Page 1 of 8
The unreasoning hostility to religion...
Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:42 am
by TDPerk
Leads to travesties like this:
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/111718/
I hope FIRE kicks their ass.
My opinion of the "atheists" posting here is that they are totalitarians who want to exclude religious people from politics, destroy freedom of conscience, and generally make religious people 2nd class citizens.
We have above a person denied a university teaching position because they hold perfectly mainstream religious views which aren't even related to the subject matter he would be teaching. I hope his inquisitors enjoy the publicity they were ostensibly trying to avoid.
Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:25 pm
by chrismb
I have no opinion on this, but if I were to be drawn into making an opinion I would first of all want to bottom out what the term 'evangelical' meant in describing him in this context.
It is fine if you want to practice a religion in your own time in your own space.... but keeping it to yourself doesn't fall under the term 'evangelical' as I understand it.
Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:09 pm
by happyjack27
as regards hostility, there are numerous statistics that compare the hostileness of atheists with religious people. in all of them, it is the religious people that are the more hostile.
Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:31 pm
by mdeminico
chrismb wrote:It is fine if you want to practice a religion in your own time in your own space.... but keeping it to yourself doesn't fall under the term 'evangelical' as I understand it.
It is fine if you want to [preach liberalism] in your own time in your own space....
You see how stupid your comment sounds when I switch a few words?
Yes
Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:43 pm
by bcglorf
happyjack27 wrote:as regards hostility, there are numerous statistics that compare the hostileness of atheists with religious people. in all of them, it is the religious people that are the more hostile.
Agreed, the religious, particularly those blinded with religious fervor, are a very big problem. Atheists are unfortunately not immune to religious zeal, they just fail to recognize it as such. It's impossible to deny there a great many atheists thoroughly convinced of their superiority to all those who aren't atheists. The best description for that kind of mindless blanketing mentality I can come up with is religious fervor.
Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:11 pm
by happyjack27
mdeminico wrote:chrismb wrote:It is fine if you want to practice a religion in your own time in your own space.... but keeping it to yourself doesn't fall under the term 'evangelical' as I understand it.
It is fine if you want to [preach liberalism] in your own time in your own space....
You see how stupid your comment sounds when I switch a few words?
ummm, yeah, like switching "practice" with "preach", for example, which turns it into an oxymoron. your point?
how about this:
You see how stupid your comment tastes when I switch a few words?
and i only switched _one_ word!
Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 5:48 pm
by chrismb
mdeminico wrote:It is fine if you want to [preach liberalism] in your own time in your own space....
You see how stupid your comment sounds when I switch a few words?
I don't understand. There are many ways to not understand your comment. Are you saying religions can only be practiced in public? Or it is wrong to preach liberalism? Or.. what?
Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:12 pm
by happyjack27
chrismb wrote:mdeminico wrote:It is fine if you want to [preach liberalism] in your own time in your own space....
You see how stupid your comment sounds when I switch a few words?
I don't understand. There are many ways to not understand your comment. Are you saying religions can only be practiced in public? Or it is wrong to preach liberalism? Or.. what?
i think he's honestly just saying that by switching a few words around you can totally change the meaning of a sentence. something that i already knew, but it might be new and interesting to him.
Evangelical
Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:18 pm
by bcglorf
chrismb wrote:I have no opinion on this, but if I were to be drawn into making an opinion I would first of all want to bottom out what the term 'evangelical' meant in describing him in this context.
It is fine if you want to practice a religion in your own time in your own space.... but keeping it to yourself doesn't fall under the term 'evangelical' as I understand it.
Evangelical doesn't mean what you think then. It is basically just another theological line of belief, little different from identifying as a Catholic or Protestant Christian.
I think the play on words made up thread was rather self evident. I'm not sure how many have spent a lot of time around academics, but I've never known them to be the type to keep anything to themselves, so I don't see why their opinions on religion should be any different. Virtually every class I ever attended had the prof at some point sharing opinions on completely subject and fields completely foreign to the class and their own degree.
How many science classes at universities don't have the prof sharing(read pushing if it involved religion) their views on Iraq or Afghanistan at least once throughout a year? The point was simply that we don't assume someone pro or anti war can't teach science because all they'll do is promote/attack the war effort all year. The liberal analogy was simply an asking of what makes religion so special? Don't cry creationism either, as it was made abundantly clear the candidate in this case absolutely rejected that.
Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:19 pm
by mdeminico
chrismb wrote:mdeminico wrote:It is fine if you want to [preach liberalism] in your own time in your own space....
You see how stupid your comment sounds when I switch a few words?
I don't understand. There are many ways to not understand your comment. Are you saying religions can only be practiced in public? Or it is wrong to preach liberalism? Or.. what?
*sigh* - Don't be so dull...
You were claiming that it's well and fine for the guy to be a Christian in his own time, but he couldn't share those beliefs while he's working.
I simply switched the words and replaced it with "preach liberalism" to show you that it's absurd to claim either of those things, that someone can't share their beliefs while on the job.
Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 7:42 pm
by GIThruster
chrismb wrote:I have no opinion on this, but if I were to be drawn into making an opinion I would first of all want to bottom out what the term 'evangelical' meant in describing him in this context.
It is fine if you want to practice a religion in your own time in your own space.... but keeping it to yourself doesn't fall under the term 'evangelical' as I understand it.
I think you're confusing the term "evangelical" with the term "evangelistic". The latter relates to Christ's "great commission" which is to go out to all the world and explain the gospel of forgiveness, and which if handled inappropriately, could cause problems on any job. No one wants someone else's religion in their face--but being obnoxious is not required by said commission.
"Evangelical" is an historic term coined by Martin Luther (or rather his theologian friend Melangthon) during the Reformation, and relates specifically to three doctrines of reform canonized by the reformers which include:
1) salvation is by grace through faith--not works
2) the authority for faith is the scripture alone--not church leaders
3) all believers are a "priesthood of believers" who have direct access to God and do not require the mediation of a priest offering sacrifices for them
It's easy to see how "evangelical and "evangelistic" can be confused, but the former really just identifies those Christians who's beliefs reflect those of reformers like Martin Luther rather than those found in the Roman Catholic church. You might just as easily pass over someone for a job based on them being Greek Orthodox. Plain silly.
Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:18 pm
by KitemanSA
I think the general point here is that it is inappropriate to PREACH anything at work. Not Chistianity, not Islam, not Secular Humanism, not Libralism, not Conservatism, not...
The work environment is best served by cordial communication on issues related to the job and cordial discussion of other topics of mutual interest.
PREACHING, in any of it's guises, is either a waste of time (preaching to the chior) or often lacking in cordiality (preaching at the heathen). Don't waste your employer's time preaching to a chior and don't violate cordiality preaching at a heathen.
I don't know of anyone who objects to cordial discussion of religion. But "evangelists" of any stripe are seldom able to remain cordial. On occasion they loose jobs over it and cry "foul" claiming they were fired due to their religion. This is seldom the case. Employers tend not to fire good employees over codial discussions.
Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:21 pm
by chrismb
GIThruster wrote:I think you're confusing the term "evangelical" with the term "evangelistic".
Not really. I am
precisely sure of my understanding of what I think 'evangelical' means. I may be misunderstanding it, but I am not confusing it.
Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:24 pm
by happyjack27
mdeminico wrote:chrismb wrote:mdeminico wrote:It is fine if you want to [preach liberalism] in your own time in your own space....
You see how stupid your comment sounds when I switch a few words?
I don't understand. There are many ways to not understand your comment. Are you saying religions can only be practiced in public? Or it is wrong to preach liberalism? Or.. what?
*sigh* - Don't be so dull...
You were claiming that it's well and fine for the guy to be a Christian in his own time, but he couldn't share those beliefs while he's working.
I simply switched the words and replaced it with "preach liberalism" to show you that it's absurd to claim either of those things, that someone can't share their beliefs while on the job.
no that's not what he was saying. perhaps you were using the fallacy of the excluded middle? not sure, but i know that's not what he was saying.
Re: The unreasoning hostility to religion...
Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:28 pm
by AcesHigh
Mike Brotherton knows this guy personally, and he wrote some 3 or 4 blogposts about this whole issue.
You guys should read it. He is atheist but has quite an insight look in the whole affair, knowing both Martin and plenty of the people at Kentucky University.
here is his conclusion of the whole affair
To briefly recap, Martin Gaskell, an astronomer I know personally and whose work I admire, has sued the University of Kentucky over religious discrimination over a job as an observatory director that he applied for.
After reading Martin Gaskell’s deposition in greater detail, and assuming Martin is telling the complete truth about everything, he was right to sue. In particular, he was told by someone in the know that he was sabotaged primarily by the biology department who was asked to weigh in on notes that Martin hands out in conjunction with a talk on astronomy and the bible. The claim is that they shouldn’t hire a “Christian.”
I find that claim implausible, unfortunately. If they’d said “Creationist” I could believe it.
This is hearsay, and I didn’t see corroboration in other depositions. I saw a lot of “I can’t recall” and “I don’t really know about biology or creationism.” Maybe circling the wagons, maybe honest sometimes. If Martin can’t get corroboration, I think he’ll lose.
Now, Martin also seems confused to me about the application of science to evolution and strays, not much, but definitely, from good science. He seems to criticize mainstream biology for not entertaining supernatural elements may be involved, all the while accepting most of the basics of evolution. He unfortunately also points to books and articles by Intelligent Design proponents for people who want to know what problems evolution has. That’s totally bogus crap, and Martin hides behind his ignorance of evolution to justify it. That would concern me if I were hiring.
Martin seems to have a problem understanding that while his religious views can’t be a factor in deciding not to hire him, when they leak over into science and become part of his scientific views, they’re totally fair game. He doesn’t seem to understand that when he makes a religious criticism of science, he’s not making just a religious statement but a statement of his own scientific acumen.
So-called “theistic evolution” and intelligent design arguments he suggests people look at, are either bad science, or not science at all pretending to be science.
Like most religious scientists, Martin compartmentalizes. He’s a really good astronomer and practices good science in astronomy. Apparently in biology, something he doesn’t know much about, he relaxes his scientific principles. Bad Martin. I bet he would feel uncomfortable with a evangelical biologist who was find with mainstream evolution, but wanted “theistic cosmology” and pointed at “problems” with the Big Bang and suggested folks read some religiously motivated critics.
On the other hand…I was unfair to Martin. His position at Nebraska included no research component. He was doing a great job with his teaching and doing his “high-powered” research in his spare time. He also set up and ran an observatory very much like the one at Kentucky and was already very experienced with the duties required for the job. He really was by far the top applicant, even if he’s something of an overachiever.
Laws designed to prevent discrimination helped contribute to the problems here. Kentucky brought up the topic of Martin’s beliefs concerning evolution and how it might affect his outreach activities (fair game in my opinion since Martin had spoken publicly at KY in the past and had online materials about it), but didn’t feel like they could explore it fully. Martin felt like they weren’t allowed to consider it at all and tried to evade the topic completely. Bad deal.
I think they should have hired Martin, and that Martin should have agreed not to talk about evolution (which he is not an expert on) as part of his duties as Observatory Director. I think that would have been agreeable. The PR issue could have been handled by asking Martin to state that he’s not a creationist, which he isn’t strictly speaking, if it comes up.
It’s a shame. This should have been a win-win. Now it’s going to be a lose-lose. Some will see Kentucky as a discriminatory place. Some will see Martin as a creationist and bad scientist.
I think that Kentucky was concerned about Martin’s not creationist but less than perfect views on evolution, not his religion. I think that Martin could have eased a lot of their concerns but didn’t think it was a topic he should discuss with them at all, conflating science and religion (as he does in his talk/notes). Some folks involved probably freaked a bit, not distinguishing between young-Earth creationist and Martin’s almost mainstream position that is similar to that of some Christian biologists like Francis Collins (who I think is full of crap trying to make his religion scientific, but he’s head of the NIH and Martin is SOL).
I’ll be watching how the court case goes in February and reserve the right to change my opinion as other details may emerge there.
I can’t tell you how weird this is, personally knowing so many of the participants personally. Well, no matter what happens I anticipate continuing to work with everyone scientifically in the future. I imagine they can’t or won’t talk about the case now, but I bet there will be a few stories circulating after the fact.