Masters of media control.

As Barbara M. Jones, author of Libraries, Access, and Intellectual Freedom." Developing Policies far Public and Academic Libraries, points out, "The religious right has become a particularly important interest group in shaping public opinion." The Christian right accomplishes this in several ways. In addition to its ownership of many media outlets, Christian organizations and denominations such as the Southern Baptist Convention and Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights have come to be known for their power over the mainstream media. They threaten lawsuits and public embarrassment and participate in letter-writing campaigns. In addition, they boycott companies that sponsor programs or publications to which the Christian right is opposed. Through such actions they are able to silence negative publicity and most programming critical of religion or in direct conflict with their views.

I saw the reality of the media control firsthand when I unexpectedly encountered the Catholic League--an organization whose purpose is to prevent and eliminate all criticism of Catholicism and its leadership. On September 20, 2001, the San Francisco Examiner published a commentary I wrote identifying the similarities between Islamic extremists and their Christian counterparts. I revealed the Catholic League's use of intimidation to keep opponents and the media in line:

  While less violent in nature, The Catholic
   League for Religious and Civil Rights, a contradiction
   in itself, exists for the purpose of
   Canon Law 1369, which states: "A person is
   to be punished with a just penalty, who ...
   utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public
   morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or
   contempt for religion or the Church."

Furthermore, I pointed out:

  At a prayer breakfast during the 2000
   Republican Convention, Father Frank
   Provone of Priests for Life claimed, "The
   church does not dictate the policies of the
   nation. The Church proclaims the truth of
   God to which all these [public] policies
   must conform."

The Catholic Church is one of the main organizers and supporters behind the Christian right. However, it has kept its identity concealed by calling on Baptists and other Christian sects to do its bidding. In a concerted effort, a wide range of Christian right groups are working to break down the wall between church and state.

Following the publication of my opinion editorial, William Donahue, president of the Catholic League, immediately telephoned Editorial Page Editor Michael Stoll at the Examiner. Donahue charged that I had libeled "millions of Christians." According to Donahue's account, he requested the Examiner "provide [him] with evidence, drawn from criminal records, that the Catholic League is a violent organization." Stoll responded that, while his criticisms may have been valid, my comment, "while less violent in nature," was no more than a "rhetorical flourish," as was obvious, and my own "opinion" to which I was entitled. Donahue then retorted, "And it is my opinion that she be fired for making patently reckless, and arguably libelous, accusations against the Catholic League." Anyone reading the full opinion piece would have easily recognized the metaphor for what it was. I made no claim the league had acted in violence. Rather, I indicated the nature of the organization, while not as extreme as those I had previously discussed, was still, based on the wording of Canon Law 1369, a dangerous organization to be reckoned with.

Following Donahue's call, the league issued a news release on its website that later appeared in its print edition of the Catalyst, as well. Both of these are outlets dedicated to the harassment of all who dare speak out publicly against the abuses of the Catholic Church and its political agenda. Those who offend Catholics in any way are candidates for severe censure. Using my words out of context and misleading its own members, the league then urged "members to write to Michael Stoll, San Francisco Examiner ... and ask why the newspaper still hasn't dropped Blaker."

Intimidation is the league's means to an end. Opinion that doesn't paint religion or Catholicism in a positive light is libelous according to Donahue and his allies, despite laws to the contrary. Donahue's ludicrous call for the firing of a freelance writer was a further attempt at bullying the Examiner into compliance and silencing me.

Following the posting of the Catholic League's news release, the Examiner was bombarded with more than a hundred letters coming from states other than California. Nearly all of them demanded I be fired from a publication I had never been employed by. And, not only had I been elevated to a "staff" member, many of the league's letter writers took it to higher levels and were "enraged" over the fact I was a "reporter" who had opined in the "news."

That, however, was just the beginning. Most letters to the Examiner had included words like libel and slander. Many went so far as to hope the league would sue the newspaper. One woman wrote requesting that the Examiner supply her with "proof" the league is a threat to liberty. Stoll responded:

  I would note that many people of many political and
   philosophical persuasions consider a wide variety of
   institutions, people and ways of thinking a "threat to
   liberty." It is a statement that is pure opinion, and in
   my estimation does not require proof. Nor can it be
   proven or disproven. That is precisely why it
   appeared on the opinion page.

Little did this woman realize her own allies were busy stating my case for me. From Louisiana came a letter calling on the Examiner "to do the right thing" because "the Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed that the United States is a Christian nation...." While the statement itself is false, this was, in fact, the exact threat I described in my opinion editorial--an attempt to create a religiously based government. Additional proof of the league's threat to liberty came from an Oregonian who requested that the Examiner "take a more critical view of such articles and censor [emphasis added] such blatantly biased writers." It would seem the Catholic League's membership unknowingly contradicts the league's stated purpose, which is to defend "religious and civil rights." Apparently, free speech, at least for the nonreligious, doesn't fall into that category.

A couple of league members even wrote that the Examiner should have automatically turned away my submission because I was "a known atheist." A Nevada woman also insisted an editor's note should have appeared underneath the commentary specifying "that she is a noted atheist," even though opinions expressed by believers hardly ever have an editorial note identifying the author's religion.

The actions of Donahue and these members of the Catholic League indicate they are defending Catholic religious civil rights, not the religious and civil rights of all. What also became apparent is that they don't consider it important whether something negative said against Christianity or Catholicism is "libelous" or pure fact. What matters to them is that public criticism of Catholicism takes place at all. This was evidenced by several league members. A Massachusetts man argued that his relative who is a priest has done good works. Therefore, he reasoned, "What right does [Blaker] have to criticize people who have given up a comfortable life to do this type of work?" In the eyes of many fundamentalists, Christian or Catholic, any good works should eliminate all criticism.

But what makes the Catholic League's members so apt to participate in these letter-writing campaigns? In addition to believing all criticism of religion should be suppressed, many are also convinced that the church, and Catholics in general, have become targets of a widespread contempt for Catholicism. A New Yorker shared this belief common to many letters from Catholic League members. His grievance was, "Anti-Catholicism in America today exceeds acts of bias against any other ethnic, racial or religious group," even though this is patently untrue. Regardless, the member pointed out, "Page after page of the Catalyst newsletter

is evidence of the hostility and intolerance the Catholic Church is subjected to in America."

The league exploits its membership by crying foul and riling it up for every minor offense against the church. Yet, rarely does it exhibit evidence of discriminatory practices or hate crimes against Catholics. This is despite numerous documented cases of discrimination toward African-Americans, homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, atheists, and other minority groups in this country. The "bias" these Catholics denounce is most often criticism of Catholic beliefs imposed on its adherents and the beliefs it attempts to impose on the world, including U.S. citizens. Regardless of criticism, no one obstructs the practice of Catholic beliefs. And although they may say otherwise, today there is little discrimination against them.

Ironically, in December 2001 a freelance production assistant contacted the Examiner to discuss the fracas. While I was following up with the production assistant a couple of days later, he explained that a video magazine, American Catholic, had been asked to do a segment on Catholic bashing. However, the journalistic investigation quickly took a turn. According to the freelancer, in his attempt to uncover these injustices, he instead unmasked much to the contrary. What he found was the Catholic League wielding its power against anyone who exposed the church or the league. It appeared that the program would instead develop into an expose of the intimidation tactics used by the Catholic League in its efforts to keep negative publicity under wraps.

As would be expected, however, the segment never materialized. Not long afterward the Palm Beach Post became a target of the Catholic League when it published a cartoon by Don Wright, which also appeared in the New York Times and the Sacramento Bee. The cartoon depicted a contemplative woman who says:

  For women, sexual conduct is always closely monitored.
   The Catholic Church tells me what I can or
   cannot do with my body. Truly unforgiving.
   Absolutely no compromises. Unless, of course, you're
   a pedophile.

At Donahue's command, the league's director of communications, Patrick Scully, telephoned the editorial page editor of the Palm Beach Post demanding an apology. Randy Schultz responded, "There will be no apology because there is nothing to apologize for." Schultz pointed out to Scully the cartoon was merely a "critique" of the church's "policies." But to the league, it was no less "vicious" than my own criticism and deserving of another letter writing campaign. This was regardless of the cartoon's factual basis and that the league couldn't even claim "libel." The league urged in its Catalyst, "Now it's time that Schultz heard from you."

The address of the Palm Beach Post was published with a request: "Tell [Schultz] that he and his boy Don Wright are doing such a good job that we've decided to honor them with an entry in next year's Annual Report on Anti-Catholicism." As it turns out, I was honored in that report as well. Similar to Schultz's response to the Catholic control mongers, the Examiner's Stoll informed me, "None of the letters convinced me of anything other than that there are hundreds of people around the country who are defensive and intolerant of criticism."

In these two instances, the Catholic League's bully tactics didn't pay off. As Stoll pointed out, "It was more of an annoyance than anything." But the Catalyst contains many reports of victories in which businesses have capitulated to the league's demands--if for no other reason than to avoid the hassle described by Stoll. These threats are often effective. To many businesses and corporations, the time and costs involved in a legal suit aren't worth the hassle. This is so, even when the company being threatened would ultimately win the case. In the end, the league plays a crucial role in the formation of public opinion as it works to place its restraints on every form of media.

This article was excerpted and adapted from The Fundamentals of Extremism: The Christian Right in America, edited and coauthored by Kimberly Blaker. She is a columnist and an advocate of the separation of church and state and begins her national Fundamentally Aware tour in summer/fall 2003. Information about The Fundamentals of Extremism is available at www.NewBostonBooks.com