Sniping (Part I)

Durham_Devil · Wed, 19 Sep 2001 05:37:19 -0700

Hm. What appears to have happened, in the case of
Hamlin v. Weiner (or is it Weiner v. Hamlin? Who's the
plaintiff?), is that both are reacting as much to the person
as they are to the statements. This hasn't been
helped by the insistence by Mr. Schluessel that Mr.
Weiner is baiting. However, I see a common mistake being
made by all three of them, one which I have been on
both sides of more times than I can
remember:

Reading more than is there.

It is usually good
advice, when examining the statements of anyone
historically, to understand his worldview and context. Doing
otherwise is the reason we get people asking for Huck Finn
to be yanked off of shelves on the claim (which
seems patently false to me from my memories of it) that
it is a racist book. However, it is also important
to think of your audience when saying things in the
modern day; this is why I'd be willing to bet you won't
see Birth of a Nation showing up in a film study
class at Howard, for example.

Now, with this in
mind, I'll attempt to explain how I saw the statements
of the parties in Hamlin v. Weiner (what the heck,
she made it personal first) and render my decision. I
realize both plaintiff and defendant would be loathe to
having me be the judge. (Insert lawyer joke
here.)

First, the setup line:

"If one more person tries
to use the death of thousands of people to promote
their religious agenda, I will get sick on that person
instead of in my own home."

I don't blame Mr.
Weiner for making that statement. I may think that
personally the best thing to do *for myself* would be if I
worked harder to make the world a better place, but the
fact that this would require sticking to prescribed
religious beliefs is coincidence, not cause. Furthermore,
we've all been in a situation where we've thought
"they" were using an unrelated event for a political
gain; whereas people such as Rev. Jesse Jackson have
become notorious for that, it is also true that every
human can be part of that "they". Complaining about
"their" playing politics is more than just a natural
reaction nowadays; it's a cherished American way of
life.

And now, the opening salvo:

"Matt, we know
you're not religious. You can stop shoving it down our
throats any time now, ok? Some of us are religious, and
we're sick of you acting like you're intellectually
superior because of that."

This strikes me as an
infraction of rhetoric. Within the context of the
statements, it is a non-sequitur. How claiming that Mr.
Weiner has turned his complaint about politicizing a
national tragedy into a display of intellectual
superiority is a leap of logic I cannot follow. Granted, I
know Mr. Weiner's feelings to religion; so does Ms.
Hamlin. However, they were never stated up to this
point.

Mr. Murphy says as much in his reply (Amicus Curiae
#1):

"Frankly, that reply to Matt (and whether or not he feels
intellectually superior to anyone is someone else's call, not
mine) ticked me off, mainly because it was obvious that
what Matt was saying was directed at those people who
ARE using this situation -- taking advantage of it --
to push forward their own closed-mindedness. Those
people, we can do without, even though I believe their
ideas are protected by the Constitution, and I will
fight for their right to spew such rubbish. That can
hardly be said for them about us."

And if this
were all, defendant would be vindicated. But it
isn't.

(To Be Continued)