Scientist alleges religious discrimination

[cdowis]

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1256892

There is an interesting flow of emails, reminiscent of the weathermen scandal. This is yet another example of scientists who are openly hostile to religion.

Remember this is an astronomy denied a position because of his religious beliefs. The science faculty is absolutely terrified.

An astrophysics professor, Moshe Elitzur, told Cavagnero that the hire would be a "huge public relations mistake," according to an e-mail from Cavagnero in court records.

"Moshe predicts that he would not be here one month before the (Lexington) Herald-Leader headline would read: 'UK hires creationist to direct new student observatory.'"

+++++++++

Gaskell said he is not a "creationist" and his views on evolution are in line with other biological scientists. In his lecture notes, Gaskell also distances himself from Christians who believe the earth is a few thousand years old, saying their assertions are based on "mostly very poor science."

[ERayR]

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1256892

There is an interesting flow of emails, reminiscent of the weathermen scandal. This is yet another example of scientists who are openly hostile to religion.

Remember this is an astronomy denied a position because of his religious beliefs. The science faculty is absolutely terrified.

Yet there are still some who deny this kind of action happens. If there is any danger of not following the party line you won't get in.

[PaulBoyerFan]

I don't see anything in the article to suggest that the UK faculty was terrified of Christianity per se. They seem resolutely opposed to anything even remotely connected to creationism.

[katherine the great]

Outrageous. I hope he wins. (Minus the pain and suffering that seems excessively babyish)

[44Foxtrot]

When one considers what science is and how it is done, it should be clear that someone who holds unfounded beliefs as central to their worldviews would very likely, on average, be less productive to the enterprise. If anyones thinks this an unfair statement, look at the number of active Mormons who have been awarded the Nobel Prize.

I look at the religionists as individuals who are forced to use one set of rules and criteria for judging truth and making decisions in their personal life and a different (and wholly incompatible) set for making such judgments and decisions in professional life.

With the understanding that there may be several professional scientists on this board, I have to say that, given a religionist and a secularist with similar academic qualifications, I would tend to hire the secularist. This is more than idle speculation. Turns out that we have built our company on the work of some very talented ex-Mormon and secular Jewish scientists and managers. We have two active Mormons in top management, but they have learned long ago that their religion is not an advantage in our company and they are much better off to check it at the door. They better be available to work on Sunday , if needed, and are often required to travel long distances on very short notice.

Religion and science are diametrically opposed in the way in which practitioners of each approach the search for knowledge. The problem is especially acute for Mormons, who must profess belief in truth claims for which there is little if any supporting physical evidence, and more often than not overwhelming physical evidence to the contrary.

I have mentioned before on this board that I left London with a freshly minted Ph.D. and headed to my first job at MIT, my major professor took me aside and advised me that I would eventually have to decide between science and religion, and the sooner I made the decision, the better off I would be. As a TBM at the time I was sure that he was wrong. Not long after returning to the States, however, I found out that he was absolutely right.

It is in the best interest of science-driven enterprises to look very carefully at religionists as potential employees. If I can ascertain from a job interview (without direct questioning on the subject) that the candidate has a strong religious belief or affiliation, that individual would have to have demonstrated a truly exceptional skill or talent in an area of critical need to the Company to actually get a job offer.

[Stargazer]

When one considers what science is and how it is done, it should be clear that someone who holds unfounded beliefs as central to their worldviews would very likely, on average, be less productive to the enterprise. If anyones thinks this an unfair statement, look at the number of active Mormons who have been awarded the Nobel Prize.

How many inactive Mormons have gotten an NP? I'm unaware of any Mormon, active or inactive to be so honored. I'm also aware that NP's don't grown on trees, and the sheer number of such prizes awarded is greatly dwarfed by the number of potential recipients. Bringing up the count of Mormons with NPs as some kind of evidence of incapability is some kind of logical fallacy, I'm sure.

I look at the religionists as individuals who are forced to use one set of rules and criteria for judging truth and making decisions in their personal life and a different (and wholly incompatible) set for making such judgments and decisions in professional life.

Who's forcing them? And how much of a dichotomy is there really in treating two unrelated topics (religion and science) separately? Was Renes Descartes fatally handicapped in his work because he was a believing Catholic? Even if some of his contemporaries argued whether he was really a believer? Blaise Pascal, who was one of those who doubted Descartes's state of belief, was another religionist, and was he fatally handicapped because of that belief? You may argue that perhaps they might have been better scientists had they not been believers, but I doubt that you could show it to be inarguably the case. Maybe you think that the atom bomb might have been invented in 1845 if relgion hadn't been obstructing human progress, but I don't think you can prove it.

With the understanding that there may be several professional scientists on this board, I have to say that, given a religionist and a secularist with similar academic qualifications, I would tend to hire the secularist. This is more than idle speculation. Turns out that we have built our company on the work of some very talented ex-Mormon and secular Jewish scientists and managers. We have two active Mormons in top management, but they have learned long ago that their religion is not an advantage in our company and they are much better off to check it at the door. They better be available to work on Sunday , if needed, and are often required to travel long distances on very short notice.

I guess you're out to prove the OP story's premise. And in respect of the threatening tone of your Sunday-work comment, I imagine that these folks must find it exhilarating to work for someone who regards them as backwoods hicks, intellectually speaking. I take it that the Mormons in your top management were told quite sternly that if they acted too LDS they were history or something?

You're such a pleasant fellow.

Religion and science are diametrically opposed in the way in which practitioners of each approach the search for knowledge. The problem is especially acute for Mormons, who must profess belief in truth claims for which there is little if any supporting physical evidence, and more often than not overwhelming physical evidence to the contrary.

That's quite an incredible point of view you have, really. My original area of study was chemistry, not computers, and if I had gone on to do research in chemistry you're telling me that my belief in God and the Book of Mormon would have handicapped any research I might have engaged in? That somehow my titrations would have yielded doubtful results, caused no doubt by my belief in God? And I suppose that if I prayed over one of my experiments this would really be crossing the line. If so, I'd like to know how, exactly, since according to you I would be doing the equivalent of crossing my fingers. And this is "...especially acute for Mormons..." because Catholics, Jews, and Muslims don't have the problem in quite such a degree? Thanks for the warning.

I have been assuming that you must be some kind of aircraft enthusiast, perhaps a pilot. Do you also happen to believe that when it comes to aeronautics, which is a science if ever there was one, that Mormons are somehow less competent/more dangerous pilots that atheists, all because of their unscientific beliefs?

I have mentioned before on this board that I left London with a freshly minted Ph.D. and headed to my first job at MIT, my major professor took me aside and advised me that I would eventually have to decide between science and religion, and the sooner I made the decision, the better off I would be. As a TBM at the time I was sure that he was wrong. Not long after returning to the States, however, I found out that he was absolutely right.

He had a point exactly because of the kind of prejudice exhibited in the topic of the thread, not because there is anything inherently wrong with a scientist holding to a conviction that there is something beyond the seen that is not (presently) susceptible to the scientific method.

It is in the best interest of science-driven enterprises to look very carefully at religionists as potential employees. If I can ascertain from a job interview (without direct questioning on the subject) that the candidate has a strong religious belief or affiliation, that individual would have to have demonstrated a truly exceptional skill or talent in an area of critical need to the Company to actually get a job offer.

You're quite sickening, you know that? Prejudice and bigotry is ugly wherever you find it, but when you find it wrapped in the flag, so to speak, of pseudo-intellectuallism, as one sees here, well... that's quite an accomplishment.

Do you have anything for an encore, or have you shot your wad at this point?

[Zakuska]

Scientists still seem to hold a huge chip on their shoulders because of all the bunson burner accidents purpotrated by the Catholic church during the dark ages. Can you really blame them for dragging a mans name through the mud, discriminating against him and keeping him from feeding his family as some sort of sick and twisted belayed revenge tactic?

[Stargazer]

Scientists still seem to hold a huge chip on their shoulders because of all the bunson burner accidents purpotrated by the Catholic church during the dark ages. Can you really blame them for dragging a mans name through the mud, discriminating against him and keeping him from feeding his family as some sort of sick and twisted belayed revenge tactic?

Of course not. Their cause is just.

[44Foxtrot]

How many inactive Mormons have gotten an NP? I'm unaware of any Mormon, active or inactive to be so honored. I'm also aware that NP's don't grown on trees, and the sheer number of such prizes awarded is greatly dwarfed by the number of potential recipients. Bringing up the count of Mormons with NPs as some kind of evidence of incapability is some kind of logical fallacy, I'm sure.

One ex-Mormon has received the Nobel Prize. This is in comparison to hundreds of Jews (mostly secular) who have been so honored. I find it very interesting that Jews and Mormons both claim something on the order of 13 million members or so, and both religions were established before the first Nobel Prize was awarded. As further evidence of the handicap that religion represents to good science, please consider that among the top scientists in this country (National Academy of Science members), more than 90% do not believe in God, while in the country as a whole, more than 80% claim some kind of religious affiliation.

Who's forcing them? And how much of a dichotomy is there really in treating two unrelated topics (religion and science) separately? Was Renes Descartes fatally handicapped in his work because he was a believing Catholic? Even if some of his contemporaries argued whether he was really a believer? Blaise Pascal, who was one of those who doubted Descartes's state of belief, was another religionist, and was he fatally handicapped because of that belief? You may argue that perhaps they might have been better scientists had they not been believers, but I doubt that you could show it to be inarguably the case. Maybe you think that the atom bomb might have been invented in 1845 if relgion hadn't been obstructing human progress, but I don't think you can prove it.

Mormons are forced by religious peer pressure and by the requirement that they proclaim unfounded beliefs in order to gain access to the temple where they promise to consecrate everything they have, not to science or to the good of humankind, but to building up the LDS Church on the Earth. For an active Mormon such as yourself to (sincerely) ask how and why Mormons are forced to proclaim unfounded belief as a member of the Church is somewhat disingenuous, don't you think?

As to the religious beliefs of Pascal and Descartes, and especially Rene' Descartes, you might want to do a little more reading. Turns out that Descartes was just as much of a philosopher as a scientist. He made a number of claims regarding physiology and anatomy that were based on no experimental evidence whatsoever and, in fact, turned out to be just plain wrong. For example, he claimed that the pineal gland was the "seat of the soul", and the organ through which humans were connected with God. While I admire Descarte's work given the superstitious times in which he lived, such an approach to science would not cut it today, as you might well imagine.

For an example of how the Mormon religion and the religious mindset in general hinder science yet today, one need look no further than the anti-science pronouncements of current religions leaders in the Mormon Church. Boyd K Packer's teaching that the "mantle" is far more important that the intellect, along with the opposition to evolution, embryonic stem cell research, and the pervasive idea that one's first duty in life is to the Church are but a few of the ways in which the LDS Church hinders the pursuit of science among its members.

I guess you're out to prove the OP story's premise. And in respect of the threatening tone of your Sunday-work comment, I imagine that these folks must find it exhilarating to work for someone who regards them as backwoods hicks, intellectually speaking. I take it that the Mormons in your top management were told quite sternly that if they acted too LDS they were history or something?

From your comments, I would guess that you don't have much knowledge or experience regarding the management of technology companies. Everyone on the management team is there because they have talent, skills and experience that are critical to the company. The business we are in demands that everyone on the team be treated as colleagues and with respect. Dismissal of someone on the management team would be for cause only, as set forth in the employment contract and the written policies of the company. Like the Mormon Church, our company has a culture. Part of that culture is that management works whenever and wherever they are needed, period.

You're such a pleasant fellow.

Thank you.

That's quite an incredible point of view you have, really. My original area of study was chemistry, not computers, and if I had gone on to do research in chemistry you're telling me that my belief in God and the Book of Mormon would have handicapped any research I might have engaged in? That somehow my titrations would have yielded doubtful results, caused no doubt by my belief in God? And I suppose that if I prayed over one of my experiments this would really be crossing the line. If so, I'd like to know how, exactly, since according to you I would be doing the equivalent of crossing my fingers. And this is "...especially acute for Mormons..." because Catholics, Jews, and Muslims don't have the problem in quite such a degree? Thanks for the warning.

Your comments in the quote box above make my point. Your claimed belief in the Book of Mormon demonstrates that you are willing to accept as fact assertions for which there is little or no supporting evidence and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This does not demonstrate understanding or adherence to the most basic principles of science. Further evidence that you have completely missed the point is your mere mention of praying over a scientific experiment. Think about it.

I have been assuming that you must be some kind of aircraft enthusiast, perhaps a pilot. Do you also happen to believe that when it comes to aeronautics, which is a science if ever there was one, that Mormons are somehow less competent/more dangerous pilots that atheists, all because of their unscientific beliefs?

You're right, I am a commercial pilot with multi-engine and instrument ratings. Based on my experience as a pilot, and in fact as a Mormon pilot, I believe that, as far as the skill set needed, Mormons would make excellent pilots. If you fly, you know that pilots are required to carefully follow strict routines and carry out instructions to the letter, whether these instructions are on a checklist or from air traffic control or the tower. In my experience, Mormons are raised to follow instructions, often without questioning their source or purpose.

As far as lifestyle goes, I know a lot more Mormons who are dentists or attorneys or in sales than are professional pilots. My guess is that the requirement for professional pilots to fly on Sunday and be away from home a lot makes this line of work somewhat less attractive to Mormons.

You're quite sickening, you know that? Prejudice and bigotry is ugly wherever you find it, but when you find it wrapped in the flag, so to speak, of pseudo-intellectuallism, as one sees here, well... that's quite an accomplishment.

You might want to look again at the definitions of prejudice and bigotry. You seem unclear as to what these terms actually mean.

Prejudice is defined as " - a prejudgment, or an assumption made about someone or something before having adequate information or knowledge to be able to do so with guaranteed accuracy."

You will find no pre-judgment in my statements. As I pointed out, my judgments as to the hindrances that Mormonism places in the way of science are based on a great deal of experience and data.

Bigotry refers to " persons hostile to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, various mental disorders, or religion." I am certainly not hostile towards those of the Mormon religion. My whole family is Mormon. I also have many friends, and at least two close colleagues, who are Mormon. I am loved and well respected by my family. I will not claim that my Mormon colleagues love me, but we I have an excellent relationship with all of the members of our management team.

What I will do, however, is to point out the problems faced by those who are believing Mormons in simultaneously holding diametrically opposed beliefs, when it comes to religion and science. The Mormons I work with team readily recognize these problems and strive not to allow their "Mormonthink", interfere with their "sciencethink".

Do you have anything for an encore, or have you shot your wad at this point?

I strive to be polite and courteous in my comments on this board and absolutely refrain from ad hominem attacks. You, on the other hand, have engaged in ad hominem attacks in your comments and have used other language that is, quite frankly, not appropriate on a Mormon message board. Perhaps you should ask a non-Mormon friend what it means to "shoot your wad" .

Overall however, I have enjoyed the discussion so far. Thank you for responding to my post.

[Jeff K.]

Has any "scientist" ever done a study that shows religious people in the scientific fields do their job poorly and less competently than other scientists? If not, then why do scientists reject real studies in order to give vent to their personal prejudices?

According to a 1996 survey of United States scientists in the fields of biology, mathematics, and physics/astronomy, belief in a god that is "in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" was most popular among mathematicians (about 45%) and least popular among physicists (about 22%). In total, about 60% of United States scientists in these fields expressed disbelief or agnosticism toward a personal god who answers prayer and personal immortality.[77] This compared with 58% in 1914 and 67% in 1933.

Among members of the National Academy of Sciences (sometimes considered to be the world's leading scientists) 72.2% expressed disbelief and another 20% were agnostic concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer.[81]

A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 by Elaine Howard Ecklund of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York and funded by the Templeton Foundation found that over 60% of natural and social science professors at 21 elite US research universities are atheists or agnostics. When asked whether they believed in God, nearly 34% answered "I do not believe in God" and about 30% answering "I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out."[82] According to the same survey, "[m]any scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not attached to a particular religious tradition."[83] In further analysis, published in 2007, Ecklund and Christopher Scheitle conclude that "the assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable" and that "t appears that those from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately self-select into scientific professions. This may reflect the fact that there is tension between the religious tenets of some groups and the theories and methods of particular sciences and it contributes to the large number of non-religious scientists."[84]

A explanation has been offered by Farr Curlin, a University of Chicago Instructor in Medicine and a member of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, that science-minded religious people instead elect to study medicine. He helped author a study that "found that 76 percent of doctors believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife." and "90 percent of doctors in the United States attend religious services at least occasionally, compared to 81 percent of all adults." He reasoned, "The responsibility to care for those who are suffering and the rewards of helping those in need resonate throughout most religious traditions."[79]

A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that 33% of American scientists say they believe in God. 48% say they have a religious affiliation, equal to the number who say they are not affiliated with any religious tradition. The survey also found younger scientists to be "substantially more likely than their older counterparts to say they believe in God". Among the surveyed fields, chemists were the most likely to say they believe in God.[78]

Religious beliefs of US professors, many in scientific fields, were recently examined using a nationally representative sample of more than 1400, published in Sociology of Religion. The researchers reported that "Contrary to the view that religious skepticism predominates in the academy, we find that the majority of professors, even at elite research institutions, are religious believers" (p. 101).[85] Beliefs varied across disciplines, and "the most religious fields are applied ones outside the traditional liberal arts core, whose instructors may come closer to resembling the general population in terms of attitudes and values.... At the other extreme, psychology and mechanical engineering have the highest proportion of atheists [50 and 44 percent], while 60.8 percent of biologists are either atheists or agnostics" (p. 115).[85] The researchers concluded that among US professors, "less than a quarter could be classified as complete nonbelievers.... even at elite schools, there are more professors who are religious than who are nonbelievers, which suggests that in academe

[cdowis]

When one considers what science is and how it is done, it should be clear that someone who holds unfounded beliefs as central to their worldviews would very likely, on average, be less productive to the enterprise. If anyones thinks this an unfair statement, look at the number of active Mormons who have been awarded the Nobel Prize.

Well, let us speak to the lack of productivity of Newton and Einstein. Surely you can use them, and others, as examples of your point.

As to the number of LDS who won Nobel prizes, that is a phoney argument and you know it. LDS scientists have been highly respected in many fields of science.

Or is a Nobel Prize the ONLY measure of accomplishment.

I look at the religionists as individuals who are forced to use one set of rules and criteria for judging truth and making decisions in their personal life and a different (and wholly incompatible) set for making such judgments and decisions in professional life.

Would a homosexual life style also fit your statement. They would focus on relationships among fellow (mostly male) scientists, and their idea of truth and making decisions would be distracted. What about compulsive gamblers.

What about socio-econimic status -- growing up in a poor neighborhood. Surely that qualifies as a suspicious background. What about someone who is seeing a psychiatrist? Do you question them on their medical and psychological history? SURELY GOING TO A PSYCHOLOGIST WILL AFFECT THEIR JUDGEMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY. Do you ask them about that (in a subtle manner).

Are you going to have a long list of criteria to judge whether someone is a good scientist? Do you look at these issues which are not specific to their work as a scientist?

You are a very sick person, associating yourself with the racists, and facists. I lived in the South where there was prejudice against the blacks, and you certainly fall into that category. Judging on the basis of skin color, of on the basis on the believe in God. Not much difference that I can see.

Why not simply judge them on their actual accomplishments??! You are showing the terror I mentioned in the OP. You are afraid of the boogeyman of religion, while ignoring other possibile lifestyle situations which have equal fearful impact.

You would have rejected Newton and even Einstein because "they believe in God".

How sick. How pathetic.

snip

Religion and science are diametrically opposed in the way in which practitioners of each approach the search for knowledge. The problem is especially acute for Mormons, who must profess belief in truth claims for which there is little if any supporting physical evidence, and more often than not overwhelming physical evidence to the contrary.

You are a very sick person.

I have mentioned before on this board that I left London with a freshly minted Ph.D. and headed to my first job at MIT, my major professor took me aside and advised me that I would eventually have to decide between science and religion, and the sooner I made the decision, the better off I would be. As a TBM at the time I was sure that he was wrong. Not long after returning to the States, however, I found out that he was absolutely right.

It is in the best interest of science-driven enterprises to look very carefully at religionists as potential employees. If I can ascertain from a job interview (without direct questioning on the subject) that the candidate has a strong religious belief or affiliation, that individual would have to have demonstrated a truly exceptional skill or talent in an area of critical need to the Company to actually get a job offer.

You say, but I really doubt that someone will reach that level of accomplishment. You are judging them on another crition than the other candidates, and their accomplisments will have to be spectacularly stunning.

In this case, he is an astronomer, highly qualified for the position that he was applying for. Without a belief in creationism, but simply a belief in deity. You can see the terror in your post, and in their emails. You express no shock or disagreement over what happened to him, only tacit support for those beknighted individuals who reject him because he believes in God -- not creationism.

This is truly pathetic. And illegal.

Perhaps someday you will find yourself in court explaining your views to a judge and jury.

[california boy]

I haven't thought a lot about what this post is about, but I have to say, is all you have to do is read a lot of the comments on the Noah Ark thread to see his point. Talk about twisting and convoluting pretend facts to fit an explanation of the ark story. yikes. Not very scientific approach. There seems to be many Mormons that would not make good scientists. They want the Bible story to so badly fit some rational scientific explanation that they can not see how ridiculous their ideas sound.

BTW, "shoot your wad" refers to the time when muzzle loaded rifles used a "wad" of cloth to compact and force the powder down the barrel of the gun. Hence shot your wad refers to the fact that it takes so long to reload your gun, giving you. for all practical purposes. one shot. While there is a sexual reference to this statement, it is not the origin of it.

[Jeff K.]

Faggot "can" also mean a bundle of sticks. It does not mean that its use is considered appropriate in most venues.

The attempt to reconcile science with religion is NOT the same as being a religious person who is a scientist. I do not think such a reconciliation is plausible to its fullest extent at this time. Such does not reduce my rationality nor does it reduce my faith. Just as eating a hamburger does not reduce my appreciation for chicken since the choice for me isn't either or.

Discrimination of people who know how to do their job is always wrong.

And the definition of "pretend" science includes scientific advancements and theories that are not yet accepted by most scientists. Consider we think eugenics today to be "pretend science" but at one time it was considered real science, while plate tectonics were originally dismissed as "pretend science" and only much later were considered otherwise. I would reserve judgement on much of those views.

[cacheman]

This is an interesting case which is not as cut and dried as the OP makes it out to be. However, I do believe, after reading through the court documents, that Gaskell probably has a good evidence-backed case here. For those interested in reading the court documents, they can be found here: http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/c-martin-gaskell-v-university-kentucky

In the context of the following excerpt from Gaskell's writings,

There is a profound difference between believing that God created the world and people in the world rather than insisting that the origin of our universe and of ourselves is to be traced to an accidental chance combination of blind impersonal physical forces. It as been said that it is doubtful whether the latter, purely mechanistic, atheistic view of our origins can be a sufficient basis for such human values as goodness, truth, justice and beauty, etc. It has also been argued that in the atheistic view, man is left without ultimate meaning and value, that it is pointless to speak of

[44Foxtrot]

cdowis said:

Well, let us speak to the lack of productivity of Newton and Einstein. Surely you can use them, and others, as examples of your point.

Newton was a devout Christian, which was pretty much required in his time. Einstein was not a Christian and, in fact, did not believe in the God of Abraham. At best, Einstein was a deist. So you are half right.

As to the number of LDS who won Nobel prizes, that is a phoney argument and you know it. LDS scientists have been highly respected in many fields of science.

I was not offering this fact as proof of the assertion, but as evidence for it. The Nobel Prize score is Jews; > 100, Ex-Mormons; 1 Active Mormons; 0.

Would a homosexual life style also fit your statement. They would focus on relationships among fellow (mostly male) scientists, and their idea of truth and making decisions would be distracted.

This comment is ill considered and even offensive. It reflects, unfortunately, your Mormonthink viewpoint. There is no reason to think that gay men would be distracted by other males in the workplace any more than heterosexual males would be distracted by females.

You are a very sick person, associating yourself with the racists, and facists. I lived in the South where there was prejudice against the blacks, and you certainly fall into that category. Judging on the basis of skin color, of on the basis on the believe in God. Not much difference that I can see.

I appreciate the ad hominem attack. I have given you no evidence whatsoever that I associated myself with racists and fascists. In fact, one reason I left the Mormon Church was because of the blatant racism found there.

Skin color is a genetic trait, not a handicap. Delusional religious belief is a handicap for scientists, and it is self-acquired and self imposed.

As to your passionate defense of the astronomer mentioned in the OP, I made no reference to this case. I do not have enough information to make an informed decision as to whether UK was justified or not.

Here is what I can say; in more than 25 years as a scientist working at a national lab, I noted that in the few instances where we encountered overtly religious individuals who went around witnessing and thanking God verbally for every accomplishments, such individuals did not last long. We did have a number of Mormons at the lab, including myself at one time. The Mormons tended to end up in mid level management or as support staff.

Perhaps someday you will find yourself in court explaining your views to a judge and jury.

Again, this is an absolutely unfounded and irrelevant statement that indicates your lack understanding of your subject matter. It is not illegal under the law to select the best qualified candidates from among those available. In fact, it is a primary responsibility of management to do so.

Since Mormons constitute a much higher percentage of our management team than they do the overall population of the US, it is highly unlikely that I will find myself in a courtroom facing an anti-LDS employment discrimination action any time soon.

Again, I appreciate the insults and ad hominem attacks. To any neutral observer reading this exchange, your insults, spurious arguments, poor assumptions and ad hominem attacks just help to make my point.

[44Foxtrot]

I haven't thought a lot about what this post is about, but I have to say, is all you have to do is read a lot of the comments on the Noah Ark thread to see his point. Talk about twisting and convoluting pretend facts to fit an explanation of the ark story. yikes. Not very scientific approach. There seems to be many Mormons that would not make good scientists. They want the Bible story to so badly fit some rational scientific explanation that they can not see how ridiculous their ideas sound.

BTW, "shoot your wad" refers to the time when muzzle loaded rifles used a "wad" of cloth to compact and force the powder down the barrel of the gun. Hence shot your wad refers to the fact that it takes so long to reload your gun, giving you. for all practical purposes. one shot. While there is a sexual reference to this statement, it is not the origin of it.

I agree with your statement about the origin of the "shoot your wad" expression. With all due respect, however, if you were to ask 100 individuals on the street what this expression means, my guess is that a very small percentage would tell you it has to do with muzzle loaders.

[cdowis]

I have alot of experience, as someone from the South. I am pointing our your sickness as one who has see first hand such attitudes. You have so openly and bluntly expressed those views. You can give clever arguments to justify those views, but I have seen it and know that it is bias and fear.

Nothing personal, but in the hope that you will recognize it for what it is. It is in your mind, and has nothing to do with reality. Your disease has spread through out the scientific community.

Surely the science of astronomy can allow a qualified believer in its midst.

Let us see if a judge and jury agree

[44Foxtrot]

I have alot of experience, as someone from the South. I am pointing our your sickness as one who has see first hand such attitudes. You have so openly and bluntly expressed those views. You can give clever arguments to justify those views, but I have seen it and know that it is bias and fear.

Nothing personal, but in the hope that you will recognize it for what it is. It is in your mind, and has nothing to do with reality. Your disease has spread through out the scientific community.

Surely the science of astronomy can allow a qualified believer in its midst.

Let us see if a judge and jury agree

A truly insightful, fact-filled, well written and enlightened rejoinder. Thank you. I rest my case.

[Stargazer]

A truly insightful, fact-filled, well written and enlightened rejoinder. Thank you. I rest my case.

Dang.

I spent two or more hours crafting a response to your interesting reply to me above, and when I posted it the board blew up in my face. It blows my mind, 44Foxtrot! It was such an intelligent, thoughtful post, and now it is in the bitbucket never to return. Sigh.

I have to content myself with apologizing for what you saw as an ad hominem: I didn't mean to say that you, personally, were sickening, but that I found your prejudicial and bigoted attitude sickening. As plainly exhibited here:

It is in the best interest of science-driven enterprises to look very carefully at religionists as potential employees. If I can ascertain from a job interview (without direct questioning on the subject) that the candidate has a strong religious belief or affiliation, that individual would have to have demonstrated a truly exceptional skill or talent in an area of critical need to the Company to actually get a job offer.

I'd like to know what exactly your company is doing that would make a religionist so unreliable as a scientific employee. Are you in business to make money proving Darwinian Evolution is a not merely a Theory, but it in fact a Law? Not sure how you would monetize that. Were I an evolutionary biologist, I think I would be as keen as the next guy to pull that off, by the way.

Oh, about the wad shooting.... california boy called it. Up to this point I hadn't known that the phrase was a sexual innuendo, too. I guess I've fired too many blackpowder arms for it to mean anything else than "Are you out of ammo?"

[Stargazer]

I was not offering this fact as proof of the assertion, but as evidence for it. The Nobel Prize score is Jews; > 100, Ex-Mormons; 1 Active Mormons; 0.

I covered this In my lamented, lost reply to your earlier reference to the Nobel Prize, Let me try to reproduce my deathless prose here:

The Nobel Prize was established in 1895. At the time there were less than 250,000 Mormons worldwide, the overwhelming majority of whom were agrarian workers. It took until 1947 to cross into 1 million, and still most Mormons were farmers. If there had been a single Mormon awarded a prize in the first hundred years of the Nobel's existence, it would have been wildly out of proportion compared to other groups, such as the Jews, who have until recently greatly outnumbered LDS, and Jews as a whole are hugely overrepresented in the Nobel statistics.

Your "evidence" is statistically invalid on its face.

If you visited my house, and noted that I had a statute of an elephant on my mantlepiece, and I told you that it was there to repel elephants from the neighborhood, my "evidence" of its efficacy (Look! No elephants!") would be just as valid as your Nobel evidence that Mormons can't do science.

[selek]

I think you are all being horribly unfair to FoxtrotUniform44- his attitude and beliefs have a long and distinguished pedigree.

They led to centuries of pogroms, forced marches, and mass executions.

They led to forced sterilizations and lobotomies in the United States as recently as the 1920's, and to an ongoing program of selective/preemptive extermination which continues to this day.

They have been used for over a century now to justify State-sponsored euthanasia in both America and Europe, and to a lesser extent, in South American countries strongly influenced by certain European ideologies.

They led to Eugenics programs which lasted almost fifty years in both the United States and Europe- and led to the cleansing of 'inferior' populations as late as the 1980's and 90's.

FoxtrotUniform's belief that bloodlines, beliefs, and ideological disciplines- however odious- must be kept pure is what led to the world-wide sport of expelling Jews, of deriding blacks and Mexicans as 'unintelligent' and has been used to justify everything from slavery to genocide.

In the face of such historical precedent, who are we to point out that his mindset (though not method) is identical to Torquemada's?

Given the long and illustrious pedigree of his new theology, who are we to point out that is identical in scope and justification to the official policies of the most brutal police states in the history (and current events) of the planet?

Who are we to point out that his mindset is enthusiastically embraced by the makers and purveyors of gulags, crematoriums, and mass graves?

Such a simple comparison of ideologies, mindsets and of public statements (both those of Foxtrot Uniform and of his ideological brethren)- a fair examination of the facts- is ungentlemanly and unkind.

After all, he and his fellow travelers must know far better than we (the "lesser breeds" and "lesser minds") what the weight of history implies for his new-found faith.

[selek]

That his practice of discriminating against an entire class of people- however carefully concealed- is in direct and blatant violation of state and Federal law is entirely irrelevant to his arguments....

"Those people" are inferior because he said so- and who are we to argue with our betters?

My great-great grandfather in Kentucky was horse-whipped by his betters for that kind of insolence.

Thus far, Foxtrot Uniform has been far more merciful.

[Stargazer]

I think you are all being horribly unfair to FoxtrotUniform44- his attitude and beliefs have a long and distinguished pedigree...

Double post, selek, and not to be a board nanny, but I think your post crosses the line. Too far, dude, too far.

[selek]

Double post, selek, and not to be a board nanny, but I think your post crosses the line. Too far, dude, too far.

Please demonstrate where anything I posted was factually or historically inaccurate.

The eugenics programs and the forced sterilizations and lobotomied WERE pushed by self-described 'smarter-than-you' athiests intent on "improving the species" by eliminating their 'inferiors'.

"Religious belief" HAS been (and remains) a punishable offense in states like Iran, Libya, China, and North Korea.

Religious believers HAVE been tortured, killed, exiled, and enslaved by athiests who declared the religious inferior as a class- simply for thinking differently than the herd.

That FoxtrotUniform doesn't practice their methods (to the same extremes) doesn't separate him from their ideology.

I've gone too far, but Foxtrot hasn't?

Substitute the word 'black' for 'religious believer' in any of his posts above, and this bigot would fit right in with Bull Connor or Margaret Sanger.

The ideology of 'your class is inferior to my class' is both the textbook definition of bigotry AND has been used to justify atrocities throughout human history.

[Stargazer]

Please demonstrate where anything I posted was factually or historically inaccurate.

This spate of comparisons reminds me of the missionary whose notion of proclaiming the Gospel is to march into someone's home and tell them their faith is a crock, and that they are going to go to hell if they don't join the missionary's church. This is the brute force method, and is demonstrably ineffective, even if the missionary is 100% correct.

44FoxtrotWhatever is wrong. His attitude is so prejudiced and bigotted that he cannot see it as it is. This does not rise to the level that you're trying to make it rise to. And if he cannot see the error of his ways with gentle and firm persuasion, he certainly isn't going to see it by getting into his face and making over-the-top assertions like you've just done. The only possible reaction to your spewing is to spew back, or if the other person has class, to simply terminate the conversation. Since I know you are not stupid, and know this perfectly well, then I must conclude that you are being a jerk on purpose, possibly with a view to make yourself feel superior.

I like you, selek, and I frequently find your posts to be great additions to the threads they're in. When you have trenchant and valid points to make. This time you are just being a jerk.