August 3 in select theaters. Here is what film critics are saying about it:

· “Only Christians with a very liberal sense of humor are likely to enjoy ‘The Ten.’ Even lay viewers will need to be tolerant of gags as envelope-pushing as anything in ‘Borat.’” [Variety]
· “[Gretchen] Mol stars as a 35-year-old virgin who gets deflowered—in lusty romance novel fashion on a trip to Mexico. Her hunky lover boy’s name? Jesus Christ.” [philly.com]
· “The Ten is, I guess, sacrilegious in the strictest sense of the term….” [slantmagazine.com]
· “The Ten is cohesive in the irreverence of its scenarios (in my favorite, Jesus Christ—Justin Theroux as a disheveled, overly hirsute carpenter….)” [notcoming.com]
· “Mol plays a mousy librarian…who travels alone to Mexico and has a wildly sexual fling with a local handyman named Jesus H. Christ (Justin Theroux in long hair and beard).” [AP]
· “They’re almost gleeful in their crudity; grinning ever-wider as they seem to ask the audience just who this bit of blasphemy is hurting.” [eflimcritic.com]
· “Comprised of ten blasphemous vignettes, each inspired by one of the Biblical Commandments, [it] goes out of its way to be irreverent and hilarious….” [emanuellevy.com]
· “The Ten is as sacrilegious as 1979’s The Life of Brian….” [filmstew.com]
· “‘The Ten’ is comprised of 10 blasphemous and hysterical stories that put the insanity back in Christianity.” [Roger Ebert]
· “(By the way, I did mention that conservative Christians may find this film offensive?)” [independentcritics.com]

Catholic League president Bill Donohue had this to say: “If Hollywood were to substitute Muhammad for Jesus, it is a sure bet that many of these same critics wouldn’t find the humor in it. Moreover, we’d all be watching the fallout that such a movie would engender on the evening news.”

CATHOLIC-BASHING PLAYS ARE HOT

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, offered the following comments today on the popularity of Catholic-bashing plays:

“The Helen Hayes Theatre in New York must be experiencing hard times these days, otherwise it wouldn’t be home to ‘Kiki & Herb: Alive on Broadway.’ According to Variety, the play claims that the Catholic Church is run by the Nazis and that ‘the devil really does wear Prada’; the devil is the pope. To show how timely they are, the play’s producers manage to squeeze in a smack at Mel Gibson, dropping the line ‘now he wants the Jews to treat him like they’re Christians.’ According to the Associated Press, ‘Catholics routinely come in for a thrashing, as do Republicans and anti-gay advocates.’ Guess that covers the bases. But this isn’t enough to satisfy the depraved appetites of the audience, which is why there is a discussion about a pet cow—actually a stuffed animal—who ‘ate the afterbirth of Jesus in Bethlehem and later became a show pony for the pope.’ Now would anyone want to have dinner with someone who thought this was funny?

“Another stellar play, ‘Mitzi’s Abortion,’ completes its run on August 20 at Seattle’s ACT Theatre. Mitzi is unsure whether she wants to abort her baby and seeks advice from none other than St. Thomas Aquinas. Guess what he has to say? According to a Seattle newspaper, the Stranger, Aquinas says, ‘This inane position that the Church has taken lately which gives an embryo moral standing as a human person from the moment of conception! It’s ludicrous. But these puppies are eating it up like kibble!’ No one, of course, eats this stuff up more than those who consider this to be entertainment.

“Bigots in Chicago are running to the Oracle to see—one more time—‘Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You.’ This perennial features a vicious nun who rails against her dysfunctional students, derides the teachings of the Catholic Church, attacks Jesus and disparages the Virgin Mary. It has an almost cult following among the morally destitute.

“My guess is that those who spend money to see this fare are mostly angry old ex-Catholics stuck in a time warp. They’ll never move on.”a

“SOUTH PARK’S” FORCED MORAL EQUIVALENCY

On July 19, Comedy Central will re-air the “South Park” episode “Trapped in the Closet.” The cartoon, which originally aired on November 16, 2005, was removed from Comedy Central’s schedule of reruns in May by network officials after it angered Scientologists. Speaking to Variety magazine about episodes causing controversy, co-creator Matt Stone, cited “Trapped,” a December 7, 2005 episode called “Bloody Mary,” and his recent efforts to depict the Islamic prophet Mohammed. According to Stone, “the mantra has always been everything is fair game.”

Commenting on this is Catholic League president Bill Donohue:

“It is not accurate to put ‘Bloody Mary’ in the same category with ‘Trapped.’ ‘Bloody Mary’ not only ridicules Catholic beliefs, it does so in an obscene fashion. During the program, a statue of the Virgin Mary is shown ‘bleeding out her ass’ and spraying passers-by with the blood. After being called in to investigate, Pope Benedict XVI declares that the statue is merely bleeding out of the vagina. In addition, previous episodes of the show depicted priests as depraved lechers.

“There is no doubt that ‘Trapped’ lambastes Scientology. It mocks its celebrity adherents and portrays Scientology’s president admitting the organization is nothing more than a global scam. The program also portrays a version of Scientology’s creation story in a buffoonish manner. However, unlike ‘Bloody Mary,’ ‘Trapped’ is neither obscene nor vulgar.

“In addition, Comedy Central has recently been quite careful not to offend Muslims. Despite the creators’ attempt to depict Mohammed in the episode ‘Cartoon Wars,’ the network’s top brass blocked out his cartoon image. Stone and co-creator Trey Parker then expressed their frustration with their bosses’ hypocrisy by depicting Jesus defecating on an American flag.

“Putting ‘Bloody Mary’ in the same category with ‘Trapped in the Closet’ and ‘Cartoon Wars’ forces a moral equivalency that does not exist. Indeed, Scientologists are ridiculed, Muslims are appeased, and Catholic holy figures are depicted in the most degrading of fashions. It is obvious that the Catholic Church bears the brunt of Comedy Central’s scorn.”

“DA VINCI CODE” BOMBS WITH CRITICS

Here’s a sample of what critics who previewed “The Da Vinci Code” yesterday had to say about the movie:

“Dud”; Unwieldy”; “Plodding.” (Reuters)
“A Bloated Puzzle”; “The movie is so drenched in dialogue musing over arcane mythological and historical lore and scenes grow so static that even camera movement can’t disguise the dramatic inertia”; “No chemistry exists between the hero and the heroine.” (Hollywood Reporter)
“Almost as bad as the book.” (Boston Globe)
“High-minded lurid material sucked dry by a desperately solemn approach”; They’ve “drained all the fun out of the melodrama.” (Variety)
When the movie “takes a brief wrong turn, and Howard momentarily loses control of his huge, streamlined vehicle, it’s hard to say where to put the blame.” (FoxNews.com)
“Critics Crucify ‘Da Vinci Code.’” (Australian Associated Press)
“Critics largely panned the cinematic version”; “The movie did receive some lukewarm praise, but the majority of the response was highly critical”; “One scene during the film, meant to be serious, elicited prolonged laughter from the audience. There was no applause when the credits rolled; instead, a few catcalls and hisses broke the silence.” (CNN)
“At one point, some of them responded in the auditorium with laughter to one of the developments in the plot—something director Ron Howard would not have anticipated.” (Press Association Newsfile)
“Shrugs of indifference, some jeering laughter and a few derisive jabs”; “The Cannes audience clearly grew restless as the movie dragged on to two and a half hours and spun a long sequence of anticlimactic revelations”; “Some people walked out during the movie’s closing minutes…and there was none of the scattered applause even bad movies sometimes receive at Cannes.” (AP)

Bill Donohue said, “If Ron Howard is being laughed at by those predisposed to believe the worst about Catholicism, he’s an utter failure.”

“DA VINCI CODE” SHROUDED IN SECRECY

Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented today on the secretive nature of “The Da Vinci Code”:

“The Associated Press recently observed that Dan Brown ‘has given few interviews,’ something the New York Daily News explains by calling him a ‘reclusive author.’ But if Brown is naturally reticent, the same is not true of those working on the film version of Brown’s book: their silence is a calculated and well-coordinated decision.

“In May 2005, Variety tried to squeeze some juice from the movie’s director and producers. They didn’t get a squirt. ‘We’ve made a pact…where we have numbered scripts and everything is extremely confidential,’ admitted co-producer Brian Grazer. So what about Father Richard McBrien, the Notre Dame theologian who was given a copy of the screenplay? McBrien said he was under contractual obligations not to talk. By August 2005, the New York Times would write that ‘Sony has dropped a scrim of secrecy’ over the film. Indeed, the Times reported that ‘The script has been closely controlled. Outsiders have been banned from the set. And those associated with the film have had to sign confidentiality agreements.’

“As we get closer to the film’s premiere, the secrecy continues. Time recently noted that critics expected to see the movie in April, but have since learned that they’re being shut out. Entertainment Weekly adds that ‘Virtually everything about [the movie]…has been kept double top secret from the public.’ Indeed, even the room where the final editing is taking place is marked ‘DENTAL RECORDS,’ further proof of how mysterious everything is.

“And they say the Catholic Church is secretive? But who could be more secretive than everyone associated with the ‘Da Vinci Code’ enterprise? Not Opus Dei—the latest issue of People gets it right when it refers to the lay organization as a ‘once-secret group.’ How ironic it is that the most uptight persons involved in this whole affair are the laid-back types in Hollywood? By contrast, the Catholic Church is an open book.”

COUNTY OFFICIALS URGED TO ERECT CRECHES

Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented today on the Catholic League’s latest Christmas campaign:

“Several weeks ago, we sent a booklet, Religious Expression at Christmastime, to every county administrator in the nation; there are 3,100 of them. The booklet encourages these officials to erect a nativity scene on public property. ‘There is no law which says you must do so,’ we said, ‘but it is also true that there is no law which prohibits you from doing so.’ Indeed, we stressed that for the past ten years, the Catholic League has received a permit from the New York City Parks Department that allows us to put a crèche in Central Park.

“As we pointed out, in 1995, the Supreme Court ruled in Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinette that privately sponsored religious displays must be allowed on public property if other forms of expression are permitted in the same location. Our booklet is replete with guidelines on this issue that should prove to be helpful to county administrators.

“There is much ignorance in this area. For example, in Wellesley, Massachusetts, town officials tentatively approved a policy that allows religious groups to display holiday decorations. That’s great, except that their idea of fairness is to put a Jewish religious symbol, namely the menorah, alongside such secular Christian symbols as a Christmas tree and wreaths. Equity demands that a crèche be put alongside a menorah.

“It’s even worse in Lansing, Michigan. Town officials recently erected a state ‘Holiday’ tree there. Jerry Lawler, executive director of the Michigan Capitol Committee, boasted that the ‘Holiday’ tree was meant to be inclusive. So he said it was okay by him to call it a ‘Kwanzaa tree’ or the ‘Hanukkah tree’ or the ‘solstice tree.’ In other words, he said it was okay to call it anything but what it is—a Christmas tree.

“The National Christmas Tree Lighting will take place on Thursday in D.C. We would like to hear from all those who might be offended, and why.”

RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION

AT CHRISTMASTIME:

GUIDELINES OF THE CATHOLIC LEAGUE

Christmas 2005

October 2005

Dear County Administrator:

Before long there will be Christmas celebrations galore, and it is my hope that you will allow—even encourage—private groups to erect a crèche on public property. There is no law which says you must do so, but it is also true that there is no law which prohibits you from doing so.

Every year since 1995, the Catholic League has put a life-sized nativity scene in New York’s Central Park (and Jews put a menorah). It’s all legal: we obtain a permit from the New York City Parks Department, and it follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1995 ruling in Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinette.

In that decision, the high court ruled 7-2 that privately sponsored religious displays must be allowed on public property if other forms of expression are permitted in the same location. At issue was whether the Ku Klux Klan could erect a cross in a public park in front of the Ohio State Capitol in Columbus. The Supreme Court said that since the park had been used for festivals, rallies, speeches, etc., the state could not selectively ban the Klan’s right to erect a cross.

Enclosed find a copy of an authoritative set of guidelines that should prove to be a useful index to what public officials may and may not do during the Holiday Season to accommodate Christians and Jews.

Tolerance and diversity mean nothing if people of faith are denied the right to express themselves in the public square. It is my hope that you will make every effort to facilitate this right come December.

Sincerely,

William A. Donohue, Ph.D.

President

This booklet was prepared by Gerard Bradley of the University of Notre Dame School of Law and Robert Lockwood of the Catholic League. It is a guide that we hope will be of use to Catholics, as well as to the general public, regarding what kinds of religious expression are permissible at Christmastime.

RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION

AT CHRISTMASTIME:

GUIDELINES OF THE CATHOLIC LEAGUE

Introduction

Each year during the Christmas season, there are reports that the religious aspects of Christmas are being banned or omitted from the public arena. These stories can involve anything from threats of legal action over the placing of traditional nativity crèches on public property, to various directives from administrators that eliminate the very mention of the religious aspect of the season from public schools. Such stories can reach ridiculous proportions, as when a city manager in Eugene, Oregon, banned the display of decorated trees on public property. In Vancouver, Washington, transit authorities cited the constitutional separation of church and state in forbidding employees to wear seasonal ties or jewelry that displayed a religious symbol.

There is a tendency to either treat these seasonal stories as something to be laughed at, or to respond to them by assuming that the Constitution and court decisions mandate the elimination of the spiritual aspects of Christmas from public life. In many cases, activist organizations employ bullying tactics and threats of lawsuits to attempt to force their private interpretation of the role of religion in public life, particularly within the public school environment. Those who are unaware of the actual legal precedents in these matters and the proper interpretation of the Constitution find themselves cowed into submission.

The purpose of this booklet is to outline not only what is permissible, but also what is proper in acknowledging and recognizing the religious aspects of the Christmas season in the public arena. The booklet will provide an overview of the issues involved, and guidelines for civic groups, private organizations and individuals, as well as public school administrators, teachers, and parents.

Overview

Christmas is at its roots a religious celebration. Yet, within American culture there has been a long accretion of secular customs and traditions surrounding the feast, so much so that non-Christians and avowed non-believers celebrate the holiday. At the same time, there has been a growing diversity within American culture. While 86 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christian, there is a growing non-Christian culture.

In discussing how to recognize and allow for appropriate celebration of the Christmas season in the public arena, there has always been a certain tension among the religious significance of the celebration, the overwhelming secular traditions of the season, and respect for those for whom Christmas is not a part of their culture or religious faith. In the public arena, there needs to be an understanding of the difference between accommodation of religious belief, and giving the appearance of the establishment of religious belief.

At the same time, there needs to be a sensible understanding of the right to freedom of religious expression, and the right of religious groups, civic organizations and private citizens to use public property in the same fashion allowed to secular organizations. Finally, it must be clearly understood that within a public school environment, the religious aspects of the Christmas season have no less right to expression and recognition than the secular aspects of the season, or non-Christian faiths and cultural celebrations that are recognized and explained within the school year.

The issue of recognizing Christmas in the public arena generally arises in two forms: 1) the display of secular and/or religious seasonal symbols on public property at the expense of either government or private groups; and 2) the treatment of the Christmas season within public schools. Yet, as noted above in Eugene, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington, the issue can also come up in a host of different ways where the action that is taken is decidedly hostile to religion, or even to the secular observance of the Christmas season. These issues are sometimes raised by administrative fiat resulting from an individual complaint, or under threat of legal action.

Even well meaning people attempting to avoid alleged controversy, or under threats, give in to a view that holds that there is a constitutional requirement that the government be hostile to religion in the public arena, rather than neutral. Such was the case when a public school system in Georgia responded to threats of legal action by ceasing any reference to a “Christmas break” for the traditional period when schools close around the holidays. Though it defied logic and common sense—the break has always been associated and timed for the Christmas season, and will continue as such—this kind of intolerance and censorship of speech have been common. And the response is often complete surrender to the complaint.

There is the unfortunate aspect to much of this discussion about Christmas in the public arena that certain elements within society consider religion—particularly Christianity—to be a divisive, if not dangerous force, in society. Their campaigns are built on intolerance, restriction of free speech and hostility toward religion. They believe that people need protection from religion and religious expression. While they have a right to such views, they do not have the right to treat Christian religious expression as in and of itself a secondary right. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has allowed private religious expression to be limited when it could appear to the “reasonable” observer that the government is “endorsing” that expression—meaning that the government appears to agree with or affirm a particular view of religion. (County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)). Although four members of the Supreme Court have disagreed with use of this “endorsement test” against privately sponsored religious free speech, that test—derived from Allegheny—has not yet been explicitly overruled. (Capitol Square Review & Advisory Board v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995)).

The publicly sponsored display of religious symbols in the public arena, however, is a different matter. Worried that publicly sponsored religious displays could reasonably be seen as an endorsement of religion or a particular religion, the Supreme Court has applied a more exacting standard to publicly sponsored displays than private ones. The focus of the guidelines given in this booklet, however, will be on privately sponsored religious expression in the public arena, and religious expression by students or teachers in public schools during the Christmas season.

The display of religious Christmas symbols in the public arena certainly involves a greater understanding and tolerance for different religious traditions within the United States. It is also an opportunity to see that First Amendment rights of religious expression and free speech be guaranteed to all on an equal basis. Openness to religious expression, recognition, and speech in forums that are traditionally open to secular speech is not a violation of separation of church and state, or government seal of approval for any particular religious sect.

State Constitutions

Keep in mind that the guidelines presented in this booklet are based on the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Most state constitutions also contain, like the First Amendment, guarantees of non-establishment and free exercise of religion. The non-establishment clause of a state constitution may be more specific in defining what constitutes an “establishment” of religion than the non-establishment clause in the First Amendment. Theoretically, what might be permissible under the First Amendment might also be expressly prohibited by a state constitution. At the same time, a state constitution may not limit or burden the free exercise clause guaranteed by the First Amendment. Whether the two ever conflict is a state-specific determination beyond the scope of this pamphlet. While it ishighly unlikely that any state constitution could successfully prohibit a nativity scene that satisfies the federal First Amendment, the concern is one to be kept in mind if litigation might arise.

Forums

In relation to expression or free speech, all public property generally falls under the classification of one or another types of forums: the traditional or open public forum, the limited or designated use forum, and the non-public forum. The classification of a forum critically affects how much the government may limit expression or speech in that forum. As one can see after reviewing the guidelines, the question of whether a court will uphold any given nativity scene display is not easily predictable, nor does it depend on any formulaic rule. Therefore, the guidelines in this booklet are not a sure formula for winning litigation. Rather, they are principles applied by the courts in determining such litigation. By considering these principles, one can erect a nativity display where it is most likely to be upheld and least likely to be struck down.

Guidelines for Private Groups or Individuals Erecting Nativity Scenes on Public Property

I. In which kind of forum will the nativity scene be erected?

A. Traditional/Open Public Forum

1) A traditional/open public forum provides the best protection for nativity scenes.

2) The traditional/open public forum is characterized by being an open public thoroughfare with an objective use of open access (examples: streets, sidewalks, and parks).

3) The government may place objectively reasonable time, place, and manner regulations on the display of the nativity scene so long as the regulations are content-neutral (example: limiting the amount of electricity a display can use for safety reasons).

4) In order to subject a nativity scene to content-based regulations (example: no nativity scenes are allowed because they are religious), the government must show a compelling interest in having the regulations and must show that the regulations are narrowly tailored to that interest.

a) Governments may have a compelling interest in avoiding a situation where a reasonable observer of the situation would conclude that the government was endorsing religion over non-religion, one religion over another, or several religions over others.

b) If a nativity scene or other religious display stands alone in front of a public building, especially a seat of government (example: a courthouse or city hall), courts have often found that such a display would impermissibly give the reasonable observer the impression that the government was endorsing religion—even though the scene was privately sponsored.

c) Secular symbols, such as Christmas trees, Santa Claus, reindeer, and candy canes, if placed prominently around a nativity scene, can downplay what a reasonable observer would otherwise see as a government endorsement of religion.

d) Merely grouping together religious displays (example: a crèche and a menorah) does not solve the endorsement problem. Without secular symbols present, the reasonable observer might still conclude that the government was endorsing several religions over others (example: Christianity and Judaism).

e) Nevertheless, governments may not from the beginning subject a nativity scene or the permission to erect one to more unique rules or a more restrictive application process than the rules or process applicable to any display in the open public forum.

B. Limited/Designated Use Forum

1) The limited/designated use forum is one that the government purposefully makes available to a particular class of persons or for a particular class of uses. (example: the government may open a government-owned area to use by military veterans, or for religious and cultural displays).

2) The limited/designated use forum is just like a traditional/open public forum for all those falling within the class to which the forum was opened. Apply the traditional/open public forum guidelines.

3) The government’s ability to limit use of the forum to a particular class is not unlimited, but the courts have not defined what the limits are. The courts have said that once a limited forum has been created, entries of a similar character to those allowed access may not be excluded. (example: if the forum has been opened to religious displays, nativity scenes may not be excluded).

4) Note that the government simply allowing some speech or expression on public property that is not an open/traditional public forum does not created a limited/designated use forum. The government can keep the forum non-public by allowing selective, permission only access that depends upon non-discretionary judgments (example: x amount of insurance coverage)

C. Non-Public Forum

1) Non-public fora are generally all those government properties that are not traditional/open public fora and have not been made designated/limited use fora.

2) The government can refuse to allow a nativity scene display in a non-public forum when that display would interfere with the objective use to which the property has been dedicated (example: the government may refuse to allow a nativity scene near the runway of an Air Force base because it would distract landing pilots).

Public Schools

Most people are surprised to discover that the courts have issued few guidelines at all for public schools concerning seasonal religious displays. When the Supreme Court has touched on the issue, it has generally found in favor of religious expression and displays, for example, in favor of allowing the performance of religious music in public school choral performances during the Christmas season, and the performance of public school choirs at religious institutions. While some administrators of public schools—and activist organizations that attempt to bully public schools—will often cite vague references to separation of church and state, there is no legal precedent in this area that bans the display of religious symbols at Christmastime. The reason for this is that courts will not interfere in the educational process. Display of religious symbols, when done even-handedly and without devotional intent, is perfectly legitimate as part of the school’s mission to educate.

Some Christmas symbols—reindeer, Santa Claus, and candy canes, for example, have been viewed by the courts as secular rather than religious symbols of Christmas, and their display is legitimate. Other symbols have been viewed as secular or religious depending on the context. When the Supreme Court has dealt with Christmas trees it has generally viewed them as a secular symbol. Even so, in the specific context of public schools, a lower court has treated a Christmas tree as a religious symbol when it was placed next to religious items from non-Christian faiths. That court seemed to feel that the very name of the Christmas tree evoked the Christian meaning of Christmas when the Christmas tree was placed next to a menorah and Kwanzaa symbols. Menorahs are viewed as mainly religious, but have been considered secular when surrounded by largely secular items. It seems unclear in the courts whether Kwanzaa symbols are religious or secular in nature. Whether the display of these secular-religious symbols is legitimate depends, like the display of nativity scenes, largely on rules of context.

Unfortunately, too many public school authorities have become convinced that anyrecognition of Christmas violates the separation of church and state, to the point where the use of the word “Christmas” is effectively banned, traditional Christmas carols silenced, and both religious and secular Christmas symbols prohibited. In many areas of the country, there is the imposition within public schools of an essentially pagan “winter solstice” and “winter holiday” celebration while banning all reference to the traditional Christmas celebration. While the display of religious symbols in public schools obviously cannot involve school-sponsored religious ceremonies, the courts have never banned a basic recognition of Christmas—with songs and seasonal activities and displays—within public schools. There is no basis for such a ban in law, and it could quite possibly be interpreted as actively hostile to religious freedom of expression, which hostility is illegal.

Following are guidelines and recommendations for the proper recognition of the religious aspects of the Christmas season within public schools:

Christmas in Public Schools

An increasing number of teachers throughout the country, including those in public schools, recognize that study about religion in social studies, literature, art, and music is important to a well-rounded education.
Therefore it is entirely appropriate and good for public school teachers to educate their students about religious traditions, including those of Christianity, so long as the approach is academic and not devotional; that is, so long as, for example, Christmas is not taught as truly the Son of God’s birthday. It is permissible for teachers to state, however, that Christians celebrate Christmas as the birthday of Jesus, whom they believe to be the Son of God.
While teachers may not promote religion, they may not denigrate it either. Teachers may never consciously lure students away from their own religious beliefs, denigrate those beliefs, or show hostility to those beliefs.
It is perfectly acceptable to use religious symbols, such as nativity scenes, as an aid or resource in teaching about religious holidays, but the religious symbols must be usedonly as examples of religious or cultural heritage.
It is appropriate to display Christian religious symbols of the Christmas season along with symbols of other faiths and secular symbols.

– Most courts view Santa Claus, reindeer, and candy canes as secular symbols.

– Menorahs can be considered either a secular or religious symbol, depending upon the context in which they are placed. For example, a menorah placed next to a crèche and Kwanzaa symbols would likely be considered a religious symbol. A menorah placed next to a Santa and candy canes, however, would probably be considered a secular symbol.

– Christmas trees are a predominately secular symbol, but might be considered religious in certain contexts. For example, one court found that a Christmas tree placed next to a menorah and Kwanzaa symbols acted as a Christian symbol. Therefore, the court held, the school display did not discriminate against Christianity and the school could not be compelled to display a crèche.

The use of religious symbols in class and the display of religious symbols in schools should only be done on a temporary basis, such as during a particular season or the study of a particular lesson.
School rules about the display of religious symbols should be uniform and even-handed. They cannot apply to one faith alone or discriminate against one faith alone. A school may not ban the mention of Christmas by students, and may not refuse to display Christian religious symbols of Christmas when other faiths and traditions are being recognized. Note, however, that a Christmas tree might sometimes count as a Christian religious symbol.
The use of religious music, art, or literature in school Christmas performances that present a variety of selections is appropriate. Concerts should avoid programs heavily dominated by religious music, particularly when such concerts coincide with holidays such as Christmas.

In many cases, bans against the mention of Christmas or the use of Christian Christmas symbols within public schools are explained as a means to respect “diversity.” Unfortunately, this term is too often used as a club wielded intolerantly. It is used not to respect diversity, but to restrict free speech and religious expression.

“Diversity” means recognizing the diverse cultures and faith traditions within America. It does not mean banning recognition of a part of that culture and faith tradition within public schools. Most of all, “diversity” does not mean hostility toward Christian religious expression and recognition. It means a balanced, fair, and even-handed treatment that does not exclude the religious significance and meaning of the Christmas celebration.

Catholic League

for Religious and Civil Rights

450 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10123

(212) 371-3191 Fax: (212) 371-3394

http://catholicleague.org

HOLLYWOOD EMBRACES PEDOPHILIA

Catholic League president William Donohue comments today on the movie, “Kinsey,” which opens today, and the film, “Birth,” which opened two weeks ago:

“Why are so many in the entertainment industry angry with the less than one percent of priests today who have been accused of sexual molestation—almost all of whom are homosexuals, not pedophiles—when their favorite sexologist is a sado-masochistic, child-abusing homosexual? Why are the same people so enamored of a film that shows a ten-year old boy stripping naked so he can join an adult woman in a tub? The former reference is to the movie, ‘Kinsey’; the latter, ‘Birth.’

“Alfred Kinsey authorized his researchers to sexually molest infants as young as five months old. How many? According to Dr. Judith Reisman, at a minimum 324; and possibly as many as 2,000. The goal of these ‘experiments’ was to bring the kids to orgasm. ‘Mr. X,’ one of Kinsey’s most treasured discoveries, was just the kind of guy to do the dirty work. According to Kinsey biographer James T. Jones, ‘Mr. X’ was a pedophile who ‘masturbated infants, penetrated children, and performed a variety of other sexual acts on pre-adolescent boys and girls alike.’ To Kinsey’s delight, he proved he could ejaculate in ten seconds.

“None of this, of course, was shown in the movie. No matter, the Dallas Observer, theChicago Tribune, Daily Variety and Slate all said that the film ‘Kinsey’ was ‘moving.’ Jack Mathews of the New York Daily News described Kinsey as an ‘odd genius,’ while most everyone else is saying the movie should get an Oscar. Hear that, Mel?

“Regarding ‘Birth,’ the Atlanta Journal-Constitution says the ‘taboo’ tub scene was ‘the film’s greatest strength.’ And Rex Reed in the New York Observer protested that ‘the film was viciously attacked as ‘kiddie porn.’

“Kinsey’s assistant, Wardell Pomeroy, admitted in 1972 that his boss’ goal was to tear down the Judeo-Christian understanding of sexuality. This sheds light on why Hollywood only objects to predatory priests. In any event, ‘Kinsey’ is only opening today in New York and Los Angeles, thus proving once again the red-blue divide is no stereotype.”

HOLLYWOOD PLAY ATTACKS GAY PRIESTS

“A Comfortable Truth: The Story of a Boy and His Priest” opened January 24 in the West Hollywood Lee Strasberg Creative Center; it runs through February 22. The play’s website says the work addresses “the controversial subject of juvenile molestation in the Church.”

Written and directed by Mark Kemble, and produced by David Lee Strasberg, the play was reviewed favorably by Joel Hirschhorn in Daily Variety. Hirschhorn credits the actor who plays the boy for delivering “each church-crucifying zinger masterfully,” and takes particular note of the scene where the boy screams “eat my brains.” To demonstrate that the boy has been traumatized by the molesting priest, the kid is depicted playing in a rock group by the name “Fourth Reich Vatican Nazis.” Thus do Kemble and Strasberg take another shot at the Catholic Church.

William Lobdell of the Los Angeles Times said, “The play’s set looks like a cross between a church and a bombed out train station with a few religious icons, including a busted Madonna fallen to the floor…a crucifix disguised as a piece of junk—scraps of wood and metal topped by an upside-down milk pail with the spout serving as Christ’s nose.”

Here’s what Catholic League president William Donohue said about it:

“When asked about his work, Mark Kemble said the play was about ‘the danger of blind faith in the leaders of any religious organization.’ But this is not true—there is no disparagement of any religion save Catholicism. Of the homosexual scandal in the Church, he says, ‘I don’t think it’s an aberration.’ Nor do I think it’s an aberration that the people responsible for this play are from Hollywood.

“In a time when Catholic and Jewish elites are about to suffer cardiac arrest over Mel Gibson’s film, it is instructive to note that none has said a word about this portrayal of a gay molesting priest. Nor will they—they are too busy instructing Mel how to portray Jews in ‘The Passion.’”

CRITICS OF “THE PASSION” PLAY DIRTY

Catholic League president William Donohue spoke today about some of the critics of the Mel Gibson movie, “The Passion of the Christ”:

“It is one thing to criticize a movie, quite another to engage in vicious ad hominem attacks on the person behind the film. To be specific, Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center is quoted in today’s Daily Variety saying that ‘No responsible Jew has made the accusation that Gibson is an anti-Semite.’ Wrong. On September 19, Abraham Foxman, national director of the ADL, said Gibson is ‘painting a portrait of an anti-Semite.’ On the same day Foxman added that Gibson ‘entertains views that can only be described as anti-Semitic.’ And on November 7, Foxman said the following: ‘I think he’s infected—seriously infected—with some very, very serious anti-Semitic views….[Gibson’s] got classical anti-Semitic views.’ Sounds like an indictment to us.

“Then there are the smear merchants who attack Mel’s father. In an interview that appeared last March in the New York Times Magazine, Hutton Gibson questioned the figure of 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust, something many Jewish scholars have done. He did not deny the Holocaust, though it has often been reported that way. But why do the comments of a man who is in his mid-80s, and who has nothing to do with the film, matter so much? Unless, of course, the name of the game is to brand both Mel and his father as bigots. Even as recently as January 23, we were questioned by a producer at CBS about Mel’s father. We were asked whether he is a Holocaust denier; what his reaction to the film is; and whether he is a member of the Catholic League.

“And consider this: when Rabbi Hier was asked on MSNBC to comment on the film, he directed his comments at Mel, not the movie. Referring to the Times Magazine piece, he said, ‘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.’ In short, beware of Latin Mass Catholics—they don’t like Jews.

“This movie should be subjected to the same kind of artistic scrutiny that accompanies any film. But the ad hominem attacks must stop.”

VIACOM: FIRST IN CATHOLIC-BASHING BROADCASTING

Catholic League president William Donohue today wrote to Sumner Redstone, Chairman and CEO of Viacom, asking him to do something about his company’s apparent disregard for Catholic sensibilities. Viacom owns Infinity Broadcasting and WNEW is an Infinity station: the “Opie and Anthony” show (WNEW) is currently the target of an FCC investigation, triggered by the Catholic League, over the show’s decision to broadcast a description of a live sex act in St. Patrick’s Cathedral on August 15.

To make matters worse for Redstone, the Catholic League has learned that Comedy Central (another Viacom holding) announced in May that it was spending $5 million on local and national radio, including the “Opie and Anthony” show. Comedy Central aired a particularly vicious attack on Catholicism on its July 3RD episode of “South Park.” Indeed, on August 14, the day that the offensive “South Park” episode was repeated, Comedy Central posted on the home page of its website the following quip: “The episode the Catholic League denounced. What other reason do you need to watch it?” This episode maligned all priests as pedophiles and was so bad that when Donohue appeared on the “Phil Donahue” show on August 7, Donahue showed a clip of it so that Donohue could comment on it.

Donohue issued the following comment today:

“Last year, we took out a full-page ad in Variety asking Sumner Redstone whether he agreed with the decision of Viacom-owned Showtime to air a movie adaptation of the Catholic bashing play, ‘Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All for You.’ Now, under Redstone’s watch, comes this double-barrel attack on Catholicism. The time has come for Redstone to stop his bickering with Viacom COO Mel Karmazin and start acting like a responsible corporate leader by telling his subordinates to cease and desist in their attacks on Catholicism. Just as Enron is now synonymous with corporate irresponsibility in the energy sector, Viacom is fast becoming synonymous with corporate irresponsibility in the broadcasting sector. Only Redstone can reverse this pattern of corporate abuse.”