They are just everywhere:
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.
The two are asking to be reinstated at the paper, and be compensated for lost income, benefits, emotional distress and unspecified punitive damages.
Is a ‘negative hostility’ the opposite of a ‘positive plus?’ At any rate, what was alleged:
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.
So the editors are being sued for, well, doing their jobs- editing.
Patterson’s attorney, John Price, told local TV station WTHR, “James Patterson ran into this problem when he wrote an editorial and asked people to pray for the Iraqi war and one of the new persons assigned by Gannett said that the use of the word ‘prayer’ in an editorial offended him.”
Patterson told WTHR, “This is America. We have the right, under the first amendment, to express those views. At a newspaper, which has had a conservative voice for years and years and years, our argument is we should be allowed to express those views without being persecuted.”
I guess I missed the 1st Amendment privilege to ‘have your views displayed prominently on someone elses newspaper.’
If that really is their case, it should be dismissed and these people should be thrown out on their ear.
Rocky Smith
You can’t print the word “prayer” for fear of offending someone? Well, then maybe you had better not hire any christians to write editorials. Apparently, that is one of the few groups left that it’s okay to blackball. Congratulations Liberals!
ppgaz
This doesn’t appear to be about prayer, or christianity.
It appears to be about editorial control of a newspaper. Apparently, the plaintiffs are involved in a dispute with the owner of the newspaper, and have chosen to cloak their suit in an “attack on christianity” cover story.
The paper can print or not print any editorial it chooses. The rest of this is just manipulation.
You have to give the plaintiffs points for chutzpah, though. I mean, floating this BS complaint when the truth probably is that the paper just didn’t like their work.
jcricket
Yeah Rocky, I’m sure that’s what happened. Just like every other case of “Christian persecution” it will likely turn out to be far less sinister than they way it’s being portrayed by the defendents.
Just like the “Declaration of Independence” being “banned” story. It always turns out that the “persecuted” are instead guilty of either violating basic rules of their job, or otherwise overtly inserting their religion in non-innocuous ways where it doesn’t belong (according to their bosses).
Unless you’re one of those that believes it’s persecution to prevent evangelicals from stating that everyone who doesn’t believe what they do is on the wrong team (i.e. going to hell).
jcricket
(correction: I meant plaintiffs – as ppgaz pointed out)
Laura
jcricket: I think it would be persecution to prevent evangelicals from stating that anyone not on their side is going to hell — provided thaey stated it on their own time, using their own media. They have no right against third-parties to put said drivel into their own publications, though.
Rocky Smith
I was pointing out that the paper should refrain from hiring Christians to write editorials if they fear the use of the word ‘prayer’. They can do so if they like. The main point of my post was to say that it’s apparently okay to do just that. Try firing someone for being an atheist and see how quickly you hear from their lawyer. Same day, I’d bet!
Ben
Rocky,
Apparently the evangelical whiners lawyers are just as fast with the lawsuits as the athiests are. Pathetic.
Laura
Rocky —
I’m an atheist and completely capable of writing pieces that make no reference to this fact, nor to the lack of deity itself. Gay people are entirely capable of writing without reference to homosexuality. Likewise, it’s perfectly possible for Christians to write pieces without mentioning prayer. I agree it would be different if said Christians had to affirmatively deny the existence of God in their writings.
Doug
Taking Down Words has the authoritative smackdown on this lawsuit.
(In case html isn’t allowed on these comments, the URL is:
takingdownwords.com/taking_down_words/2005/06/stay_tuned_the_.html)
jcricket
Laura – Sorry for the bad wording, you wrote what I meant (that is, if you want to be intolerant on your own time, that’s fine, but there’s no constitutional right to be a bigot at work).
All of these cases of supposed Christian persecution always turn out to be nothing more than employees intentionally violating rules of their job (or even rules of the state) and then claiming persecution when they’re reprimanded or fired.
ppgaz
It’s a clever con, actually.
Announce, after you are hired and working on a job, that you have the right to write in a particular way, and demand the right to have your writings published without being subjected to ordinary editorial control.
When denied this right, claim religious persecution.
It’s just Affirmative Action for Christians, with the trick being that the Affirmative Action is not actually aimed at redressing any real grievance or providing relief from any real injury. At least old-fashioned AA had a backstory of real injury (slavery, discrimination, etc). But this supposed injury is faux, completely made up. In the movies, it’s called a Trompe L’oeil. When the camera is positioned properly, the trompe loeil is very convincing to the viewer. You can have the Eiffel Tower in Tucson, AZ. But of course, it’s an illusion.
SeesThroughIt
“Apparently, the plaintiffs are involved in a dispute with the owner of the newspaper, and have chosen to cloak their suit in an “attack on christianity” cover story.”
99 percent of these ridiculous “Christian persecution” cases fall along these lines. They boo-hoo about this totally falsified “persecution” to cover up the real reasons they’re having troubles. These people weren’t being persecuted against at all, and they need to pour themselves a nice tall glass of Shut the Fuck Up.
ppgaz
Frozen, or on the rocks ;->
Mike S
The sad thing about stories like this and the Decleration crock is that they obscure others that are worthy of debate. Things like Christmass carols being banned at schools make little sense to me, especially since other religions are well represented in choral music.
You get some yahoo like that teacher in the DoI flap making wild bullshit accusations and people begin to tune out the whole debate. It’s no different than claiming racism where none exists.
ppgaz
Persecution is like paranoia. Sooner or later, if you keep crying wolf, people WILL be out to get you ;-)
Kimmitt
I’ve got family in Indiana. The folks there are a bit . . . serious about their fundamentalism.
Jon H
“Things like Christmass carols being banned at schools make little sense to me, especially since other religions are well represented in choral music.”
Um, religions such as what?
It’s unlikely that an American school would be doing, say, Hindu or Buddhist songs. I’m not aware of any big body of Muslim choral music.
The only non-Christian choral songs I can think of are a coupla Jewish songs.
Stormy70
Like most workplace lawsuits, this sounds like disgruntled employees out for revenge. There is no constitutional right saying one should never be offended EVER by anyone. Sounds like these two need to toughen up.
Mike S
Don’t you know that Hindu, Bhudism and Islam aren’t real religions.
It is out there but ignored.
nickmusic.com/newslh.html
Jaybird
The *ONLY* reason that Christianity should be respected at all is that Christians wield considerable political power.
Now we just get to discuss how much respect should be sufficient.
I see it as comparable to the Koran Flushing story. Who gives a flying frag if The Koran is flushed? “OH NO!!! DON’T FLUSH MY COPY OF THE GIVING TREE BY SHEL SILVERSTEIN!!! THAT IS MY FAVORITE BOOK!!!”
It seems silly that anyone would care so much about a stupid children’s book.
But, apparently, people do.
And so Koran flushing should be avoided… not because the Koran is a holy book, but because people who give a damn about the Koran wield considerable power (political and otherwise).
Same for pissing off Christians. Piss them off too much, they’ll vote for someone like Jesse Helms. Again and again and again and again…
How much is this particular battle worth?