Scientist alleges religious discrimination

[Jeff K.]

You have a point about the different legal status of a Church as compared to public or private corporation when it comes to employee protection under the civil rights act. I tried to find an example that would be clear to individuals on this board. Ethically the issue is the same, but you are correct that there is a legal distinction. I should have chosen a better example.

Nonetheless, you will have to agree that any employer has the right to establish the qualifications necessary for a specific job (so long as those qualifications are reasonably related to the ability to carry out the job). Individuals who demonstrate deficits in the areas required to carry out the job do not have protection under the civil rights act with regard to job discrimination if they are not hired for a position for which they are not qualified.

Let's look at another example, analogous to the one in the OP. Would it be your contention that a university has the obligation to hire and otherwise qualified scientist to a high profile management position in evolutionary biology if that candidate expressed belief in creationism? I hope not. The candidate has demonstrated a deficit in understanding of the fundamental tenets of evolutionary biology.

What about a high profile management position in geology for a "young earth" believer?

In both these cases, there would be a real the risk of damage to the good standing and reputation of the employer if such individuals were hired.

Beliefs have consequences.

__________

As to your question about hiring; not only do I hire, I also sign the paychecks. The paychecks I sign include those to both in-house and external counsel. As I have already indicated several times, we do have religionists on staff, so I fail to see what the "loaded gun" would be. If an interview and background check of a given candidate shows that the candidate has deficits in required qualifications and skills, as set forth in the job description, that individual is not hired. It is as simple as that.

Nonetheless, you will have to agree that any employer has the right to establish the qualifications necessary for a specific job (so long as those qualifications are reasonably related to the ability to carry out the job). Individuals who demonstrate deficits in the areas required to carry out the job do not have protection under the civil rights act with regard to job discrimination if they are not hired for a position for which they are not qualified.

No, I will not have to agree because your view is considered illegal. The qualifications for a job must be within a narrow range. You cannot ask what political party they belong to, which church they go to, if they are married, have children, or anything else along those lines. To do so is to open your firm to a significant lawsuit. A belief in any God or no God can have no impact in a corporation since the corporation is not a religious order.

The law is very clear on that, the civil rights laws are extremely clear on that. If you were to ask me that question, I could indeed sue you, have you fired, and cost the firm you work for a great deal of money. All because of your personal discrimination against specific groups.

Beliefs have consequences.

So does stupidity. And it is in your firms best interest to educate you or make your assets available to the general public. That is how the law works.

[44Foxtrot]

Bruce, Bikeemikey, Jeff K, Stargazer, toon, sometimesaint, cdowis, et al.,

Contrary to what you might think, I have read your posts here and believe that you have made some valid points that need further consideration on my part. However, I do not have the time to keep going on this thread or to start another right now.

What I will do is think about what has been discussed here, talk with one of our attorneys, and start what I hope will be a more civil and well-mannered thread in the near future.

As you probably know, others have published expressing concern regarding the lack of Mormon representation in the upper echelons of science, and perhaps we could bring some of their ideas into the discussion.

In the meantime, have a good week.

[Jeff K.]

I am not concerned with Mormons being in the upper enchelons in science since those tend to be political and gamesmanship positions. I would be more concerned if Mormons were not engaged in science, where most of the progress and work is being done. Whether you are the apostle Richard G. Scott, scientist who worked at Oak Ridge or someone else. Mormons work in science and they continue to do so.

Mormons will continue to choose their own path and career. They will continue to produce their own gains. I do not think being "in charge" is a scientific method for determining contribution or commitment to science.

[semlogo]

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.

That's the longest Godwin I've ever read. Congrats!

[Jeff K.]

You semlogo have interpreted it as Godwin (though one can interpret anything they cannot or choose not to answer as such), but you have not countered the point as fallacious. Surely someone with a journalist degree can research and show how intellectual elitism has NOT led to those very things mentioned?

[semlogo]

You semlogo have interpreted it as Godwin (though one can interpret anything they cannot or choose not to answer as such), but you have not countered the point as fallacious. Surely someone with a journalist degree can research and show how intellectual elitism has NOT led to those very things mentioned?

I'm not sure that blaming all of society's ills on atheists (especially when the most famous genocide alluded to was perpetrated by religious people on other religious people) really warrants a serious response. Thanks for bringing up my undergrad degree again, though. I'm glad you think that's a key point.

[Pahoran]

I think I just changed it back.

There has been some good discussion on this thread. However, there have also been more misrepresentations, personal attacks, name-calling, insults and inappropriate language from the faithful here than I have seen here in a long time.

Selek's "Foxtrot Uniform" name-calling was particularly offensive. This kind of behavior has no place on any civil message board, let alone one representing the beliefs of the LDS Church.

Was it as "offensive" as, say, citing the case of a mentally disturbed mother killing her children, and then trying to argue that her action was the logical consequence of believing LDS doctrine?

No, I don't believe it was.

Your bigoted argument that holding LDS beliefs is incompatible with being a good scientist is as bigoted -- and false -- as the argument that holding LDS beliefs is incompatible with being a good mother.

What is more "offensive?" To call someone names, or to politely attempt to disqualify them from employment in their chosen fields because of unrelated religious beliefs?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Smith]

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.

Tell that to Henry Eyring, or Elder Scott.

[Jeff K.]

I'm not sure that blaming all of society's ills on atheists (especially when the most famous genocide alluded to was perpetrated by religious people on other religious people) really warrants a serious response. Thanks for bringing up my undergrad degree again, though. I'm glad you think that's a key point.

No one is blaming societies ills on atheists. Indeed what I look at for those who have done wrong it is their motivation which seems most often to be atheistic or rather without religious motivation. You misuse or rather abuse Godwins argument in order to avoid defending an undefendable position. I bring up your degree because you seem to take such pride in it when you want to show you "know something". We all wait with baited breath for you to show us what that "something" is. We will continue to wait.

[semlogo]

No one is blaming societies ills on atheists. Indeed what I look at for those who have done wrong it is their motivation which seems most often to be atheistic or rather without religious motivation. You misuse or rather abuse Godwins argument in order to avoid defending an undefendable position. I bring up your degree because you seem to take such pride in it when you want to show you "know something". We all wait with baited breath for you to show us what that "something" is. We will continue to wait.

I think you take much more pride in my undergrad degree - indeed, you can't seem to resist mentioning it whenever we interact. Again, a lazy stereotype against atheists and a lazy guilt by association with Hitler (a theist) and other monsters merits no lengthy response from me, or anyone else intelligent enough to see through it.

[Jeff K.]

I am merely returning the favor for the times you seem to use it to bolster weak arguments. Needless to say we were all impressed with your deft use of a degree to reinforce an incredibly weak position.

The only weak argument I see is that in attempting to strengthen the view that discriminating against Mormons or anyone else who is religious is somehow acceptable and OK. I personally don't subscribe to the idea, your shouldn't either.

[semlogo]

I am merely returning the favor for the times you seem to use it to bolster weak arguments. Needless to say we were all impressed with your deft use of a degree to reinforce an incredibly weak position.

The only weak argument I see is that in attempting to strengthen the view that discriminating against Mormons or anyone else who is religious is somehow acceptable and OK. I personally don't subscribe to the idea, your shouldn't either.

I have never done that. But CFR on your claim. I would also invite you to compare the number of times you've brought it up with the number of times I have. Anyone can get a journalism degree - I'd never brag about that.

I don't subscribe to religious discrimination - I am religious. Clearly you have no problem with discrimination against the irreligious, though. Stereotyping (against atheists or the religious) is lazy thinking, and regardless of what degree you have, you're probably smart enough to know better

[Jaybear]

The only weak argument I see is that in attempting to strengthen the view that discriminating against Mormons or anyone else who is religious is somehow acceptable and OK. I personally don't subscribe to the idea, your shouldn't either.

I have heard that one of the largest private university in the world openly discriminates agaisnt atheists. In other words, it won't hire a biology professor, chemistry professor, history professor, or even a janitor unless they purports to believe in God.

If true, do you find that acceptable and OK?

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Yes. As a private organization it is able to select whom represents it. There is no Right to be a college professor.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

Yes. As a private organization it is able to select whom represents it. There is no Right to be a college professor.

So then, when Foxtrot say ...

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 are okay with that comment, so long as the company is privately owned?

Personally, I find either example offensive. People should be hired on merit, not religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

[Pahoran]

So then, when Foxtrot say ...

... you are okay with that comment, so long as the company is privately owned?

Personally, I find either example offensive. People should be hired on merit, not religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

Is it possible for you to post, just once, without pulling a jaybear?

You are quite intentionally comparing apples and onions. A Church-owned and Church-funded university, such as BYU, has every right to insist that its employees be believing Latter-day Saints.

And, just BTW, it is brazenly dishonest to misrepresent that it "discriminates agaisnt[sic] atheists," as though it was happily hiring Catholics, Anglicans and any believers of any stripe just so they didn't believe in the atheist "god delusion," because you know that that is not the case.

BYU has a specific role to fulfill: it provides secular learning in a Gospel context. People who do not accept the Gospel would seem to be at least somewhat compromised in their ability to do that.

By contrast, a tax-funded university has no sound basis on which to discriminate against believers when recruiting for a position in which a professor's religious beliefs are irrelevant. All it is doing is institionalising anti-religious bigotry.

Your attempt to equate the two is characteristically dishonest.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jeff K.]

I have heard that one of the largest private university in the world openly discriminates agaisnt atheists. In other words, it won't hire a biology professor, chemistry professor, history professor, or even a janitor unless they purports to believe in God.

If true, do you find that acceptable and OK?

Is it a private religious organization or a public organization?

[Jeff K.]

I have never done that. But CFR on your claim. I would also invite you to compare the number of times you've brought it up with the number of times I have. Anyone can get a journalism degree - I'd never brag about that.

I don't subscribe to religious discrimination - I am religious. Clearly you have no problem with discrimination against the irreligious, though. Stereotyping (against atheists or the religious) is lazy thinking, and regardless of what degree you have, you're probably smart enough to know better

How else would I even know you had a "ahem" journalist degree other than you burnishing it to support a truly poor position on your part. You mentioned it then and frankly I don't have time to go searching forever to find out where you used it. Given your posts I wouldn't brag either.

I haven't stereotyped anyone. You don't seem to think very critically and I challenge you to show where I have stereotyped someone regarding religion.

No one is blaming societies ills on atheists. Indeed what I look at for those who have done wrong it is their motivation which seems most often to be atheistic or rather without religious motivation. You misuse or rather abuse Godwins argument in order to avoid defending an undefendable position. I bring up your degree because you seem to take such pride in it when you want to show you "know something". We all wait with baited breath for you to show us what that "something" is. We will continue to wait.

Am I stereotyping here? No.

I challenge you to show me where in this thread of this conversation I have stereotyped anyone. Now try to think critically and show us all how your accusation of me stereotyping comes into affect . We won't hold our breath because we all know you simply toss out accusations and have no real basis in fact when you post.

[Jeff K.]

I have heard that one of the largest private university in the world openly discriminates agaisnt atheists. In other words, it won't hire a biology professor, chemistry professor, history professor, or even a janitor unless they purports to believe in God.

If true, do you find that acceptable and OK?

I have no problem with a university dedicated to atheism hiring atheists to teach in their university, I understand the priority. But then atheists don't, to my knowledge have universities. They just complain about other groups who put the money together for universities.

[semlogo]

How else would I even know you had a "ahem" journalist degree other than you burnishing it to support a truly poor position on your part. You mentioned it then and frankly I don't have time to go searching forever to find out where you used it. Given your posts I wouldn't brag either.

So you can't answer the CFR? Then a retraction is in order.

I assume you thought that my offhand mention of my degree some time ago was boasting because to you a college degree (any college degree) seems like a lofty achievement.

I haven't stereotyped anyone. You don't seem to think very critically and I challenge you to show where I have stereotyped someone regarding religion.

Am I stereotyping here? No.

I challenge you to show me where in this thread of this conversation I have stereotyped anyone. Now try to think critically and show us all how your accusation of me stereotyping comes into affect . We won't hold our breath because we all know you simply toss out accusations and have no real basis in fact when you post.

No one accused you of stereotyping. What are you on about? You're defending someone who engaged in rather dim-witted stereotyping and lazy guilt by association with the worst murderers of history. You're doing it mostly, I imagine, because it was me who objected to the stereotyping. You seem to have some sort of cute little obsession with me. I'm flattered.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 21 December 2010 - 01:00 PM, said:

How else would I even know you had a "ahem" journalist degree other than you burnishing it to support a truly poor position on your part. You mentioned it then and frankly I don't have time to go searching forever to find out where you used it. Given your posts I wouldn't brag either.

So you can't answer the CFR? Then a retraction is in order.

I assume you thought that my offhand mention of my degree some time ago was boasting because to you a college degree (any college degree) seems like a lofty achievement.

It must be frustrating for you.

CFR, very well, look it up on the news story regarding the arrest of a rape victim. Utah pastor accused of raping someone. You said the shoddy story was good journalism and when every fact when against you what did you do, cite yourself.

Not an off hand remark at all, but perhaps an offhand degree. So far, you haven't demonstrated much in the form of journalistic thought, well maybe a Kieth Obermanesque one in which you do not allow facts to interfere with your opinion.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 21 December 2010 - 01:00 PM, said:

I haven't stereotyped anyone. You don't seem to think very critically and I challenge you to show where I have stereotyped someone regarding religion.

Am I stereotyping here? No.

No one accused you of stereotyping. What are you on about? You're defending someone who engaged in rather dim-witted stereotyping and lazy guilt by association with the worst murderers of history. You're doing it mostly, I imagine, because it was me who objected to the stereotyping. You seem to have some sort of cute little obsession with me. I'm flattered.

No, no guilt by association. I see the quesiton of allowing discrimination or not. You apparently are fine with it. You are the one defending some dimwitted stereotyping guilt by association pogrom in which by their very religious people of religion would be denied gainful employment. And there you are, once again, on the side of someone who is fine with it. And then you pull out the very weak and ineffective charge of Godwins law. Seriously you need to do some reading.

As to being an obsession, one swats, at times, the gnats and flys that somehow make it in from outside. It does not mean there is an "obsession".

[semlogo]

It must be frustrating for you.

CFR, very well, look it up on the news story regarding the arrest of a rape victim. Utah pastor accused of raping someone. You said the shoddy story was good journalism and when every fact when against you what did you do, cite yourself.

Not an off hand remark at all, but perhaps an offhand degree. So far, you haven't demonstrated much in the form of journalistic thought, well maybe a Kieth Obermanesque one in which you do not allow facts to interfere with your opinion.

Oh that's right. I'd forgotten. It wasn't off hand at all. But it was certainly relevant to the topic at hand. I know more about journalism than you. So what? Does that still bother you? I'm sure you know more about sophistry than I do, as well as playing the victim card. I don't begrudge you that.

[semlogo]

No, no guilt by association. I see the quesiton of allowing discrimination or not. You apparently are fine with it. You are the one defending some dimwitted stereotyping guilt by association pogrom in which by their very religious people of religion would be denied gainful employment. And there you are, once again, on the side of someone who is fine with it. And then you pull out the very weak and ineffective charge of Godwins law. Seriously you need to do some reading.

Comparing internet atheists to Hitler is laughably simple-minded on many levels. One of us needs to do some reading, but it's not me.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

That makes absolutely no sense. I was the COO of a medium sized company. That doesn't mean that I have a Right to that job in any other company. There is no Right to be a college professor.