garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (08/28/85)
> Mr. Samuelson, > In your haste to contradict all that Rosen says and/or > stands for... Guilty as charged; I shouldn't pay so much attention to Mr. Rosen, and I shouldn't respond in haste. > ...you ignore, overlook, or deliberately omit one > important, binding, and compelling point: If "ignore, overlook, or deliberately omit" are the only choices I get (how about didn't hear about?), I guess I overlooked it, because I haven't seen any articles in this group giving specific examples of the type of harassment you mention below. (I must admit I don't read every article in this group.) Note that the one that came in this morning, excerpted below, hardly counts: > A few weeks ago, I caught the tail end of a news broadcast which > told of some fundamentalist group using the Hatch Act against a > high-school Chemistry teacher... apparently they contend that > teaching about elements not specifically mentioned in the Bible > constitutes "secular humanism". > AWR Absolutely no specific facts are mentioned in that little blurb. The phrase, "caught the tail end" says that the writer didn't hear the whole report, and suggests that he/she wasn't paying a whole lot of attention to it anyway. "Some fundamentalist group" is awfully vague. I have never heard of any group that holds any such belief (although, for every weird idea, there is probably someone weird enough to believe it) "Apparently they contend..." I wonder what their real contention was -- indeed, I wonder what action they took -- did they attempt to file suit? actually file? did a judge agree to hear the case? The submitter of the above added some remarks about the periodic table being Satanic in origin, obviously intended as a joke to show how absurd the incident was. Is it possible that the statement "teaching about elements not specifically mentioned in the Bible constitutes 'secular humanism'" was likewise added as an attempt at humor by the reporters (who just *might* have been a little biased themselves)? > Individuals throughout the country, who profess to be > of the same religion and beliefs as you, and who claim that their > mission in life is the promotion of "Christian Ethics and Morals", > are using the Hatch act (the new one) to harrass science, math, > physics, and biology teachers. In the past, I and several others have maintained that not everyone who claims the name Christian deserves it. I gave up trying to convince certain people of this. Furthermore, I have objected to being called a fundamentalist, but that didn't stop anyone (as far as I know) from considering me one. Regarding the harassment itself, examples please. Unbiased, of course, so I can tell whether there is any real grounds for the suit. > The correctness of their attacks are not an issue, > as the mere threat of a lawsuit is enough to ruin any individual's > credit rating, have their house repossessed, their insurances > cancelled, and their life irrevocably ruined. I doubt that the "threat" of a lawsuit woule ruin anyone's life, but it is true that even the winner in a lawsuit can be economically devestated. But what you say applies to all lawsuits -- I doubt that you therefore oppose all laws. And to conclude that "the correctness of their attacks" is not an issue is absurd. If you thought the lawsuit might be valid, then why would you object to its being filed? If the lawsuit is obviously not valid (frivolous), then I can see objecting to filing it. (Now if you want to say that our entire legal system of legislation throught litigation is absurd, I will probably agree with you.) > Such actions, unfortunately not redressable in our current > legal system, are why I object to this act of Congress. What about countersuits for harassment? (not a rhetorical question). Also, courts can throw out what they consider "frivolous" suits, and hold the would-be plaintiff in contempt, I believe. So I don't think it is true that there is no redress at all. But frivolous lawsuits are not grounds for throwing out the law on which they are purportedly based (speaking in general terms here); abuse of a law is not sufficient grounds for dispensing with that law. You have cited a flaw (which I readily agree exists) in our legal system; doing away with one particular law will not fix that more general and more serious flaw. I don't know how to fix that flaw -- one would like to make the loser of a suit pay all the costs, but then John Q. Public would not be willing to risk suing Evil Conglomerate, Inc., when real harm has been done. > Regardless of whether or not individuals who pose such > lawsuits are Christian is of no import to me, because they are > allowed to retain their "Christian" mantle, with little or no > public opposition, regardless of their behavior. If you believe > that such actions are not appropriate, it is your place to say > so, and my prompting should be unnecessary. First, as I already said, I have not seen any articles giving specific examples of the type of suit you describe (rather vaguely, at that). Second, if you don't care whether they are really Christians, then what difference will it make if I say that they aren't, or that Christians ought not to do such things? Third, it is not your place to declare what is or is not my place to say. Fourth, for all the extent of this network, I do not think statements made here constitute (effective) public opposition -- I don't think that anyone involved in such cases is reading the net, so I don't think opposition here would have an effect on those who want to file frivolous or malicious suits, or on the judges deciding them. Everyone on the net could start playing Ain't it Awful, and the real world would continue as before. However, if you tell me how, for example, to get on the Phil Donahue Show or Nightline, that would be an entirely different matter. Fifth, all I said (which seems to have started this argument) was that, given that the courts found that it was unconstitutional to teach one religion (Christianity) in public schools, it would be consistent to forbid the teaching of another religion (secular humanism). And that it was ironic that those who instigated, or at least applauded, the former were now the targets of the latter. (And, no, I don't want to re-start the argument about whether secular humanism, or any other non-theistic belief system, is a religion.) Gary Samuelson
jj@alice.UUCP (08/29/85)
Well, I don't disagree a lot with most of what Mr. Samuelson says. I accept that he overlooked the situations where people were being harassed. For unbiased info on the various lawsuits: Good luck. I've seen a variety of info after posting the 'creationists by name' song, but not a bit of it is unbiased, and it doesn't have much backing, since I can't fly to other states just to find out. None-the-less, such harrassment has been documented in a couple of states recently. I don't have the info handy, but the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee might. I'm waiting for their info now. I do agree that the inability to recover for a specious lawsuit isn't a result of the "Hatch Act", but I don't hold this particular law blameless, since it is well known that one cannot recover for a specious lawsuit. As to the threat of a lawsuit causing serious damage: Most (if not all) mortgages say that the lender can<and generally will> foreclose if the mortgage holder is made a party to any legal action. The first summons you get makes you a party. A number of credit agencies watch the legal notices, as do various service organizations that work for banks. (How they filter all that info is a good question, for sure!) Sueing for harrasment (aka Juristy, Barristry) is very difficult, and, in most states, seems to require evidence tatamout to admission by the other party that the suit was indended to harrass. <Legal types care to comment? I'm NOT a lawyer.> I think most of the rest of our dispute can be attributed to belief. I do not intend to ask you to change yours, and you haven't asked me to change mine, so let's not argue any more about it. -- SUPPORT SECULAR TEDDY-BEAR-ISM. "You, who are on the road, must have a code that you can live by." (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj