Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
A Continuing Saga
How conservatives learned to quit worrying and love political correctness, chapter CXVII:
Two former editorial writers at The Indianapolis Star have gone to court, charging that top newsroom managers "consistently and repeatedly demonstrated ... a negative hostility toward Christianity."
James Patterson and Lisa Coffey have sued the newspaper and its owner, Gannett Co., claiming religious, racial and age discrimination in a lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court....
In their lawsuit, the two allege Star Editor Dennis Ryerson and Publisher Barbara Henry said editorials perceived as proselytizing or containing Christian overtones could not be printed in the paper....They also assert that Henry and Ryerson strongly disagreed "with anyone who had a biblical view of homosexuality."
[Via Virginia Postrel.]
drf|6.20.05 @ 10:32AM|#
besides the great Dr Strangelove reference, this is a continuing
story of how big government paves the way to bigger
government.
the same rationalizations, etc. that the left used (especially in
my college days) are now on the right. yet many of these righties
still pretend to be interested in "freedom", "individual liberty",
and "limited government".
that's as dumb as the lefties pretending to be "humanists" and
"worried about the little guy".
just leave us the fuck alone.
warren - pour a drink. it's time.
|6.20.05 @ 10:35AM|#
I saw an editorial cartoon yesterday that sums this up
perfectly:
There's two guys, one in a pink-triangle T-shirt, the other wearing
a giant cross. Cross guy takes out a stick and starts whapping
pink-triangle guy over the head with it: WHAP WHAP WHAP WHAP.
Pink-triangle guy gets annoyed and says, "Would you stop doing
that, please?" Cross guy looks shocked and says, "Why, that's. .
.that's. . . anti-Christian bigotry!"
|6.20.05 @ 10:56AM|#
I hope the quote was from something written by lawyers and not journalists. "Negative hostility"? As opposed to what, postive hostility? Warm and fuzzy hostility?
|6.20.05 @ 10:56AM|#
There seems to a be a growing segment of the populaiton who believe that being Christian and conservative gives you a divine right to exercize power over other people.
|6.20.05 @ 10:59AM|#
Number 6-
I think "positive hostility" is where you irritate your boyfriend
by calling him obnoxiously cute nicknames. "Forgot my birthday?
Well aren't you a little snugglemuffin cuddlecake honeybear
cutiepie. . . "
Note to all: I never, ever do this. Seriously.
|6.20.05 @ 11:00AM|#
Hmm, kinda of the same vein where someone assumes to know
"what's best for you".
"If we only were in charge, things would be A-OK."
|6.20.05 @ 11:05AM|#
Uh, no, Voiceover. Every political faction claims to "know
what's best for you" and thinks that "If only we were in charge,
things would be A-OK."
But you don't see any other group opposing, for example,
anti-bullying programs in schools on the grounds that they would
interfere with their right to behave righteously towards gay kids.
Or providing as an example of legally actionable discriminatory
behavior, an editor's decision not to publish their ideas.
|6.20.05 @ 11:05AM|#
No Jennifer, not the cuddlecake, the pink triangle guy
cartoon.
Oh, and happy birthday.(?)
|6.20.05 @ 11:05AM|#
Not to defend these actions, BUT
who was warning that excessive litigation, "discrimination" over
everything, and the moniker "HATE CRIME!!" applied to reasonable
debate would one day get out of hand?
|6.20.05 @ 11:10AM|#
Eddy-
I saw it on the following comment thread. Scroll down to 4:24:19.
Apparently it's from something called Idrewthis.org, but when I
tried to go to that site it was really, really slow.
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1537156
|6.20.05 @ 11:33AM|#
The cartoon evokes the end of the NYTimes Magazine cover story
this week on gay marriage, where the reporter Russell Shorto
wrote:
When I met Polyak [a lesbian mother], she told me how, when she
first testified before a legislative committee, an
anti-gay-marriage activist, a woman, confronted her with bitter
language, asking her why she was ''doing this'' to the woman's
children and grandchildren. Polyak said the encounter left her
shaken. A few days later, as I sat in [anti-gay activist] Evalena
Gray's Christmas-lighted basement office, she told me a story of
how during the same testimony she approached a blond lesbian and
talked to her about the effect that gay marriage would have on her
grandchildren. ''Then I hugged her neck,'' she said, ''and I said,
'We love you.' I was kind of consoling her to some extent, out of
compassion.''
I realized I was hearing about the same encounter from both sides.
What was expressed as love was received as something close to hate.
That's a hard gap to bridge.
|6.20.05 @ 12:01PM|#
I recently sent a letter to the Economist, and they didn't print
it.
Clearly they're bigoted! I'm suing!
|6.20.05 @ 12:12PM|#
The implication of Patterson and Coffey's suit is that your newspaper/employer should have to publish bigoted views, IF said bigotry is justified by religion. So if *I* were to write an article ranting about the evils of Judaism, say, they wouldn't have to publish it because I am an atheist; whereas if a presumed Christian wrote the same article, and included one or two Jew-bashin' verses from the Gospel of John, then the paper should have to print it, regardless of how many other readers it might offend. Otherwise, they'd be insulting the religion of White Christian Identity or some such group.
|6.20.05 @ 12:14PM|#
The Economist has a clear bias against Catholic optics professors. It's outrageous! Egregious! preposterous!
|6.20.05 @ 12:20PM|#
When conservatives bitch about "the liberal media", why don't
they save some of their fire for the likes of the
Pulliam family, including the Dan Quayle branch, for selling
out to an outfit like Gannett? If you want to keep editorial
control you have to hold onto ownership, and anyone who expected a
religious/conservative culture to survive long after the owners of
USA TODAY took control of the Hoosier daily was severely
deluded.
Kevin
|6.20.05 @ 12:21PM|#
Jennifer,
It's like the accusations of religious bigotry made by Orrin Hatch
and National Review towards Democrats on the Judiciary Committee -
the beliefs Ted Kennedy opposes are motivated by the nominee's
Catholic faith. Ergo, Ted Kennedy is biased against Catholics.
|6.20.05 @ 12:24PM|#
Joe-
Yeah, I know. The basic message from them all is, "Why don't you
bigots tolerate my intolerance of you?"
|6.20.05 @ 12:26PM|#
Oh, and Joe--if you ever feel like completely abandoning your faith in humanity, go on down to the white-trash part of the South where I grew up, and listen to the Klansmen whine about how desegregation laws oppress white culture.
|6.20.05 @ 12:40PM|#
Jennifer-I think you're confusing bigoted rednecks with humans. It's a common mistake.
|6.20.05 @ 12:41PM|#
You know, Jennifer, you just reminded me of another thing that
pisses me off about $theirrace supremacists:
Essentially, many of them argue that their favoured race is
superior to all others, more capable intellectually, stronger,
wiser, etc.
Then they turn around and say that these superior A+ types need to
be protected from members of other races usually by limiting the
economic freedom of these "others".
dhex pointed it out last week: The irony police seem to be asleep
at the switch.
|6.20.05 @ 12:48PM|#
We should all know by now that in current society, anything that does not actively promote a viewpoint actively disciminates against it. Like in cartoon that Jennifer linked to, advocating leaving people alone infringes upons the rights of those who don't want to.
|6.20.05 @ 12:51PM|#
Tarran-
It's kind of like the people who insist that Jews secretly control
the world's money and media and other things; I figure, if they can
pull that off with only about two percent of the world population,
then they are CLEARLY our superiors, and deserve to run the
world.
(Also, I have a Jewish last name, and I've read all of the Harry
Kemelman Rabbi mysteries as well as "Judaism for Dummies." So if
they ever do take over the world, I can totally pass.)
|6.20.05 @ 1:46PM|#
Jennifer,
You can't join the club without a Jewish mother. We're picky that
way, unlike Gentiles.
Also, you cannot quit the club - rejecting the law makes you an
apostate but you remain a Jew.
The benefits of the conspiracy are way over-rated. We're at best .3
percent of the world population and I doubt we own even 3 percent
of the world's wealth. Hardly compensates for the pogroms and
massacres.
We are pretty damn smart, though (I am, unfortunately, below
average in that respect). No denying that.
|6.20.05 @ 1:59PM|#
All I can say is, "turnabout is fair play". When the legal standard of bigotry is simply holding an opposing viewpoint to a particular minority group, well, a supporter of such a standard can't get uppity when a member of some OTHER affinity group becomes the aggrieved. Oppression isn't determined by some karmic chart of accounts among the innumerable socio-ethnic-economic groups one could paint oneself into.
|6.20.05 @ 2:08PM|#
In a better world it would be considered normal to say, "If you don't like it, start your own damn newspaper."
|6.20.05 @ 2:13PM|#
Jennifer - yes, I love how religion has this special status, if
not de facto (see, I can use Latin, too!), then at least
in the eyes of a lot of people.
But if you just want to ignore all that mumbo-jumbo and just
concentrate on what you can actually see, and touch, and experiment
on/with, you lose all kinds of privledges.
Steven J. Kelso Sr.|6.20.05 @ 3:06PM|#
People get fired for using their freedom and THEY are attacked?
(and yes, I do know that the paper controls the ink)
Tolerant bunch, you.
|6.20.05 @ 3:19PM|#
Mr. Kelso-
I don't mind that they tried to write the editorials. I don't even
mind that they complained about the decisions of their bosses. Just
as the editors control the ink and decide how it's used, the
disgruntled writers have every right to criticize the editors, and
we have the right to subscribe or not subscribe depending on what
we think of the paper and/or the complaints.
No, what I mind is that they sued over it.
R C Dean|6.20.05 @ 3:27PM|#
It is fun watching the usual "hostile environment" crowd get
their knickers in a twist when its their ass in a crack.
Can anyone give us a principled reason why the exact same standards
shouldn't be applied to white Christians as to black Muslims?
This is, after all, the sincerest form of flattery in action.
|6.20.05 @ 3:47PM|#
Remind me again, what year was the "All Editorials Written by
Black Muslims Must Be Published and Paperwork Reduction Act"
passed?
Was it 97, or 98?
|6.20.05 @ 3:54PM|#
All I can say is, "turnabout is fair play".
Yep. After nearly 2000 years of ruling the theological roost, it
about time the Christians got a taste of the bullshit they've
heaped on the Jews, Muslims, atheists, homosexuals, everyone else
they've kicked around in the name of "God."
Of course, given the fact that they're the majority faith in this
country with friends in Congress and White House, I don't know that
the hell the JEEZ-us Freaks are complaining about.
|6.20.05 @ 3:56PM|#
I don't understand their lawsuit at all. These aren't columnists or op-ed writers but editorial writers. Editorials are unsigned (usually) and so represent the institutional viewpoint of the newspaper which the chief editor and publisher have every right to control. If the Indianapolis Star doesn't want to tell its readers to pray for the success of the Iraq War (one of the examples of 'discrimination' in the lawsuit) it doesn't have to. Let's say a Wall Street Journal editorial writer suddenly converted to fundamentalist Islam and demanded his First Amendment rights to denounce the Great Satan once a month in the WSJ's pages. It would make that goddamn PBS show more entertaining but still ...
|6.20.05 @ 4:27PM|#
Apostate-
And I'm supposed to believe that over in the Jewish Vatican or the
Legion of Doom or wherever it is you run the world from you have a
complete list of all the world's Jews and Gentiles? Gevalt! I'll
just lie about my ancestry, and I doubt anyone will check up on it.
Besides, my mom can out-guilttrip a real Jewish mother any day.
|6.20.05 @ 4:43PM|#
Oooh, that Shiksa appeal might be a dead giveaway. Maybe she
could convert?
If the Jews won't take her, I hear that the Latvian Orthodox Church
accepts converts.
|6.20.05 @ 5:07PM|#
Little Shiksabelle can blame it all on her Southern upbringing and the diaspora. As long as I remember not to make ham and milk gravy I'll be all right.
|6.20.05 @ 6:09PM|#
After nearly 2000 years of ruling the theological roost, it
about time the Christians got a taste of the bullshit they've
heaped on the Jews, Muslims, atheists, homosexuals, everyone else
they've kicked around in the name of "God."
Right, because only Christians have oppressed, killed and enslaved
in God's name. Those pesky Muslim calphs were just 'liberating' the
Byzantine and former Roman empires from Christianity. And as we all
know, Islam holds homosexuals in very high esteem. As for the
homosexuals, ask Dan Savage what happens to you as a homo who
breaks ranks with the party.
Like I said, a PC chart of accounts with Howard Zinn as the
bookkeeper does not define law, and the purpose of history is not
to maintain grudges. If an anti-discrimination law says it's
illegal to harass someone on the basis of their beliefs, and we
still give the Equal Protection Clause some weight (it's about the
only part of the Constitution still honored), then it's easy
As a lapsed Catholic, I don't have a god in this fight. I just
don't think any one affinity group gets to corner the market on
victimhood, any more than they do on slavedriving.
|6.20.05 @ 6:50PM|#
They also assert that Henry and Ryerson strongly disagreed
"with anyone who had a biblical view of homosexuality.
Disagreeing with people is unamerican. I hope they burn in hell for
it.
|6.20.05 @ 6:52PM|#
Could it be, rafuzo, that problems arise when anyone feels the right to force their superstion(whether said superstion includes a god or not) on others? Could it also be that anyone who thinks they have a lock on absolute truth is inherently dangerous?
|6.20.05 @ 6:56PM|#
As for the homosexuals, ask Dan Savage what happens to you
as a homo who breaks ranks with the party.
He get's what he fucking deserves?
|6.20.05 @ 7:02PM|#
Disagreeing with people is unamerican. I hope they burn in
hell for it.
Heh heh... I know someone who would agree with that
sentiment:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as
citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one
nation under God."
George H. Bush
60 Minutes
August 27, 1987
|6.20.05 @ 7:05PM|#
Y'know, most gay people don't really spend much time thinking
about the likes of Patterson and Coffey; they just want to go about
their lives without being singled out by the law; and if the
fearsome Gay Agenda were implemented in America it really wouldn't
affect Patterson and Coffey at all; they wouldn't be forced to
attend any gay weddings, or have one of their own, or make out with
people who have the same naughty bits they do.
Whereas if Patterson and Coffey had their way, gay people would be
somehow legislated out of existence.
If ever there were a question as to which side I'd take in this,
that alone would decide my answer.
|6.20.05 @ 7:14PM|#
Of course, as I said, old George has every right to think that I'm not really an American citizen--despite the fact I was born in this country, pay taxes, and vote. However, I reserve the right to point out that he's a despotic moron for saying it.
|6.20.05 @ 7:52PM|#
Akira, don't sweat Ratzi. Think of him as an interpope sorbet,
something to forget that whole pedophilia thing. After all a
conclavical(?) twofor has a way of redirecting that light. But that
could just be me blowing gentile, heathen, infidel, impious,
wicked, pegan, secular, barbarian apatheist smoke* out my
ass.
*If I left out your particular religious epithet of my non-belief,
please try and understand that it was due to ignorance and was not
intended as a bigotist slight in any way so please do not sue me
just pray that you will see me one day and be able to inform me of
the appropriate term.
|6.20.05 @ 8:08PM|#
make out with people who have the same naughty bits they
do.
So, you're saying they are conjoined at the groin? Well it would be
rather convenient and their song could be that Beetles classic "I
wanna hold our gland."
|6.20.05 @ 8:17PM|#
Lowdog, I hate to rain on your parade, but de facto implies that something isn't codified, but is what happens anyway. So, religion does have de facto privileges, (priviliges in fact or in practice) it just doesn't have the de jure (codified by law) ones that would be granted with special laws for religion.
|6.20.05 @ 11:54PM|#
rafuzo: As a lapsed Catholic, I don't have a god in this
fight.
A nicely turned phrase.
|6.21.05 @ 10:45AM|#
Could it be, rafuzo, that problems arise when anyone feels
the right to force their superstion(whether said superstion
includes a god or not) on others? Could it also be that anyone who
thinks they have a lock on absolute truth is inherently
dangerous?
The latter question is a little too philosophical for blog
comments. The first, well, by virtue of my being a Reason
subscriber, you ought to know where I stand on that.
My point was really that laws are meant to apply equally to all
people. Anti-discrimination laws are designed to apply only to a
select subset of the population, but their proponents pay lip
service to equal protection by claiming anyone so aggrieved can
invoke them. I'm a principled rule-of-law kinda guy, and though I'd
sooner see the whole sorry lot of special provisions for
historically aggrieved parties done away with, I realize that's too
much to ask in today's society. Asking that laws on the books be
applied equally and fairly, however, is not.
|8.4.05 @ 12:49AM|#
Greetings:
Sorry to enter the debate so late regarding the two former
Indianapolis Star editorial board members who filed a federal
lawsuit against the paper for religious discrimination. I just
stumbled onto your Web site, or I would have entered the fun fray
sooner.
I enjoyed and appreciated all the comments. I'd be glad to answer
any questions you may have about the suit, which has been
mischaracterized by the media and even by some folks who support
us. As you've likely guessed, I'm one of the co-plaintiffs.
Thanks again for your interest. I'd just like to add two things: 1)
You're right... anyone who uses the term "negative hostility"
deserves to be slain (or sent back to grade school for a remedial
course or two). James Patterson and I wrote most of the brief, but
our attorney added some additional wording to synopsize the case.
I'll tell him he's in trouble; 2) A paper has the right to print
anything it wishes, but it doesn't have the right to fire or
transfer a Jew, a Muslim, a Wiccan or a Christian with an
outstanding work record, years of experience (16 for James, 14 for
me), numerous state, national and international awards won, etc.,
just because his or her religious beliefs differ from management's.
Employees' religious rights are protected under Title VII; that's
the gut of our suit.
Thanks again for your interest in our case. Please know that we
don't hate gays or non-gays or anybody else. We just really loved
our jobs, and we were greatly needed in our tiny department.
Incidentally, two months after the new executive editor arrived at
The Star, our department head (also a Christian) went on sabbatical
after nearly 20 years with the paper; she opted not to return at
year's end. I was next to be transferred (a few months later),
despite a critical staff shortage, and James actually was fired for
poor job performance, despite the fact he had just won a "best
writer in the nation" award as judged by Inland Press Association.
(Adding to the humor, I believe I won this award, also... that
alleged coverup is another whole story in itself.)
We have a very, very small department (department head, four
writers and a copy editor who also does page design). So the game
plan was clear enough ... adios, Christians... but it isn't legal.
If we were Muslims and the prevailing Christian management wanted
us off the paper's editorial board (with editorial and column
writing privileges), it certainly would be understandable, but it
would be illegal under Title VII.
|8.4.05 @ 2:11AM|#
Greetings Again:
It's probably unchristian (rude, anyway) to post two comments in a
row, but I just reread all the comments on the Indy Star-Religious
Discrimination lawsuit. They were great... witty, hilarious ... ok,
a little mean sometimes ... but they were great. I just wanted to
thank you all for the funny, astute comments and just add one more
thing... then I'll go away, much to the relief of many, no
doubt.
When I worked at The Star, I was becoming very concerned about a
lot of really nice kids at the paper who were getting into the gay
lifestyle. (I know ... please don't groan yet... please keep
reading.) With Russ Pulliam, I ran the Pulliam Journalism
Fellowship (internship) for 13 years, and I got to know many of
these kids very well. They were like my nieces and nephews. A fair
number ended up getting hired by the paper, so my relationship with
them continued.
As a Christian, I do believe that the gay lifestyle is against
God's design. But so is hatred and judgmentalness. When you're born
again, and I'm not sure many people who say they are Christians ARE
born again, God makes Himself known to you. Christianity is no
longer an axiomatic belief system on par with most of the other
world religions; it's an encounter with the greatest Power of love
and forgiveness in the universe. We're all looking for love... in
sex, food, drugs, alcohol, power, the quest for fame. That's why
Jesus said, "Don't judge." We take many roads, some of them to
excess, to find happiness until we have that supernatural
encounter.
I don't blame anyone who thinks most Christians are bigots. I
agree. I couldn't stand them when I wasn't a Christian, and now
that I am, I feel truly sorry for most of them. I firmly believe
that most "Christians" intellectually accede to the Bible's moral
doctrine, which in fact makes sense (don't steal, don't bear false
witness, honor Mom and Dad) and then go about clobbering everyone
who doesn't agree. But real Christianity isn't mere intellectual
assent to a doctrine of so-called right behavior. Real Christianity
takes you from one power source (that of the world...
self-centered, excessive, harmful misuse of sex, food, drugs, etc.)
to Him as a power source. That's the difference. That's why I would
never judge anyone, period. If I had nothing else but dirty water
to drink to stay alive, I don't need people saying, "Stop that...
that's nasty... cut it out!!" I need people to point me to another
water source, a clean, pure water source. Until Christians can show
people that Living Water, folks have to live somehow... they have
to get the energy to live somehow. They're just trying to be happy.
If I can't show them the Answer in a real, practical way, I have no
right to judge. In all honesty, I have no desire whatsoever to
judge.
What hurt was the fact that so many gay young men I knew were
physically sick. I wanted to know why... and I found out after a
great deal of research. I wrote a series on sodomy... its public
health and economic consequences... making it clear that this
sexual practice is dangerous no matter who practices it (men-men,
women-men). The information I uncovered was mind-boggling. Even the
AIDS pandemic in Africa is now linked to sodomy after an extensive
study by German researchers. But the series never made it to press.
The first column was on the page, ready to run, but our executive
editor (whose twin brother is gay) killed it and the series
outright, saying he'd never run anything that cast gay men's
behavior in a negative light.
The Star's publisher is gay; so is its managing editor and the
editor of its youth publication, Intake. A friend from The Star
just called me today to tell me how many people have "come out" at
work over the last two years and how many are so terribly sick.
This information about my "spiked" series (as Bill O'Reilly called
it) is part of our case file, but you're right... it's not my
paper, and I can't dictate what the paper prints and doesn't print.
But it grieves me to see political correctness dictate editorial
policy (and I speak not just of editorials but all news material)
when people's lives are at stake.
Moreover, future generations of lives are at stake as we continue
to normalize anal intercourse; we tell a child that she must wash
her hands after she uses the restroom but then tell her that it's
fine when she's 16 or so to lick another person's anus or have anal
intercourse. You can't believe how incredibly dangerous these
practices are... and how condoms actually increase the risk of
disease transmission when used during anal intercourse. The
information I uncovered about HIV, hepatitis, anal cancer and
diseases only found among people who regularly practice sodomy is
just the tip of the iceberg. Moreover, there are growing numbers
(millions of people each year) who are contracting HIV in this
country alone and don't even know they have it. Your dentist or
barber (male or female) could nick your child or you and not even
know that he or she has infected anyone.
Anyone who is ill deserves and needs help, but we need to
concurrently look at prevention. Right now, HIV drugs can run as
high as $10,000/month, and Medicaid (taxpayers) and private
insurance companies (who pass along those costs to their insureds)
are covering these costs. Have you noticed your health insurance
premiums going up in the last five years and your benefits going
down? Soaring health costs affect all of us, and you'd be amazed at
the costs of HIV treatment.
Please let me repeat: Those men, women and children who already are
sick need and deserve compassion and treatment, regardless of how
they contracted HIV, hepatitis or whatever. But we have to get the
word out regarding a sexual practice that for thousands of years in
hundreds of cultures has been considered dangerous from a medical
perspective... but now is considered normal and merely a personal
choice/privacy issue thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in
Lawrence v. Texas on June 26, 2003.
People who regularly practice sodomy are impacting society at
large. At The Star, my friend said that her gay friends let her
know they're HIV positive... it's no big deal to them because
they're on retroviral drugs... but in fact they still can transmit
HIV through accidentally scratching someone. This is not the stuff
of hysteria; it's the truth. The data I uncovered (county, state,
national, international) was so mind-boggling and so important to
the public... yet, it was censored because it addressed a practice
that gay and bisexual men often practice regularly (according to
statistics compiled by gays themselves) and thus cast their
lifestyle in a negative light. My department editor said she would
have resigned over the censorship had she not already given notice
of her plans to go on sabbatical.
The series would have been bylined... I wrote both unsigned
editorials that reflected the paper's view as a whole and also
opinion pieces under my own byline. So the series would have
been
my "opinion," not the paper's stance on sodomy. But even under
those circumstances, the series was killed. (One E&P story said
the series already had run... have no idea where it got that
idea.)
Forgive the long posting. My concern is that political correctness
has become more important than concern for the public. People are
intelligent. If you show them objective data and let them make up
their minds about whether society should normalize this sexual
practice, then the debate can intelligently proceed. But the debate
was squelched from the onset.
It's not a fun topic, believe me. That's all I needed to be: the
Sodomy Poster-Child/Writer. Not a pretty prospect. But I was and am
so convinced that lives are at stake and that a whole new
generation is growing up ignorant of those dangers. This behavior
practiced by a growing segment of the population does have a direct
impact on all of our taxes (skyrocketing Medicaid costs) and
insurance costs. There will come a time when more and more people
will become HIV-infected, and these patent-protected HIV drugs (no
generics yet) will become too costly for "just anyone." I've
already seen it.
I believe we will win the Christian discrimination lawsuit. My own
coworkers have testified in my behalf. But this issue of
communications monopolies quietly buying up TV, radio and newspaper
venues (Gannett owns 100+ papers in the U.S. alone, including USA
Today, as you may know, not to mention numerous radio and TV
stations) and then censoring the news to the detriment of the
public good ... this issue is far more important.
Again, this long posting (and I apologize for it) is just the tip
of the iceberg. Thank you for your patience in reading.
Lisa
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245