Re: Sniping (Part II)

Durham_Devil · Wed, 19 Sep 2001 06:10:00 -0700

As we've seen so far in the case of Hamlin v.
Weiner, both sides have been guilty of crossing the line.
The question, therefore, is *not* who is at fault
(since neither person is faultless), but why this
situation came about. Unfortunately, this discussion of the
statements between the two of them continues through a third
party.

(You will note I am not including what could be
considered expert testimony from Messrs. Young and Kemezis.
While it is accurate in both cases, it is not germane
to my discussion, in this court's
opinion.)

Mr. Schluessel, filing Amicus Curiae #2 on behalf of
the plaintiff, states:

"That's disgusting,
Matt. That's also petty and that's also spurious, and
it's also wrong. Let's all be honest with ourselves:
you tout your own beliefs harder than anyone else
I've run into since Matt Colvin retired. Don't try to
hide behind sophistry -- atheism isn't a religion, but
it's still a faith and you are an unabashed
proselytizer."

While Mr. Colvin cannot be reached for comment on the
issue of belief touting, the statement here is
logically disconnected. Whether or not the defendant states
his attempts to help others understand the mysteries
of the universe through science and come to accept
the lack of existence of a supremem being, that's not
what he did here. It isn't that what he did was any
better; the issue is that he was falsely accused. Mr.
Schluessel is every bit as guilty along those lines as both
plaintiff and defense.

Interpreting literally, Mr.
Weiner replies:

"Let's cut to the chase: I
challenge anyone to find a single documented instance on
this forum or any other, quizbowl-related or not, in
which I have attempted to "convert" anybody to another
religious opinion."

In retrospect, this particular
judge, although open to the exposure of logical flaws in
the Bible which at the time were misinterpreted as a
personal attack, cannot recall any specific time when the
defendant has said that atheism is the only true faith. (I
could get into a complete side discussion about the
fact that the argument over the existence of God or
the equivalent is about the only argument where there
IS no burden of proof, but that's another rant.) So
in this case, the defendant is justified in his
challenge.

However, Mr. Weiner continues:

"If Kristin had
accused someone of harboring a plot for "Muslim
superiority" because they shared a liberal Islamic viewpoint
on Falwell, she would be subject to a well-deserved
condemnation by the rest of the forum. However, throwing
around notions of "atheist superiority" goes unchecked,
because it's scoially acceptable to be an anti-atheist
bigot."

This statement is 2 1/2 hours after Mr. Murphy's
defense of Mr. Weiner's original point (cf. Amicus Curiae
#1), and therefore one has to wonder if the defendant
even read it. The anti-atheist stance -- if that even
were the case -- would most definitely not go
unchecked, and in fact hasn't, in the opinion of the court.
However, this plays into the question of sensitivity. If
Mr. Weiner had read Mr. Murphy's statement and
responded anyway, did he do so out of emotion, or because
he felt the statements did not cover this new ground
from Mr. Schluessel?

When I come back: The
Verdict.