…and this is a 
The Illinois Family Institute — they actually italicize the word in their name to emphasize the hypocrisy — is out to get Hemant Mehta. He's an atheist, you know! And a school teacher! Shun him! You've got to appreciate the quality sliming while acknowledging his right (for now, until they get more power) to not believe in gods.
He absolutely has a First Amendment right to promote any feckless, destructive, offensive, and immoral ideas he wants via his blog, but, as I mentioned in my earlier article, parents have the right not to have him as a teacher and a role model for their children.
Yeah, right. Remember, Hemant is the friendly atheist, the nice gentle guy with a blog, and they want to see him fired. There is absolutely no incentive to not be the snarly loud atheist, is there?
Among the trumped up reasons to call him immoral is that some of his commenters discussed polyamory (again, they should witness the decadent discussions about bacon that go on here to acquire some perspective), and that he once linked favorable to Dan Savage. Like I just did. I think Dan Savage is terrific, and I would hope any gay students anywhere would be reading him regularly to get a healthy, positive perspective on their sexual orientation. Should they be getting advice from Tony Perkins or Ted Haggard?
So this Family institute is calling on parents to yank their kids out of Mehta's classes. If you're a parent in Neuqua Valley district 204, maybe you should call up the district and throw some praise his way…or try to get your kids in his math classes.
Comments
Posted by: Waydude | August 21, 2009 4:01 PM
oh, bacon, why can't I quit you?!
Posted by: Tony Whitson | August 21, 2009 4:03 PM
Off-topic, but I think readers here will be interested in the new (and hilarious) brief by the Institute for Creation Research in its attempt to get accreditation for their graduate program in "Science Education." See
http://curricunet.net/2009/08/21/icr-amended-complaint/
Posted by: Pablo | August 21, 2009 4:06 PM
Huh?
Parents certainly have the option of not sending their child to public school, but if they do, what the frick are they talking about?
Posted by: Robocop | August 21, 2009 4:07 PM
Obviously, Mr. Mehta's eligibily for his job and his performance should be evaluated on account of what he has actually done on the job, not upon what he believes, what he doesn't believe or what some sanctimonious crackpots fear will happen on the job because of what views he holds or doesn't hold.
Like Francis Collins.
Posted by: Robert Thille | August 21, 2009 4:10 PM
Shouldn't we find out if he's good at teaching math before we recommend parents pull strings to get students into his class? :-)
Posted by: Richard Harris | August 21, 2009 4:10 PM
Isn't this one for the ACLU?
Posted by: dhonig | August 21, 2009 4:11 PM
Yeah, because we all know how much the Bible objects to polyamory. Right?
Posted by: KSMB | August 21, 2009 4:13 PM
The TEstes pastor imbecile has a new rant on this very thing up on his little blog.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 21, 2009 4:13 PM
The friendly atheist struck me as a very intelligent person, I haven't seen him around since the D'Souza blog. I didn't realize he was a teacher or had a blog. Seems to be a "get the atheist" mentality more than anything else.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 21, 2009 4:13 PM
Wait, so everyone who has a blog is now morally culpable for anything any commenter says... and for anything anyone linked to says?
By that standard, you, Dr. Myers, are in a world of frickin' hurt!!
8^)
Posted by: Jack Mitcham | August 21, 2009 4:16 PM
As an atheist thinking about possibly teaching high school physics after college, this story frightens me just a bit.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
August 21, 2009 4:17 PM
Exactly. Like Francis Collins, who took advantage of his position on the HGP to promote a god. Like Francis Collins, who failed the logic and science test with many stupid comments in his book and website.
Posted by: squall25 | August 21, 2009 4:17 PM
Unholy SHITE. This is less than a half hour from me. Nequa Valley, seriously? Bloody lunatics.
Posted by: rob | August 21, 2009 4:18 PM
he's a MATH teacher. frack! we can't have that!!! send the girls to home ec and the boys to shop and cut the whole math department!!! they don't need to know math!!!! there is only ONE number you need to know, and that number is ONE cause there is ONE god. and...darn...what about the trinity?
sorry, you only need TWO numbers: ONE and THREE.
oh wait, that's three numbers...
umm...math is hard.
Posted by: Eric | August 21, 2009 4:22 PM
Technically, the polyamory stuff was a guest-poster, not a commenter.
I still come down on the same side of the issue regardless, but it does seem like there's a difference between allowing a guest-post on a topic and allowing a comment on a topic.
Posted by: Bill | August 21, 2009 4:23 PM
This is GREAT GREAT news. If a teacher can be so closely scrutinized for their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, this means that we will soon be able to do likewise to Christian teachers.
What a Christian teacher would teach a child is certainly more vile and evil than what a non-believer would.
I would say that it is time for Christians to learn to know their place. And to keep their hatred and evil in their CHURCHES, where it belongs. The rest of society is growing weary of your evils.
We have young, impressionable minds in our schools. Why would we want to destroy those minds with the evil that is Christianity???
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 21, 2009 4:25 PM
I wouldn't have been surprised if this was downstate Illinois, which gets very conservative. But this is far west in the Chicago suburbs, just south of Wheaton, in DuPage county, a conservative area.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 21, 2009 4:26 PM
PZ Myers:
Even on straightforward, purely factual matters like the fossil history of whales. It's like the people who wrote the content for the BioLogos website got all their information from old issues of Discover they found under the couch. If the reconciliation of science and religion is such an important task, shouldn't the people working on it, you know, care?
Posted by: Robin | August 21, 2009 4:26 PM
Hemant is a very good teacher, with excellent reviews. Higgins is a whackadoodle.
Posted by: Heidi | August 21, 2009 4:27 PM
Her vendetta against Hemant is particularly hypocritical, given the fact that when she was employed at one Deerfield High School, she was doing the talk radio pro-homophobia circuit.
Relevant Link
Posted by: Ms. Crazy Pants | August 21, 2009 4:28 PM
YEAH!!! Those parents should send their children to a nice quality Christian school, like the one I attended where my 6th grade teacher had lots of child pornography. He was there for over 10 years before they found it, but we all received many wholesome lectures about girls being submissive to guys. Teachers these days....makes it so much harder to get little kids in bed. Guess we oughta ban those types.
Posted by: AdamK | August 21, 2009 4:30 PM
Not only that, straight, bi-, and asexual students and non-students should be reading Savage as well. Just because he's gay doesn't by any means indicate that his readers have to be specified as gay.
Posted by: Robocop | August 21, 2009 4:30 PM
"Exactly. Like Francis Collins, who took advantage of his position on the HGP to promote a god."
The only claim I've seen in this regard relates to his having okayed Bill Clinton's speech referencing the "language of God."
"Like Francis Collins, who failed the logic and science test with many stupid comments in his book and website."
This a monumentally stupid claim since it has absolutley nothing to do with what he did on the job. Unless, of course, you'd have thought police keeping those with improper thoughts and ideas out of certain jobs....
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 21, 2009 4:31 PM
Bisexual students should probably read someone else in addition, too.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 21, 2009 4:32 PM
As long as he's not promoting feckless, destructive, offensive, and immoral ideas (like Christianity and creationism) in his classes, the Illinois Family Institute can't complain about him.
Exactly. Collins is promoting feckless, destructive, offensive, and immoral ideas as part of his work and we're calling him on it.
Posted by: Geds | August 21, 2009 4:33 PM
Nerd of Redhead: I wouldn't have been surprised if this was downstate Illinois, which gets very conservative. But this is far west in the Chicago suburbs, just south of Wheaton, in DuPage county, a conservative area.
As someone who grew up in Wheaton and went to public school in Glen Ellyn, I'm not necessarily shocked this is happening, but I would be shocked if it got anywhere. The crazies don't quite have the control everyone seems to think they do, even in Wheaton. Most of them opted out and homeschooled their kids or sent them to Wheaton Christian Grammar and Wheaton Academy, anyway.
And Nequa Valley is in Naperville, which isn't exactly as nuts as Wheaton. I'm more annoyed that this Illinois Family Institute is doing its best to besmirch the reputation of my state. I mean, we had Rod Blagojevich for that...
Posted by: Mr T | August 21, 2009 4:35 PM
I even heard that while teaching, he frequently references non-Christian maths such as "geometry", "trigonometry", and "algebra"....
*cue scary music*
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 21, 2009 4:37 PM
Precisely. He atheist world view and worldly math "expertise" force him to openly contradict the teachings of the holy scriptures while in the class with students present. This act is clearly a violation of state/church separation.
He must teach that:
pi = 3.14159...
...not:
pi ≈ 3
Posted by: Carlie | August 21, 2009 4:38 PM
Her vendetta against Hemant is particularly hypocritical, given the fact that when she was employed at one Deerfield High School, she was doing the talk radio pro-homophobia circuit.
I wouldn't say it's hypocritical; I'd say it's the entire impetus for her attack. She got flak for someone calling her out on being a bigot, so she's going to make damned sure that every teacher around who doesn't agree with her views gets harassed.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
August 21, 2009 4:41 PM
Blake, I'll have you know that everything I know I learned from Discover. And Archie. The rest I make up.
Posted by: Mr T | August 21, 2009 4:41 PM
What about Collins' book, "The Language of God"? Does Bill Clinton get royalties on that because it was actually Clinton who came up with the dumbass idea?
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 21, 2009 4:42 PM
I like that better. No offense.
Posted by: Carlie | August 21, 2009 4:42 PM
But Brownian, Archie is proposing to Veronica! He has lost all cred.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 21, 2009 4:46 PM
You have not been paying attention.
Collins is infamous for exploiting his notoriety as the head of the HGP to promote his particular flavor of Christianity.
Posted by: Dan! | August 21, 2009 4:46 PM
Too bad high school math teachers can't earn tenure. The crazy part is that Hemant is a legit nice guy. Why does everyone have to be such assholes?
Posted by: Longstreet63 | August 21, 2009 4:49 PM
I actually read the name of that organization as the Italian Family Institute. Which would be a lot more fun.
"Nice little teaching position you got here. be a shame if it got...damaged..."*
*(Anyone preparing to be ethnically offended should be rhetorically disarmed by my pointing out my own Italian heritage**.)
**(Of course, I'm not Sicilian, though. In northern Italy, they're civilized. They just rob you--they don't make you rob yourself.)
Posted by: Mena | August 21, 2009 4:49 PM
Robocop@23: You were kill filed by me for the lame-o phrase "thought police". Toodles!
Dupage county is fairly conservative in parts, but that's changing except for in Wheaton due to people moving in here from Chicago and elsewhere in Cook county. Wheaton is kind of considered to be one big loony bin. The interesting thing about the Illinois Family Institute is that it is just under 3 miles from a mosque, which in itself is only a half mile away from a Wal-Mart. We're finally getting cosmopolitan but you can usually tell who is from Wheaton. They tend to be assholes who like to cut in line at stores (because they failed kindergarten?), not too bright, and drive like shit. Arrogance and stupid formed into human-like shapes, if you will.
Posted by: toth | August 21, 2009 4:52 PM
@22:"Not only that, straight, bi-, and asexual students and non-students should be reading Savage as well. Just because he's gay doesn't by any means indicate that his readers have to be specified as gay."
No, but a straight or asexual student is unlikely to get a particularly useful view on their own sexuality, which why PZ recommended gay students visit his blog.
Posted by: tsg | August 21, 2009 4:55 PM
Well, yes, if you disregard all the evidence that contradicts your pre-supposed conclusion, that is all you will see. That, however, is your problem, not anyone else's.
Posted by: FastLane | August 21, 2009 4:56 PM
I hate to mention their names....but are M&K going to pontificate longly and whiningly about how these people are ruining any chances for that accomodation? =)
Damnit..I said the word....sorry PZed.
Bill Dauphin @ 10. that comment made me laugh. Thanks. I needed a little chuckle (we had layoffs here today, and it sucked...at least I survived another round.)
Posted by: Portland Humanist Examiner | August 21, 2009 4:57 PM
Great to see you picking up this story. I have written two different stories about the IFI since Mehta blogged about his ugly experience with Higgins.
It is important that the free thinking godless stand up to this sort of hate, bigotry and intimidation.
Follow the link and check out the posts, leave a comment.
Always a pleasure reading your stuff, keep up the good work!
peace
Posted by: Acronym Jim | August 21, 2009 4:58 PM
Waydude@1: Here's 100 reason why:
http://www.endlesssimmer.com/2009/08/18/100-ways-to-use-a-stick-of-bacon/
Apologies if this link has been posted before(and before that, and before that, ad infinitum).
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
August 21, 2009 5:00 PM
Here ya go, Mr T.
Posted by: Robocop | August 21, 2009 5:03 PM
"Collins is infamous for exploiting his notoriety as the head of the HGP to promote his particular flavor of Christianity."
What part of the distinction between what Collins does on the job and what Collins does on his own time don't you understand? For both Metha and Collins, I don't care if they're Christian or atheist, socialist or libertarian, gsy, straight or other, if they believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was a scapegoat for a vast conspiracy, if they like Veggie Tales or TeleTubbies, etc. The days of (for example) gay teachers being verbotim because of some fear that they'll promote a "gay lifestyle" or will seduce children, rather than being evaluated for what they actually do on the job ought to be over.
Posted by: gillt
|
August 21, 2009 5:04 PM
Robo: "This a monumentally stupid claim since it has absolutley nothing to do with what he did on the job."
Hahah, right. And it's accurate to say he waited until he quit as director of NHGRI to really crank up the stupid loud enough for everyone to here.
Posted by: Robocop | August 21, 2009 5:10 PM
"Well, yes, if you disregard all the evidence that contradicts your pre-supposed conclusion, that is all you will see. That, however, is your problem, not anyone else's."
We're all susceptible to missing things based upon our beliefs and presumptions. I might have missed any number of things in that way. So please, tell me specifically, how did Collins sabotage, impede or damage the research and production of the HGP due to his religion?
Posted by: raven | August 21, 2009 5:11 PM
Is this that sophisticated xian theology we keep hearing about?
What say the Accomadatists? Instead of burning him at the stake, they might go for a hanging instead.
If the Illinoise Family association is part of Dobson's coven, they might be in some difficulty. Dobson's Focus on Hate has been losing money and members.
Posted by: Geds | August 21, 2009 5:11 PM
Mena @37: We're finally getting cosmopolitan but you can usually tell who is from Wheaton. They tend to be assholes who like to cut in line at stores (because they failed kindergarten?), not too bright, and drive like shit.
Hey, there, speak for yourself. I'm from Wheaton and I don't do those things. Although Wheatonites do tend to drive like shit, but I think it's because many of them are old and get easily confused.
I'm mostly glad to get out of Wheaton because that means I don't have to hear oh-so-sanctimonious conversations about spiritual walks and other such annoying bullshit (in which I used to participate, which somehow makes it more, not less annoying to overhear) every time I go out in public. It's also nice to be able to walk in to a local place of business and not hear shitty Christopop piped in over the PA system. But in general people in Wheaton are fairly polite. Except for the ones that aren't, which pretty much makes Wheaton just like any other place, just with that weird sheen of over the top religiosity.
Posted by: Deepak Shetty | August 21, 2009 5:12 PM
Posted by: Robocop
Umm no. If Hemant had blog post's where he attempted to prove the value of PI as 3.0(and there's a christian conspiracy to use it's value as 3.14159....), and that PI is an intelligently designed constant and that people who recognize the true value of PI are special people , then he'd be like Francis Collins.
Posted by: Geds | August 21, 2009 5:14 PM
prove the value of PI as 3.0(and there's a christian conspiracy to use it's value as 3.14159....)
You got the numbers backwards there. The Bible says PI is 3. Godless atheist math teachers say it's 3.14159...
And Professor Frink says it's exactly three, but only in emergency situations.
Posted by: TheWhiteBear | August 21, 2009 5:16 PM
But the fundies do have a use for atheists.
http://eternal-earthbound-pets.com/
They *need* us...
Won't you please think of the fluffy quadrupeds?
Posted by: Robocop | August 21, 2009 5:19 PM
"If Hemant had blog post's where he attempted to prove the value of PI as 3.0(and there's a christian conspiracy to use it's value as 3.14159....), and that PI is an intelligently designed constant and that people who recognize the true value of PI are special people , then he'd be like Francis Collins."
In other words, if you think the off-the-job advocacy is right, it ought to be protected. But if you think it's offensive, out he goes.
Posted by: Mr T | August 21, 2009 5:20 PM
Brownian, OM @ 43: Awesome.
How about the music here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 21, 2009 5:25 PM
Actually, it's more complex than that: The "guest poster," Richard, apparently does a recurring series of "Ask Richard" advice-column-style posts in which he responds to readers' (aka commenters') questions. He was only discussing polyamory in response to a commenter's question about how to get her fundie family to accept her polyamorous lifestyle.
So neither Hemant nor guest-poster Richard brought up the subject of polyamory, nor did either promote it. Richard accepted "Poly"'s question at face value, and Hemant let him... but that in no way equates to saying "go out and sleep around, kiddos."
Posted by: AVSN | August 21, 2009 5:26 PM
I guess my question would be, Is he teaching his belief, or does he just happen to be an atheist ( or Atheist whichever)?
If he's a math teacher, math can be taught without bringing beliefs of any kind into it. As for his blog, unless there is some particularly offensive writing on it, it should be of no concern to his school, studnets or their parents. Concider this ridiculous example: would we be upset at him being a teacher if he was bloging about teas or crochet?
Posted by: Fred The Hun | August 21, 2009 5:26 PM
Oh noooo he teaches teh maths...
Posted by: Lee Picton | August 21, 2009 5:26 PM
Like most cowardly fundie sites, The Illinois Family Institue allows no comments. Anyone know how to complain about the fundie bigots to the school district?
Posted by: Daumier | August 21, 2009 5:28 PM
Maybe the school should just Expel him. Apparently Ben Stein is interested in these kind of cases. He'll know how to help him.
Posted by: Hank Fox | August 21, 2009 5:29 PM
Near the end, they use the phrase "subversive ideas."
I don't know why that's so funny to me, but it is.
Posted by: DonRocko | August 21, 2009 5:29 PM
"As an atheist thinking about possibly teaching high school physics after college, this story frightens me just a bit." #11
AGREED. I'm an atheist working towards my teaching license for high school History and Debate, and this just hits home.
I think if he does get kicked out I may actually go down there and start knocking doors.
Posted by: gillt
|
August 21, 2009 5:29 PM
What do you think Collins will be doing at his job, Robo? If part of your answer includes acting as a public figure for the NIH, then you haven't explained why anyone would happily ignore only some of the things Collins says and writes about for the public.
Posted by: Trey | August 21, 2009 5:32 PM
Huh. I always thought more highly of Naperville, IL that this. Oh well.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 21, 2009 5:33 PM
Collins is EXPLOITING HIS NOTORIETY AS AN AUTHORITY ON SCIENCE to promote his FAITH.
If you HONESTLY think this is ANYTHING like what Hemant does, you are DELUSIONAL.
Posted by: Robocop | August 21, 2009 5:45 PM
"Collins is EXPLOITING HIS NOTORIETY AS AN AUTHORITY ON SCIENCE to promote his FAITH."
Richard Dawkins used his notoriety as an authority on science to promote the Kerry for President campaign in 2004. Al Gore uses his political notoriety to promote awareness and assorted initiatives to deal with global warming. Numerous people use their general notoriety to promote various causes all the time. So long as these activities don't take place on the job, why should they matter?
Posted by: Greg Peterson | August 21, 2009 5:46 PM
I'm not "troublied by the ideas Mr. Mehta expresses" in the least, to quote directly from the witch-hunting blog. But I do admire the way they found to put "lie" in troubled.
Posted by: flynn | August 21, 2009 5:47 PM
"What part of the distinction between what Collins does on the job and what Collins does on his own time don't you understand?"
When the person in question is making government policy, we have a habit of examining views expressed publicly even outside the job. When someone makes statements that suggest lack of support for (what I consider to be) important research, I fear that that person will act on those thoughts in a policy position. Collins has stated that we cannot understand certain things scientifically. I hope that he will nonetheless be pressed to fund research intelligently, but perhaps he will fund according to his beliefs about what humans can know, and thus will slight research into human cognition. The statement that a certain kind of research is futile is not just a private religious belief but a belief about reality that is directly related to Collins' job. I remain optimistic that his scientific curiosity will win out.
In the case of Mehta, I do not understand how a discussion of polyamory outside the classroom could be seen to influence his math teaching. Could you explain further why you think that these situations are analogous?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
August 21, 2009 5:48 PM
At Mr T #53: Even worse, nobody expected the Illinois Inquisition.
Posted by: Deepak Shetty | August 21, 2009 5:50 PM
Posted by: Robocop
Uhh no, you are setting up a strawman. Hemant's job is teaching maths and if his maths views expressed elsewhere are in contradiction or just plain wrong, then we have a problem - even if those Math's views are expressed in a blog post or on his own time. His *advocacy* of atheism or polyamory or whatever have no bearing on the matter as long as he doesnt broach these topics in his classes.
Collin's job is as a scientist , and his new responsibilities involve being some sort of public face to science. His view on religion are irrelevant. if he restricted himself to praising his god or discussing how the tortured murder of a god in mortal form redeems everyone , no one would care. The problem starts when his scientific views (the universe must be designed and fine tuned! evolution must have been the process God uses!) are compromised by his religious views - and as Sam has pointed out , they have been. Thats the issue which you refuse to acknowledge.
Posted by: notedscholar | August 21, 2009 5:52 PM
I have to agree with this one. If it's not in objection to the teacher's actual scientific opinions, then parents should have no say.
NS
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 21, 2009 5:53 PM
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, Collins does these things on the job.
Posted by: mess | August 21, 2009 5:53 PM
So if she wins does that mean parents can pull their childern from classes taught by Christians?
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 21, 2009 5:54 PM
AVSN
Teas no, crochet, well not in front of my nieces!
Posted by: Siamang | August 21, 2009 5:55 PM
"Richard Dawkins used his notoriety as an authority on science to promote the Kerry for President campaign in 2004."
Um... and that has exactly what to do with the separation of church and US state how?
"Al Gore uses his political notoriety to promote awareness and assorted initiatives to deal with global warming."
Um... and that has exactly what to do with the separation of church and US state how?
Numerous people use their general notoriety to promote various causes all the time.
But we're talking establishment clause violations. You get that, right?
Are these "numerous people" US Government employees and are they using their position with the power of the government to promote religious views?
"So long as these activities don't take place on the job, why should they matter?"
They don't. Even the President is allowed to pray on Sunday or offer his blessing or whatever.
I think they're concerned about stuff that Collins is doing when actually on the job. And other stuff he's done that they think show him to be a sloppy thinker on science when talking about things outside his field: for example the neuroscience and psychology and mathematics and game theory behind morality, which Collins seems to think is impossible science since 'magical man done it'.
Posted by: DagoRed | August 21, 2009 5:56 PM
This argument is comparing apples and oranges. Since when is a small town public school math teacher a comparable job to the head of the NIH? Collins position, as a political appointment, is supposed to garner public scrutiny of all kinds. Its a political decision as much (if not more) than it is a position based upon skills. EVERY appointment made by the president garners such scrutiny and complaint, in fact. The point here is Hemant, as a public high school math teacher, should never be treated with the same scrutiny garnered by a public appointed official chosen by the President and confirmed by the congress. Robo is merely being a Hyperbolic Troll(TM) to even suggesting such a comparison in the first place.
Posted by: Robocop | August 21, 2009 6:02 PM
"But we're talking establishment clause violations. You get that, right?"
I get that some have ideological opposition to Collins, even though I disagree with it in the same way I disagreed with ideological opposition to Sotomayor. But if you think that Collins has acted in ways that violate the First Amendment (and I haven't seen that argued anywhere), you're an ignorant fool. Take a look at the Lemon test and the applicable case law and explain to me how you think a violation has occurred and make a fool of yourself if you like, but good sense would argue against it.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 21, 2009 6:07 PM
How does this have anything to do with Collins using his position as head of the HGP and prospective head of the NIH to promote "there are some things that man was not meant to know" woo?
Dawkins is not an American citizen. Dawkins does not have and never has had a position in any branch of the American government. Dawkins was expressing an opinion about a candidate in a political campaign. His and Collins' situation are quite different. Even someone as ideologically driven as Robocop should understand the difference...unless he's also stupid.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 21, 2009 6:11 PM
I get that some have ideological opposition to Collins, even though I disagree with it in the same way I disagreed with ideological opposition to Sotomayor.
as usual, you put forth an absolutely stupid comparison. Moreover, it's obvious to anyone with a brain you STILL don't actually understand the objections to Collins.
the reasons people objected to Collins had fuck all to do with the reasons people objected to Sotomayor.
Go back to Panda's Thumb, where the rubes actually listen to your drivel.
Posted by: Guy Incognito | August 21, 2009 6:11 PM
...it should be of no concern to his school, studnets or their parents.
Stud nets! He's gay, too?!?!?
Posted by: Geds | August 21, 2009 6:12 PM
Take a look at the Lemon test and the applicable case law and explain to me how you think a violation has occurred and make a fool of yourself if you like, but good sense would argue against it.
Yeah. We'll do that. As soon as anyone here starts trying to argue that the Collins appointment was illegal. But as long as we're arguing it's a bad idea, then the Lemon test does not apply.
But, of course, that distinction won't matter to you, since you don't give a shit about the actual issue at hand.
Posted by: DagoRed | August 21, 2009 6:14 PM
Robo --
The separation clause does not simply deal with differing ideologies, it specifically deals with RELIGION. Unless your opposition to Sotomayor was over her religion, your example here is irrelevant and stupid. It is LEGALLY okay reject someone (like Collins) because they may or do use their office to promote their religion. It is not okay to reject someone (like Sotomayor) because of their political ideologies. Learn the law you idiot.
Posted by: flynn | August 21, 2009 6:15 PM
I'll second Robocop on the assertion that this is not an Establishment Clause issue. Collins may act on his personal beliefs in his work, whether those are religious or not. My dismay that Collins was the choice emerges from the fact that he may indeed legally exercise his beliefs in his office except for a small area of proscribed activity. His public statements lead me to worry about his priorities. However, Collins does not strike me as a risk to separation.
Posted by: littlejohn | August 21, 2009 6:16 PM
Remember what happened to Bertrand Russell? He was only going to teach math, too. He lost.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 21, 2009 6:18 PM
I see Robocrock is still auditioning for our open "well meaning fool" position. HMB is giving him a run for his money though.
Posted by: DagoRed | August 21, 2009 6:20 PM
flynn@81: "However, Collins does not strike me as a risk to separation."
Excellent point. THis is precisely what the COllins nomination is all about -- not simply because he was religious, but whether or not he would violate the constitution and use his appointment to further his batshit crazy beliefs.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 21, 2009 6:24 PM
I'll second Robocop on the assertion that this is not an Establishment Clause issue.
you second him on a strawman of what the actual concerns were.
great.
Don't know who introduced the idea of there being first ammendment issues involved, but to put it bluntly, that was NEVER the concern of scientists who objected to Collins.
those confused might actually try reading the original posts about Collins here and on Jerry Coyne's blog to avoid arguing against strawmen.
frankly, I've reiterated the actual concerns so many times now I'm sick of doing so.
Posted by: tsg | August 21, 2009 6:29 PM
Strawman. And your obviously dishonest attempt to misrepresent the objections to Collins makes it entirely too obvious that you have no interest in what they really are.
Posted by: DagoRed | August 21, 2009 6:30 PM
I disagree Ichthyic -- it's not a strawman. If it would be safe to say it wasn't the ONLY objection (and it wasn't one that Coyne concerned himself with) or even the main concern, but to think the Collins issue was not over a potential Establishment Clause issue is ignoring the nature of evangelicals like Collins. EC concerns are only potential concerns at this point because Collins has not held a position where such an issue would be of public concern, but it was a viable concern.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 21, 2009 6:41 PM
EC concerns are only potential concerns at this point because Collins has not held a position where such an issue would be of public concern, but it was a viable concern.
I understand, but try to understand that this plays right into the hands of misanthropes like Robocop, who try to pretend (and many like him) that the objection to Collins was indeed a witchunt, and based on nothing more than his religious predilections. I also understand that at least you are basing your objection on the vast differences between something like running the HGP and running NIH.
However, it sets them up to play the "you just want a religious test for government office" card, when that was never what actual, working scientists were complaining about.
Does that help?
Posted by: AVSN | August 21, 2009 6:45 PM
Guy @ 77
okay everyone understood it was a typo. Let's try to limit the trivality.
Posted by: AVSN | August 21, 2009 6:46 PM
Triviality, damn i can't spell today
Posted by: AndrewB | August 21, 2009 6:49 PM
Don't you get it Hemant Mehta teaches math! That includes Algebra which is just a plot by them Islamic mathematicians to spread doubt and disbelief of the bible. It was all laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of al-ğabr!
And with a name like Hemant Mehta you just know he's really one of the Muslim-atheists out to destroy this great Christian country which is also why he takes part in spreading the gay's agenda.
Laurie Higgins isn't doing this out of hate she's doing it out of love. Can't you feel the Christian love? Isn't it wonderful! doesn't it make you want to get down on your knees in sexual servitude to Jesus?
Think of the price the "friendly atheists" and the rest of you lying bacon loving heathens are going to pay, and those you take with you. As you all burn in hell for ever. "The lake that burneth with the fire and brimstone; which is the second death." (Reveltions 21:8) Remember Jesus loves you; and he has given you a choice, you can be saved if you accept him.
(The use of correct spelling, and hopefully correct grammar, as well as the lack of caps, should identify this as
satire.)
Don't pay any attention to me I put ketchup on my hot dogs.
Posted by: AlexG | August 21, 2009 6:50 PM
Shun the non-believer!!!
Shuuuuunnnnnnnnn!!
Posted by: flynn | August 21, 2009 6:53 PM
That "strawman" of separation and establishment was raised in comment 73 by siamang:
"But we're talking establishment clause violations. You get that, right?"
No, I don't really get that. Unless Collins is nuttier than I knew. I have been avoiding biologos or whatever because I know it will injure my brain. This may be a hobbyhorse for Robocop but I just wanted to get the establishment objection out of the conversation if possible. I never saw it in any of the scientists' objections either.
Posted by: bornagain77 | August 21, 2009 6:54 PM
PZ,
And why does the persecution of IDists not bother you PZ?
"Expelled Exposed" Exposed: Your One-Stop Rebuttal to Attacks on the Documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
http://www.ncseexposed.org/
I guess as long as it is "them" being singled out for unjust treatment it does not really matter to you. Though I certainly do not defend their persecution of him, you would do well to clean your own house of such "witch hunting" antics before you yourself are accused of such hypocrisy.
Here is something interesting you might find "scientific PZ.
Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words - "The Lamb"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XLcdaFKzYg
Posted by: Zar | August 21, 2009 7:00 PM
The gay equivalent of Collins' behavior is not simply being a gay male. The gay equivalent of Collins' behavior is pulling your dick out at work and slapping a male coworker in the face with it.
But by all means keep using false analogies to homophobia in the advocacy of a philosophy that espouses homophobia.
Posted by: Erin | August 21, 2009 7:00 PM
I especially loved the last line of the linked article:
"It's all about diversity and choice."
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 21, 2009 7:01 PM
Yawn, I just love pointless godbot trolls who just can't get the point. BA77 falls into that category. He hasn't falsified the carbon dating for his shroud, which shows it to be a clear forgery, so he has nothing but delusion, for that and everything else he posts, like all godbots.
Posted by: Sean Micheal | August 21, 2009 7:02 PM
@bornagain77 #94
Creationists are not being "persecuted". They are being removed from their jobs (as scientists and teachers) because they are bad at them. This is why Holocaust deniers are fired from teaching history, and why people who think monkeys have the power to burst into flame and spontaneously produce toast do not study primates. Because they're stupid.
Re: Shroud of Turin -- Look up "apophenia", and maybe you'll understand how a a grease stain on a piece of sackcloth has wasted so many people's time.
Posted by: 2steptothatyo | August 21, 2009 7:02 PM
Shouldn't this be construed as religious persecution?
Posted by: Sam N | August 21, 2009 7:11 PM
bornagain77,
Wow, that "Expelled Exposed" Exposed site rebuts a lot of the Expelled Exposed material by rehashing the arguments that Expelled Exposed addressed. What a waste of my time to even poke around.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 21, 2009 7:11 PM
Should we add the jazz hands to the name of the Illinois Family! Institute too?
Posted by: bornagain77 | August 21, 2009 7:11 PM
Carbon Dating holds water? Oh REALLY?
Shroud Of Turin Carbon Dating Overturned By Scientific Peer Review
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEJPrMGksUg
Posted by: Christopher | August 21, 2009 7:17 PM
Sorry, Robocop, it's spelled verboten. You chose the wrong word (verbatim) then misspelled it and italicized it for emphasis, which is hilarious. Not trying to throw ad hominems, though. Instructive criticism is valuable...
I actually agree with you, somewhat, as far as Collins' personal rights, professional talents and public obligations go. Though his xtianity is very annoying to me personally, I don't mind if Obama has to throw a few bones to the xtians. Bush's dark reign is seven months past and they are frothing like junkies in detox. Obama has to do what he can to shake his Foreign-born-Muslim/Antichrist/Reptilian image and appointing an avowed athiest to any position would surely prove him to be one or more of those things, depending on who you ask.
Posted by: Geds | August 21, 2009 7:20 PM
Oooh, we're linking to random YouTube videos now?
Combination Pizza Hut and Taco Bell
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ8ViYIeH04
It's at least as on topic...
Posted by: Sean Micheal | August 21, 2009 7:21 PM
We might be more receptive to your arguments, ba77, if you stopped citing religious propaganda YouTube videos.
Actually, we won't, but at least you would be less annoying.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 21, 2009 7:22 PM
Sorry BA77, a video is not the peer reviewed scientific literature. Put up the right information or shut the fuck up. Welcome to real science.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 21, 2009 7:26 PM
Hey, if you are linking to random, weird YouTube videos there's already a thread for that.
Posted by: not a gator | August 21, 2009 7:27 PM
Actually, as a gay person I find the comment about Dan Savage to be somewhat patronizing. I find him politically infantile. His only relevance is that he's out.
OTOH, I might suggest his column for young people interested in polyamory/polyfidelity. He writes with both sense and sensitivity on the topic, and doesn't have an ax to grind.
Posted by: bornagain77 | August 21, 2009 7:27 PM
Reference to Peer Review Coming up:
The following is the main peer reviewed paper which has refuted the 1989 Carbon Dating:
Why The Carbon 14 Samples Are Invalid, Raymond Rogers
per: Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425 pages 189-194, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California)
Excerpt: Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud. The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years.
http://www.ntskeptics.org/issues/shroud/shroudold.htm
Rogers passed away shortly after publishing this paper, but his work was ultimately completely verified by the Los Alamos National Laboratory:
Carbon Dating Of The Turin Shroud Completely Overturned by Scientific Peer Review
Rogers also asked John Brown, a materials forensic expert from Georgia Tech to confirm his finding using different methods. Brown did so. He also concluded that the shroud had been mended with newer material. Since then, a team of nine scientists at Los Alamos has also confirmed Rogers work, also with different methods and procedures. Much of this new information has been recently published in Chemistry Today.
http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2009/02/19/the-custodians-of-time/
This following is the Los Alamos National Laboratory report which completely confirms the Rogers' paper:
“Analytical Results on Thread Samples Taken from the Raes Sampling Area (Corner) of the Shroud Cloth” (Aug 2008)
Excerpt: The age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case....... LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired.
Robert Villarreal
http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/
Posted by: not a gator | August 21, 2009 7:34 PM
@29 Carlie
You are so clever ... I didn't even see this side of it:
Ha ha! This reminds me of the lady who denounced a teacher at her child's school for having an affair with another student's parent ... when she's married to a guy who was the parent of one of her kindergarten students when she was a teacher. They passed love notes while he was still married via said child's lunchbox. Much lulz.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 21, 2009 7:35 PM
Still, you haven't show all three tests are bad, or are unrepresentative of the shroud as a whole. The burden of proof is upon you to prove otherwise, and you fail. Just like godbots always do, you fail. Reality is not your friend. Fiction, like the babble, is.
Posted by: not a gator | August 21, 2009 7:38 PM
@ 38 toth
@22:"Not only that, straight, bi-, and asexual students and non-students should be reading Savage as well. Just because he's gay doesn't by any means indicate that his readers have to be specified as gay."
No, but a straight or asexual student is unlikely to get a particularly useful view on their own sexuality, which why PZ recommended gay students visit his blog.
I hope that's a typo and you mean that straight students get a view of their own sexuality more easily and don't need help. (For asexuals there's AVEN.)
Because if you did mean what you said, I can only conclude that you've never read Savage Love...
Posted by: advertisinglies | August 21, 2009 7:41 PM
Wait...is someone actually posting links regarding the legitimacy of the shroud of turin? Is it opposite day?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 21, 2009 7:42 PM
No, but a straight or asexual student is unlikely to get a particularly useful view on their own sexuality
I disagree. sometimes things are best seen in contrast, if for no other reason.
Posted by: waldteufel | August 21, 2009 7:45 PM
Looks like "bornagain77" is off her meds again . . . .
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 21, 2009 7:48 PM
a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired.
how could he have concluded the samples were not representative unless he himself had tested a "representative" sample?
and how would a representative sample be determined?
Moreover, didn't the vatican essentially agree with the last tests done, and then say "no more tests"?
so where did Rogers get HIS samples from?
what's that you say, he was relying on the same samples that were used for the tests he was criticizing?
I see...
Posted by: raven | August 21, 2009 7:49 PM
Every day is opposite day for BA77. That is one troll not worth feeding.
Posted by: not a gator | August 21, 2009 7:50 PM
@95
With all due respect, I think you're going over the top with the penis-whipping. That's more like installing a giant plastic glowing Virgin Mary in the cubicles and starting each work day with a 20 minute video of Mother Angelica.
His pecadilloes are more in the Mark Foley category of sending creepy AIMs to attractive male coworkers ... I wanna take this Parafilm™ and seal your glans with it ... doncha know that excess gamete buildup is a common cause of depression. let me help you with that ... I'm searching for the genes that control gonad size, need a sample, thx...
Damnit, I've been reading too much K/S!
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 21, 2009 7:53 PM
I just noticed something...
"Ohioshroudconference"
LOL
amazing that there are apparently so many idolaters out there that they have to have their own conference to wank about their favorite bit of idol worship.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 21, 2009 7:56 PM
Never mind how false their worship is. Welcome to Xiananity, where sanity is nowhere is sight.Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 21, 2009 8:03 PM
'Suffer not the atheist . . . er I mean witch, to live!'
I wonder when the Salem atheist trials are going to start? Since trial by water and fire are old hat, I wonder what the modern equivilent would be? Maybe trial by the Hard Truth, where you are forced to read Pastor Tom's blog. If you laugh at it, mock in any way or point out is glaring inconsistencies then you are clearly possessed by Satan and put to death. If you do not do these things, then you brain turns to goo and you suffer the living (intellectual) death of becoming a fundie. So basically you are screwed either way, just like the trials by ordeal back in the day.
Let none of us pretend that if the fundies got enough power they wouldn't at least try to outlaw us godless heathens along with homosexuals, people in mixed ethnicity relationships, believers of other faiths and basically anyone who wasn't a fellow, fully paid up, bible bashing nutjob.
The targetting of this harmless teacher is just the thin end of the wedge.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | August 21, 2009 8:13 PM
Well, immorality is one thing, but when a guy promotes ideas that are feckless, that just tears it for me.
Posted by: MadScientist | August 21, 2009 8:14 PM
Fortunately Hemant isn't a witch. Or is he? Anyone have a large set of scales and a duck?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 21, 2009 8:18 PM
Never mind how false their worship is. Welcome to Xiananity, where sanity is nowhere is sight.
yeah, but what about MICHELE OBAMA'S SHORTS!!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090821/us_time/08599191785800
for ffs, I think the economic pressure is really bringing out the true nutters in the US.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 21, 2009 8:20 PM
"He absolutely has a First Amendment right to promote any feckless, destructive, offensive, and immoral ideas he wants via his blog, but, as I mentioned in my earlier article, parents have the right not to have him as a teacher and a role model for their children."
So many epithets and such paranoia all because the man chooses not to believe in a sky fairy. I also love the pearl clutching variation on 'won't somebody think of the children' at the end.
When are these cretins going to realise that non-belief in their bloodthirsty fiction of a god is not 'feckless', it is usually the product of a great deal of careful thought.
Nor is it 'destructive', since it does not incite violence or any assault on the values of civil society unlike much religion.
As for 'offensive', it only seems to offend crazy fundies, of whatever brand of woo, who loudly demand respect and the sheild of law for their beliefs but steadfastly refuse to extend such tolerence to others.
We finally come to 'immoral'. It is only immoral if you accept the fundie definition of immorality as any refusal to cravenly bend the knee to their crazed delusions. Exactly how is atheism immoral when compared to a religion that has lustily embraced racism, misogyny and homophobia (among countless other evils) throughout its ignoble and oppressive history?
Posted by: windy | August 21, 2009 8:25 PM
Nobody was arguing that he should have been fired from the HGP, just that he might not have been the best choice to head the NIH.
Posted by: timpanogos.wordpress.com
|
August 21, 2009 8:42 PM
So, they're arguing any parent can object to a teacher's religion?
Ah, well then, you'd better identify all the Baptists to me, so I can make
damnedblessed sure that my kids don't get tainted by them. Catholics would probably be okay, but I need to know which synod for Lutherans. And fundamentalists are all out.Dear School District: You're gonna have to hire a boatload of atheists to educate my kids, if you're gonna play stupid about it.
Oh, and I'm a Christian. Just theology differences, you know.
Posted by: butterflydoc | August 21, 2009 8:44 PM
Nitpicking here, but the high school is Nequa Valley. As of this week, it's one of three in the Indian Prairie School District -- and they're all big schools. My oldest just started K in IPSD.
And it's in the wealthiest and most conservative part of the district. (I live nearer the other end, and a different HS altogether.)
And I haven't seen anything locally about this -- then again, I haven't gotten around to perusing the local weekly yet...
Posted by: Heidi | August 21, 2009 8:46 PM
Salem's heavily Wiccan these days, so you'd probably need to have them somewhere else. ;-)
Posted by: A lurker | August 21, 2009 9:21 PM
What part of "no religious test for any public office or trust" do these wack jobs not understand?
Posted by: bonze | August 21, 2009 9:48 PM
Well, I for one am deeply concerned about this teacher of "mathematics." That's dangerous terrain! Who knows what this man could be teaching our youth, the foundation of our hopes for the future?
It starts with something like "I'm going to discuss some aspects of Non-Euclidean Geometry today..." Then he deftly segues into a discussion of Godel's Theorem. And then comes the Entscheidungsproblem. Before you know it, these kids won't know what to think! They'll be so confused, hopeless, and disillusioned at their loss of mathematical innocence, that they'll drift into a random pursuit of the Godless pleasures of... mmmmm.... bacon.
Posted by: Mena | August 21, 2009 10:32 PM
Geds @ 48:
Please look up the phrase "tend to be".
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | August 21, 2009 10:38 PM
If atheism is feckless, does that mean the religion is totally fecked?
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | August 21, 2009 10:46 PM
THAT religion is... not the religion is (stoopid fingers)
Posted by: John Morales | August 21, 2009 10:49 PM
Jafafa, relax. It works either way! :)
Posted by: Religion™ Brand Brain Staples | August 21, 2009 10:58 PM
*laughs*
If we were a christian/religious blog, would this be the point where we suffer from fatwa envy and call the Illinois Family Institute cowards for attacking a nice safe atheist?
This is nothing less than an attempt to incite a theocratic mob to (what amounts to) financial violence against this man.
I hope there's a horrible backlash. I really do.
Posted by: JulietEcho | August 21, 2009 11:11 PM
I'm super late to this party, but I thought I'd stop by to say that I'm the polyamorous commenter/guest poster who got mentioned. She actually linked to one of the "Ask Richard" advice posts where a question is submitted by a reader (me, in that case), and advice is dispensed by the totally badass Richard Wade.
A few weeks ago Hemant graciously agreed to let me write a (long!) guest post about polyamory, but everything I wrote was my own opinion, not Hemant's. I mean, I hope Hemant supports societal tolerance/acceptance of polyamory, and I expect he does, but the post was from me, not from him. Still, these people aren't likely to care even if they do see the distinction.
Posted by: may | August 21, 2009 11:20 PM
your constitution says
"freedom of religion'
can that be construed as
"freedom from religion"?
if not,does that mean an absence of religious belief is illegal?
hmm.
Posted by: KevinC | August 21, 2009 11:34 PM
Here's one major difference I can see between Mehta's case and Collins':
For Mehta, teaching mathematics is entirely consistent with the rest of his atheistic world-view. After all, he's not a "math atheist" like Calvin (Calvin & Hobbes). :)
In order for Collins to do his job properly at the HGP or the NIH, he has to temporarily shut off his belief in Invisible Magic Persons and operate on a purely scientific basis. He can't think something like, Wow, that's an awfully pretty waterfall! That must mean that 'junk' DNA is actually the Bible translated into a base-4 mathematical code!
Meanwhile, he can't apply the same sort of rigorous thinking required to explore genetics to textual criticism of the Bible or examination of his faith claims. Otherwise, he would have to read rebuttals to C.S. Lewis' arguments and accept that the waterfall thing really is pretty dumb.
In a nutshell: It is only by means of hypocrisy that Collins can do his job.
Since he has rather publicly taken it upon himself to become an evangelist for magical, evangelical Christianity, we can no longer trust that he will have sufficient hypocrisy to perform his secular, science-oriented government job without his belief in angels and demons and miracles and the wrath of an angry God getting in the way of his work.
In his speech linked to above by MikeTheInvidel @ #34, Collins raised the usual "When I Was an Atheist" preacher's canard of "I didn't want to be responsible to anyone." In other words, like many Evangelicals, he implicitly thinks it's impossible to have real ethics without an all-seeing Daddy In The Sky who will spank him if he's naughty. If he really believes that belief in an imaginary substitute parent/dog-trainer is the only way he can be ethical, then he should not be trusted in a position of public responsibility.
And again, his ability to do scientific work is dependent on his ability to wall off an area of his life from the control of the substitute parent/dog-trainer that gives him his ethics and to whom he is "responsible," and within that area refrain from the kind of "thinking" the Bible encourages.
Of course we live in a nation composed mostly of Christians, and Constitutionally, no religious test for public office can be given. So, just as a matter of statistics, the odds would be good that a Christian of some sort would get appointed to the NIH. However, I think we do have a right to demand clear thinking of our government officials, and that means we should at least hire a Christian whose NOMA barriers are fully intact.
If Collins wants to assert in public that DNA is the "Language of God," then he's letting his magical thinking infect his science. Imagine if he'd wrote that the DNA double helix is the Caduceus of Hermes Trismegistus, and that upon seeing the three-branched waterfall he recognized the Trident of Poseidon, and knelt in the grass to give his life to the Pantheon of Olympus. Would we have any Militant New Faitheist accommodationists urging that we give his ridiculous beliefs a pass?
Contrast Collins' public behavior with that of Barack Obama. Though Obama is a Christian, he is able to execute his secular office in a secular manner, acknowledging that this is not just a nation of Christians and Muslims and Buddhists, etc., but also a "...nation of unbelievers." Though Obama has his faults and he's not as secular as many here would like, he is at least more or less capable of drawing a line between the Office of President of the United States and whatever responsibility he might feel to spread his Christian beliefs. I think we can be reasonably confident that he's not basing his Middle East policy on Tim LaHaye and Hal Lindsay's interpretations of the Book of Revelation.
That said, if Collins can do his work at the NIH based on science (i.e. blastocyst =/= human being) and accept that the podium it offers is not a preacher's pulpit, I can probably accept him as NIH Director, while subjecting his faith claims to the ridicule they deserve.
Getting back to Mehta, his atheism does not interfere with his ability to teach math at all. As long as he doesn't try to preach atheism in class, what does his blog have to do with anything?
Posted by: stogoe | August 21, 2009 11:34 PM
May, there's no freedom of (your) religion without freedom from (other people's) religion.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 21, 2009 11:37 PM
May.
No and nope.
Posted by: John Morales | August 21, 2009 11:42 PM
May,
It's perfectly clear: should one wish to follow a particular religion, they should be allowed to do so*.
It doesn't apply to those who do are not religious.
--
* Of course, should practicing that religion involve breaking the law (e.g. human sacrifice), then that's a separate issue.
Beliefs are not actions.
Posted by: KevinC | August 21, 2009 11:48 PM
From #91:
New bumper sticker/T-shirt/bus ad!
Posted by: Blue Girl | August 21, 2009 11:51 PM
When I was a shift supervisor in the lab at RMC in KC, I worked with another supervisor about two hours a night that our time overlapped. One night as we were verifying controls and reading slides, and for some reason we were mocking the god-boy who had just begged us for the gazillionth time to find Jesus (our theory was he had him chained up in his cellar and Jesus was just gonna have to find himself.) Fortunately, someone at another bench sneezed and he turned to them with an earnest "Bless You." After he left, one of us recanted the old joke - when someone sneezes, the Christian says "bless you" the agnostic says "gesundheit" and the atheist hands you a tissue.
The last thing I did before leaving was spray the bench down with whatever they were making us use instead of 10:1 bleach solution at that point in time. Anyway, it made me sneeze. So I clean the bench and turn to leave, and sneeze. And Morteza, a technologist I didn't know well who had just recently come from another hospital in the system whose shift was just starting looked at me with an impish grin and handed me a kleenex.
Posted by: tinteajem | August 22, 2009 12:14 AM
@: tsg # 86
Your post:
(So please, tell me specifically, how did Collins sabotage, impede or damage the research and production of the HGP due to his religion?
Strawman. And your obviously dishonest attempt to misrepresent the objections to Collins makes it entirely too obvious that you have no interest in what they really are.)
I hope, pray, implore you to say that your comment was a joke. I mean it would have to be for you to say something so moronic. Straw man! Straw man? Do you even know what a straw man is???? Well, if your comment was in earnest, then obviously not. Do everyone a favor, look up what a straw man is! Coming to this blog and trying to play intellectual is not a good idea, especial when you throw buzz words around like Nerf balls with out having any grasp of the conceptual meaning.
Posted by: pandora | August 22, 2009 12:18 AM
Oh dear. I wandered over to check this out a few minutes ago. Looks like Ms. Higgins is going after Hemant Mehta for, uh,....saying she was going after Hemant Mehta. She's now posted an "open letter" to him on IFI's home page.
Posted by: Frink | August 22, 2009 12:31 AM
This must be the "Christlike behavior" we hear so much about.
Posted by: Nanu Nanu | August 22, 2009 12:31 AM
@tinteajem:
The strawman was Robocop asking tsg how Collins would "sabotage, impede or damage the research and production of the HGP due to his religion" when that isn't the argument in the least. Robocop is railing against a misrepresented version of what is being argued which is pretty much the definition of the strawman fallacy.
Posted by: bonefish | August 22, 2009 12:59 AM
I don't know much about Hemant's teaching skills, although I doubt he is a slacker, but as a human being, he is an absolute peach. He demonstrates the best qualities of humanity and that with grace.
Posted by: Squirrelly | August 22, 2009 1:51 AM
Neuqua (pronounced Nee-kwa) Valley HS should start a secular students alliance, get a Wildcats gym shirt, embroider a red "A" on the back and send it to the bitch. Just an idea.
Posted by: What | August 22, 2009 2:17 AM
Wait a minute. Feckless? I would guess that the friendly atheist has plenty feck. And he is friendly too! Matter of fact I would not be surprised if he were to lend the The Illinois Family Institute some feck so that they could go feck themselves.Posted by: Geds | August 22, 2009 2:34 AM
Mena @132: Please look up the phrase "tend to be".
Please look up the phrase "don't be a judgmental asshole about my hometown."
Posted by: Squirrelly | August 22, 2009 3:54 AM
I think everyone in Illinois drives like shit. It's requisite. I learned to drive in New Jersey so I brought my crappy driving back to IL in 1986. Once you get into Naperville, where Neuqua is, you get all the dented Toyotas driven by...certain people...of a certain...ethnicity.
But there's no escaping them. They're in Wheaton, they're in Lisle, they're in Downers Grove, they're in Joliet, they're in Aurora--it's a fact of Illinois life. Well, in Joliet, it's the drunk rednecks and gang-bangers driving like shit. Now, I live in Washington State. Guess what? People are still driving like shit. So now we've got at least three states thus far in which people drive like shit. I think I'm seeing a pattern. LOL
Posted by: Stephen P | August 22, 2009 4:34 AM
They took down the link to their contact page, but the page itself is still there:
http://www.illinoisfamily.org/contact/
Posted by: advertisinglies | August 22, 2009 5:06 AM
Squirrelly #153
I thought that people in Washington (where I grew up and live now) drive like shit, then I moved to Texas for a short while and realized that Texans drive like shit, but in a completely different way. Now I theorize that everyone everywhere drives like shit, there are just different shitty ways that people drive depending on region.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 22, 2009 5:39 AM
In my over 40 years of driving I've discovered that everyone else on the road is either an idiot or an asshole (and the two are not mutually exclusive).
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
August 22, 2009 6:14 AM
@Carlie #29: I wouldn't say it's hypocritical; I'd say it's the entire impetus for her attack.
Point of order: The latter does not preclude the former. Carry on.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 22, 2009 8:03 AM
Did someone say Bacon?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 22, 2009 8:07 AM
Roger or Francis?
Posted by: Louis | August 22, 2009 8:10 AM
@ 'Tis Himself #156:
I seem to remember (warning: vague anecdote and random numbers pulled out of my arse ahead. Why? Because I can't be arsed to google it) a survey where 70% of respondents thought they were above average drivers. The majority of respondents maintained this opinion even when confronted with the data that 70% of people thought they were above average drivers.
I think it goes to show that most people who drive think they drive above the average driver, despite the fact that this isn't, by definition, possible. Ahhh Dunning and Kruger, you were so right.
Of course these benighted fools don't realise that they are the problem. They are driving like idiots on MY roads. Pah! Get out of my way!
______________________
@ Icthyic #117 (and indeed everyone):
I agree, EVERYONE should read Dan Savage. He's been responsible for me questioning a lot of my (former) "anti-sex" views. Not that my views were actually anti-sex per se, but when I saw what a pro-sex advocate actually says I realised that the culture-inherited attitudes towards sex that I had were, to be frank, ridiculous. And Savage gives advice to straight folks too, he's a sex-positive sex advice columnist, and absolutely fucking hilarious!
Louis
Posted by: Stephen P | August 22, 2009 8:59 AM
Yes, I've seen something similar. Actually in this case there is a rational explanation, because there is no generally accepted definition of "above average". Someone who considers technical driving competence (e.g. quick and precise reversing into a parking space) to be the most important aspect of driving will judge himself and others on that criterion. Someone who considers courtesy to other road users to be the most important aspect will judge himself and others on that. Someone who considers rigorous adherence to all speed limits and other road signs ... you get the idea.
So contrary to what you say it is actually possible for 70% of drivers to be above average, provided they each get to choose the criteria used.
Posted by: KI | August 22, 2009 9:07 AM
May@138
Actually, I've heard this mantra "freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion" espoused by a so-called "Democrat" from Connecticut, as well as the Palin/Bachmann looney-tunes crowd.
Posted by: fcaccin | August 22, 2009 9:11 AM
'Tis Himself:
Kevin.
Posted by: Longstreet63 | August 22, 2009 10:14 AM
Happily, in Indiana, the asshole drivers have a warning label on the rear of their car: an 'In God we Trust" license plate.
Posted by: BoyintheMachine | August 22, 2009 10:22 AM
Ummm....Is he planning to sneak in Epicurus', "Is God willing but not able" quote in the middle of an equation?
-I think not.
X = Y + 9
With X being "There is no God"
Posted by: Davis | August 22, 2009 10:41 AM
"...while acknowledging his right (for now, until they get more power) "
In a nutshell.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 22, 2009 10:50 AM
How about Sosie?Posted by: shyster | August 22, 2009 11:07 AM
As a senior in high school I was assigned to write an essay on the book of my choice. I picked a book of essays by Bertrand Russell.
My English teacher called my mother and said, “Are you aware that {shyster} is reading and reporting on a book by an atheist?”
My mother, to her credit, said, “So? Did you tell them they could pick any book?”
“Well yes.”
“That’s the book he picked.”
We need strong-willed teachers, but we also need strong-willed mothers.
“It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.” Bertrand Russell
Posted by: tsg | August 22, 2009 1:04 PM
Actually, it doesn't. What it does say is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Just a nitpick, but one of the common godder arguments is "the Constitution says 'freedom of religion', not 'freedom from religion'". I get no end of joy pointing out the ignorance of people who would argue what the Constitution says when they so obviously haven't read it.
There is no freedom of religion without freedom from religion: you can't be free to practice your religion unless you are free from practicing mine.
No. It would just mean the government would not be restricted from making it illegal. Which they have not done, because it indeed does mean "freedom from religion" for the reasons above.
Indeed.
Posted by: tsg | August 22, 2009 1:13 PM
@tinteajam #145
Entirely serious.
Shiny, shiny mirror.
Misrepresenting the opposition's argument in order to refute it. What did you think it meant?
Obviously so to anyone with half a brain.
I might suggest the same to you for your inability to recognize one when you see one.
Shiny, shiny mirror...
Posted by: Dust | August 22, 2009 1:31 PM
Driver and bike comuter here. Many bicyclist have little to no education about how to ride a bike on the roads and in traffic.
Gives folks who are at least trying to be a safe cyclist a bad name! Not to mention being a danger to themselves and others.
So yeah, there are bad bike riders to go along with the bad drivers.
Posted by: tsg | August 22, 2009 2:24 PM
Drivers are like parents: you can't tell either one of them they're doing it wrong.
Posted by: Heidi | August 22, 2009 4:36 PM
Good thing nobody ever called me and said that. I feel like the silence would be uncomfortable after I said "are you aware that I am also an atheist?"
Posted by: Mena | August 22, 2009 5:02 PM
Geds @ 152:
Is that anywhere near "don't make assumptions about where I live and what my motivations were in posting that"? I just had lunch there this morning and got my groceries there a hour ago since it's only a 2 mile drive. Grow up, ok? It's only a city. You have left, I take it? Why was that? Because it was so wonderful?
Posted by: Seth | August 22, 2009 5:34 PM
I disagree with the statements that anyone should read Dan Savage. Except as a bad example of bisexual-bashing, trans-bashing, victim-blaming, and more. Someone with that much ignorance about non-binary folks, rape victims (or women in general), and racial minorities shouldn't really be read by anyone looking for useful advice or support. I definitely agree that we need more positive, queer-friendly, intelligent advice-givers in the world. Dan Savage is not one of them.
Here are just a few great examples of how open, supportive, and accepting ol' Dan is:
http://tigerbeatdown.blogspot.com/2008/11/profiles-in-douchery-dan-savage.html
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 22, 2009 5:46 PM
70% of respondents thought they were above average drivers.
How's that old gag go...
If they're driving slower than I am, they're morons.
If they're driving faster than I am, they're maniacs.
Posted by: pierocketofdoooooom99 | August 22, 2009 6:36 PM
heh heh heh. i had a christan teacher in 3rd grade (im in 6th) who when said nobodys perfect added exept of course jesus. ahe was a good teacher, but she commented on jesus being perfect in front of the class... and she wasent persecuted!
Posted by: Ticker | August 22, 2009 6:41 PM
Er, that Dan Savage can weasel around about it all he likes, but it seems that bashing bisexuals with gusto is perfectly fine. I wonder how he'd feel if someone else wrote that much bigoted crap about gays.
I'm not sure if I could stand reading the full pages of the other things linked to from the blogpost in #175.
Blood pressure rising ... probably just best to stop at accepting that Dan Savage isn't as nice as some people think he is, people who defame others on the internet aren't worth getting so angry about.
Posted by: Just Some Guy | August 22, 2009 9:57 PM
Here's the part that crazes me:
"as I mentioned in my earlier article, parents have the right not to have him as a teacher and a role model for their children."
Really? A right? There's a clause in the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, protecting the right of parents to choose math teachers? Where? Show it to me.
Apparently god has not only given them the power to ostracize, but also to instantly amend the legal contract between the government and the people.
Man that's powerful mojo - I'm almost tempted to switch sides! ;)
Posted by: shyster | August 23, 2009 7:03 AM
#173, My mother wasn't an atheist (and I made her nervous) but that wasn't the point of my post.
First, if she was, very few atheists had come out of the closet in small Southern towns in the early 60s.
Second, the point was that we need more parents, whether they believe or not, to stand up to stupid acts of teachers, administrators, school boards and legislators.
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." Bertrand Russell
Posted by: johnb300m | August 23, 2009 8:40 AM
This is terrible! Hemant's one of nicest, most harmless guys in the public secular arena.
Nequa's only a mile down the road, talk about right in your back yard.
What a shame, IL has usually been on the "sane" side......I hope nothing happens to the guy's job. A vendetta to get a teacher fired just seems so....unchristian.....or so you'd think.
Posted by: tsg | August 24, 2009 12:50 AM
No, it's entirely too christian. That's the problem.
Posted by: JOHNB300M | August 24, 2009 11:01 AM
LOL. Touche tsg.
Posted by: Anil | August 24, 2009 12:18 PM
Heck I wouldn't want my children to read Laurie Higgins bigoted postings. Fortunately for her I will defend her freedom of expression. Laurie is a right-wing Christian fascist. She now erroneously claims that she is not after his job! So how exactly does this work Laurie? A teacher with no students? She does go on about living Christ-like in her blogs and perhaps she hopes to emulate him by killing Hemant's job the way Christ killed a fig-tree whose only crime it was to not be bearing fruit. http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/jcm6.html
Posted by: godlessgirl | August 24, 2009 2:22 PM
The IFI is located very close by to where I work, and this school district is 20 mins away. So pardon my immature reaction, but I'd like to grab some supplies and TP their building! Who likes forking?
Anyway, I want to keep an eye on this. Of all people, Hemant is the last atheist who should be ganged up on. He has a voice of reason and practice of level-headed thinking that we all can emulate.
Posted by: Teliria
|
August 25, 2009 4:38 PM
As filthy as this sort of thing makes me feel, I have to take heart that I am hearing more and more theists these days denouncing acts like this as wrong and unfair.
A theist of my acquaintance, who, caught up in the fear mongering of 2001, had become almost as fundy as the Phelps family actually called this 'idiotic'. This was someone who burned all the Harry Potter books she had purchased for her son (the only thing he would read) when her pastor told her they were satanic.
I am taking heart from how much more common it is becoming for these complaints to be repelled by common sense and common decency... a couple of years ago, the bus company would not have reinstated those ads... a couple of years ago, this teacher would have been fired immediately.
It really is seeming like these people, while vocal, are more and more becoming dismissed as the lunatic fringe... unless you are watching Limbaugh, O'Riley, etc of course... (speaking of the lunatic fringe).