Is the Controversy Over?

Wow.

Talk about coddling. Take a look at the tone used to describe you, versus the tone used to describe the IFI.

He may have been a bit more observant of your intentions, but this piece feels anything but friendly.

Wow, there’s a real nice respose on the ‘The Christian Post’ post:

HIs blog is his right, and it is hardly inflammatory! How in the world can a parent have objections to being taught by this person?

Call them out when they lie, dare to publicly disagree with their ridiculous beliefs, and let other Christians have to defend these groups’ actions. Eventually, those Christians will be too embarrassed by IFI-like interpretations of their faith and not support them any longer. (Christians have the ability to take the power away from groups like IFI — much more so than the rest of us.)

This is exacly what happened a decade ago when the Michigan chapter of the AFA came to my town. They wanted to put filters on the internet in the libraries. Initially they had the tacit support of the community b/c they where a christian group, but when the librian and I and a few others opposed them, they got nasty. When their true colors started to show the council backed away from them fast.

My favorite memory of that was when the mayor told them that if they where christians they should not bear false witness. He was was an elder in his church and was orginally on their side. Always stand up to bullies.

Off on a slight tangent… William Brinkman said:

And here’s the Babbler’s take on the situation: http://www.bolingbrookbabbler.com/2009/08/very-happy-bolingbrook-christian.html

The Bollingbrook Babbler said:

A spokesperson for the [Valley View] school district said that Lunger’s [a Christian blogger and teacher] job is safe.”The majority of our parents are Christians. We’d lose the next election if we fired someone for being a Christian. Plus we know that he keeps his personal beliefs out of the classroom. Now if he were an atheist blogger in the same situation, it might be different, but we’ll deal with that if it ever happens.”

Isn’t this just a straightforward statement of the education authority’s outrageous double standard for Christians and non-Christians? They don’t even try to veil their motives for allowing a Christian to say whatever he wants: “most of our parents are Christian”. They imply that if the teacher was an atheist expressing his opinion he would probably have lost his job. I don’t happen to think that Luger should lose his job, but that’s for reasons of free speech, not because I am concerned over who will win the next election!

*Thumbs up*

Good on ya, Hemant.

Laurie has stopped e-mailing with me as well. You are right in your assessment that the point of these conversations was either to frighten or to promote a firing. As Laruie and I discussed her reasons for contacting your bosses, she e-mailed such statements as, “I never claimed that contacting Hemant’s bosses would lead him to repentance” and “My goal in contacting Hemant’s bosses has nothing to do with evangelism or building a relationship with Hemant. I believed a week ago and still today that they have a right to know about their employee’s unprofessional and irresponsible public suggestion regarding me.” The statement about repentance is a big one and she has repeated it a few times in our e-mails. “Repentance” is the Christianized way of saying “change.” She was not wanting you to change, she was wanting you to be frightened or fired.

To be very clear, this is the last question I e-mailed … the one that has apparently ended our dialogue: “How does contacting his bosses about that unprofessional and irresponsible comment help the teens he teaches? What outcome could come from that that would benefit the teens or prevent their exposure to his influence?” That she will not plainly answer this question, shows, IMO, that her goal in this was something she cannot write or say for fear of legal consequences.
Glad it’s over … hope it stays over. Happy for you, Hemant.

I am an occasional reader of this blog and just learned of this situation. Whoever this Laurie is should get a life. Tattling to Hemant’s employer reflects the mentality of a 9 year old.

I’m sad Laurie didn’t feel it important enough to respond to my comments. 🙁

As a spam fighter, I feel my efforts in putting the banhammer down on them are validated when they personally respond to me (even if it is a nasty response). I can remember when I got my first super-kook stalker. Yes, she’s insane (I still have yet to find the ear implants she says the nazi’s put in me), but it was my trial by fire essentially.

Hemant, you handled this whole ‘incident’ with a level of elegance that shows the difference between leading by experience and knowledge, and leading by fear and damnation.

Kudos 🙂

A couple things…

Beastoire: The story was a satire of this situation. It’s not actually something that happened 😛

Regarding Paul Lundgren’s discovery of the anonymous trolling: Hemant, if you can, I’d check the IP address of the poster of those comments against the IP for the IFI’s website and the IP Laurie Higgins used when she posted here.

I’m glad your job is safe, Hemant. And I’m very glad you stood up to this lying and bullying.

So now I’m curious: Has the Laurie Higgins anti-Hemant campaign gotten any traction whatsoever? I know it hasn’t with the school administration… but have there been any parents who she’s successfully fearmongered? Or has it pretty much been a controversy in her mind only?

However, my understanding from the various accounts of the situation is simply that you expressed your feelings on certain issues publicly, and they expressed thoughts on certain issues publicly.

Sending an e-mail to a select group of people in an attempt to disrupt Hemant’s job is not a “public” expression of an opinion. It was an underhanded stunt. I would have a different opinion on this situation if she had simply posted her thoughts online or wrote a letter to a newspaper, but she made a sorry attempt to ruin his reputation with his coworkers and boss. Hemant is the one who is expressing his views in a public forum. He didn’t attempt to go after her job with a secretive e-mail to her boss and coworkers.

Beckster – my understanding that the “select” group of people was actually a fairly large group of people, hence the use of the word “public”. That may be inaccurate, nontheless, Higgins can express her opinion to whoever she wants, publicly or privately. Hemant can do the same. That is the beauty of free speech. I really fail to see the underhanded nature of Higgins actions any more than Hemants actions were underhanded.

At the moment :: His job is safe…everyone has said their piece – let’s move on to more exciting issues.

Jon – I disagree with your post. I believe you disagree with my atheist standpoint. And that’s perfectly alright in this context. And me telling you this is also alright.

However, when I contact your employer, the school administration, parents of your students, I am not making a public statement, nor a private one to peole I know. Further, when I mischaracterize and spin your statements above and claim I KNOW you disagree with me in this and many other points (of which I have no knowledge), and further deduce that you are therefore a danger to your students and society at large, then I am simply harassing you, and trying to get you fired. And to deny that is to be a liar and a coward.

Higgins can disagree with Hemant as much as she wants. He has never denied her that right. This didn’t get messy until she took action, and that action was deeply unethical, ironically as she trumpeted moral superiority over atheists.

And in the meantime: I’m happy for you that you feel the subject is dealt with. That does not mean the rest of us need to move on to the next subject of more interest to you. This is not a site set up for Jon’s entertainment, but rather for the discussion of issues.

So, I must conclude that before you open your mouth on this blog you have the forethought to know the potential for your comments to have impact in another arena of your life.

Is this a thinly veiled threat to Hemant?

Jon – You’re full of crap. She didn’t just publicly state an opinion about Hemant. She emailed his bosses and tried to have him fired or at least disciplined just for being an atheist.

Surely the comments would have to be saying the opposite to what you meant, or at least contained deliberately bitter irony, in order to be sarcastic.

He was clearly not actually saying that it would be a good idea for people to have a kiss-in in front of her house. So yes, sarcasm is the correct term.

I am angry over this – just livid. I sent them this email.

————-

I’ve just read what you tried to do to Hemant Mehta. Your organization is disgusting in how you went after Mehta and his job.

If you ever wanted show how tolerant your brand of Christianity is, you’ve utterly failed.

You disgust me, and I am an angry because of it.

No doubt, you’ll put this in your perceived persecution files as a defense of your actions, and take it as confirmation for your abuse.

No doubts there.

The gloves came off when Higgins started contacting Hemant’s employers behind his back.

She knew what she was doing, as pastor Keith’s correspondence with her shows.

The gloves came off when Hemant attacked the IFI’s warning.

Pastor Keith’s correspondence and comment here does not show much. If I was Laurie, I probably wouldn’t correspond with him either given the leading nature of his questions.

The gloves came off when Hemant attacked the IFI’s warning.

Attacked? Are you serious? He told a joke, and Higgie threatened his job over it.

Get some damned perspective.

While the back and forth updates were both interesting and informative, I’d be happy to hear the IFI has decided to direct it’s negative ranting towards someone else.

Your professionalism was very evident to this reader.

I agree – if there’s one thing a “christian” hates, it’s assertiveness. They expect everyone to be passive with them “because they’re a christian”, and do as they say.

In my book, once you tell me you identify as “christian” is the moment you fall on deaf ears. If I want to hear kooky stuff, I’ll go home and watch cartoons.