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.]

Comments

[drf]

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.

[Jennifer]

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!"

[Number 6]

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?

[joe]

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.

[Jim Henley]

"NEGATIVE hostility" is the bad kind of hostility, right?

[Number 6]

To continue the rant: consistant and repeated? Rundant and repeated.

[Jennifer]

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.

[Voiceover]

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."

[Eddy]

Jennifer, I want that on a T-shirt.

[Jennifer]

. . .sugarbooger cuddlecookie sweetiecakes. . .

[joe]

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.

[Eddy]

No Jennifer, not the cuddlecake, the pink triangle guy cartoon.

Oh, and happy birthday.(?)

[Ironchef]

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?

[Jennifer]

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

[Jennifer]

Sorry, 4:24:48.

[Serafina]

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.

[Serafina]

[The last paragraph should be quoted material also. My html sucks.]

[Eddy]

Thanks 11:38:32
Or was that Luke?

[thoreau]

I recently sent a letter to the Economist, and they didn't print it.

Clearly they're bigoted! I'm suing!

[Jennifer]

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.

[David]

The Economist has a clear bias against Catholic optics professors. It's outrageous! Egregious! preposterous!

[kevrob]

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

[joe]

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.

[Jennifer]

Joe-
Yeah, I know. The basic message from them all is, "Why don't you bigots tolerate my intolerance of you?"

[Jennifer]

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.

[Number 6]

Jennifer-I think you're confusing bigoted rednecks with humans. It's a common mistake.

[David]

I'm curious to read the articles that caused the suit.

[tarran]

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.

[David]

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.

[Jennifer]

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.)

[Apostate Jew]

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.

[rafuzo]

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.

[Unconstructive Lurker]

In a better world it would be considered normal to say, "If you don't like it, start your own damn newspaper."

[Lowdog]

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.]

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.

[thoreau]

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]

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.

[joe]

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?

[Akira MacKenzie]

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.

[matty]

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 ...

[Jennifer]

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.

[David]

Jennifer,

How would you hide your Shiksa appeal?

[thoreau]

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.

[David]

She'd better stay away from those squirrels!

[Jennifer]

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.

[rafuzo]

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.

[slacrates]

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.

[Number 6]

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?

[Akira MacKenzie]

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?

[Akira MacKenzie]

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

[Jennifer]

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.

[Akira MacKenzie]

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.

[Eddy]

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.

[Eddy]

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."

[Pedantic Latin Jerk]

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.

[Stevo Darkly]

rafuzo: As a lapsed Catholic, I don't have a god in this fight.

A nicely turned phrase.

[rafuzo]

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.

[Lisa Coffey]

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.

[Lisa Coffey]

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