Where Does It End?

In many ways I look forward to the future.  One of the things I most look forward too is watching one of these 'religious protection laws' eventually bite some theist right where it hurts the most.

For example, we are all familiar with the case of the Colorado baker who refused to do a wedding cake for a gay couple, citing his religion for legal protection.  We are also familiar with the Kentucky clerk who refused same-sex couples marriage licenses also citing her religion.  These are just a couple of examples to make my point.

As a result, a number of states have enacted, or are working on enacting laws that protect people who use their religion to discriminate.  They are referred to as 'shields laws".  While the lawmakers repeatedly claim the laws cannot be used for discrimination, the reality is they certainly can be, and are!  There is nothing written in the law when there is a conflict between a religious belief and a civil right -- the way those laws are worded, the religious belief taking precedence.

Here is what I think will eventually happen.  Sooner or later someone is going to use those religious belief to discriminate against other theists.  For example, if I were the owner of the building the Colorado bakery was in, I would cancel their lease.  Or if I were a clerk in the department of motor vehicles, I would refuse to grant a drivers license renewal for that Kentucky clerk.  In each case I would cite my deeply held beliefs that their religious beliefs were interfering with my belief set!

Imagine the hue and cry!  I would thoroughly enjoy watching it!  Imagine if a bank called a mortgage due immediately on one of these theists who use their belief set to discriminate?  Or a restaurant refused service for the Colorado baker and his family?  They would immediately start whining about the whole imaginary 'war on Christians', yet if there are laws protecting religious-based discrimination, the law would not be on the theists side.  Yes, I know you might claim not all belief sets are religious beliefs, but imagine trying to defend that in court.

Back in the mid-to-late 80's two young airmen assigned to Nellis AFB refused to salute the flag or to salute and obey the orders of female officers (The Spokesman-Review) claiming a religious objection.  They were held responsible for their actions and placed in confinement (military jail).

Imagine the difficulties in aligning military requirements and responsibilities with the religious beliefs of all of the members, the hundreds if not thousands of different belief sets.  The military reasoning is simple, your religious beliefs take a step back when it comes to military requirements.  Think about it, refusing to obey an officer due to their gender, or refusing to fulfill duty requirements on whichever holy day your religion mandates?  Military discipline cannot take a back seat.

Where does it end?  Where are the lines to be drawn protecting civil rights, including religious freedoms?  The current laws in work are designed to elevate discrimination through belief set and make it legal.  There is a problem with that.  I am pretty sure that if you line up all the religious belief sets and all the civil rights, you will find that more than likely all the civil rights we have can be negated by one of more of the list of religions.

I know where I believe it should end.  Religious-based discrimination should never be legal and those religious protection laws need to either be dropped -- or at least placed behind other statutes dealing with discrimination.  Civil rights should always come before religious rights, similar to how the military places their requirements ahead of those religious beliefs.

Here is one last example, religious child-care facilities that do not have to adhere to the laws preventing child abuse.  Check out: "Whipped, hit and locked in closets: Life inside some religious day cares".  See what the lack of protection can do to children in religious day care facilities?  Those places should be required to comply with ALL laws and regulations for non-religious day care before putting their religious spin on things.  But no, too many places place their religious beliefs ahead of protecting children!  And now they want to do the same thing for laws against discrimination.

Discrimination, Religious Style in Australia

Caught a report today about an Australian couple who had made arrangements to get married in a Presbyterian Church.  Apparently they had to change their plans because the minister say on one of the bride's Facebook posts support for Marriage Equality.

The minister's message:

“By continuing to officiate it would appear either that I support your views on same-sex marriage or that I am uncaring about this matter. As you know, neither statement is correct. 

Also, if the wedding proceeded in the Ebenezer St John’s church buildings, the same inferences could be drawn about the Presbyterian denomination. Such inferences would be wrong.“

The couple's response:

“We feel this decision is absolutely disgraceful and is a disgrace to you and all the church, especially when we have been loyal and valued members of this congregation for 10 years,” they wrote. 

“You were made aware from the beginning of our proceedings that we had gay friends and also that people in our wedding party were gay. How could you assume that we would abandon them or degrade them with regards to same-sex marriage? 

“We understand we did agree with the teachings of the church in our marriage counselling but just because we agree with that for our own lives, doesn’t mean that we have to push those beliefs onto others.”

So, don't religious groups realize the amount of self-inflicted harm they do their own position when they take stands that revolve around discrimination and intolerance.  Apparently 'Love thy Neighbor as thyself' is just a catch phrase to this Minister and even the Presbyterian Church of Australia who have not only declared homosexuality a sin (1994) but in 2007 called on the government to amend the Sex Discrimination Act "in such a way as to prevent same-sex partners and singles from continuing to access artificial reproductive technology."

Hmmm, the same Sex Discrimination Act says:

"prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, marital or relationship status, actual or potential pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status or breastfeeding in a range of areas of public life. These areas include work, accommodation, education, the provision of goods, facilities and services, the activities of clubs and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs."

You know, reading that, isn't the Minister in violation?  After all, he's supposed to be providing a service?  He cannot claim the couple violated his religious beliefs because they agreed to the teachings of the church for their own life.  But this Minister, and apparently the Presbyterian Church of Australia not only want the power to control their members lives, but they want their members to be guilty of discrimination against others as well.

Good for this couple and their decision to leave that church.  I am sure they can find places they will be welcome that don't demand you drop anyone in your life who is LGBT as a requirement.  I have to wonder if this late change of heart by the Minister had a financial impact?  If so, they might consider suing.

Shock of Shocks, I Agree with Kennie Ham . . . sort of!

Little kennie ham, owner and operator of several ministries (The Creation pseudo-museum, The Ark Park, and Answers in Genesis) is on his horse again.  Here's the article if you care to get your shoes all muddy:

"Ken Ham Warns America is on 'Precipice of Catastrophic Change', 'God is Judging Us' (Exclusive)" (The Gospel Herald, 22 June 2017)

You don't actually have to read it if I say one word:  "homosexuality".  Yes, kennie is running around like Chicken Little:

"Answers in Genesis President Ken Ham has warned that America is on the "precipice of catastrophic change" and said that one sign God is "turning people over to their depraved minds" is the increase in homosexual behavior seen across the country."

OK, if you want to read his rant, please be my guest, but if you have a single open-minded thought, it might turn your stomach.

So how can I possibly be in any sort of agreement with this bigoted pseudo-Christian?  It's in the wording, yes, I think we do stand on a precipice of catastrophic change, but not for the same reason.  I think the hate, bigotry, and intolerance spouted by people like kennie are the cause.  One of the reasons I think kennie is being so vocal about his bigotry is the huge shot in the arm such attitudes received when that hamster-haired serial liar and misogynist was elected.  Suddenly being a bigot might be socially-acceptable in some groups.

One of my friends, who is against gay marriage, actually asked me how I could be for it, since I wasn't gay.  I told him that I'm not a woman either, so how come I don't think women should be barefoot and pregnant?  I'm not a minority, so how come I don't think minorities and immigrants are second class citizens? Discrimination is discrimination regardless of whether the target is wearing a dress, has a different ethnic background, believes a different religion, or has a different idea of 'family' than you!  You might wonder how I can call him a 'friend', but I believe in the right to believe as you wish, I just refuse to allow him to force his beliefs on me.  If you think I am trying to force my beliefs onto him, you are in error . . . remember, he asked.

Discrimination should not be tolerated in any form.  People, like little kennie, who make their living being hateful, intolerant, and discriminatory are the ones that should be convicted of aiding and abetting the incivility, and often violence, that is the result.  As I have said before, you have the right to live your life, but you do not have the right to force others to live as you do.  For example, a couple of years ago Campbell's Soup featured an ad with two men feeding soup to a boy using hilarious imitations of Darth Vader and Chewbacca.  It was funny, touching, and cute.  But since it featured two men, homophobic bigots assumed the two men were the boy's gay parents and tried to make a tempest over it.

Don't buy Campbell's Soup if you dislike they commercial, but you do not get to decide no one should buy Campbells!  But something similar happened recently when Cherrios aired a commercial featured an interracial family.  Again, a minor news flap because of racist bigots.  The Today article raised an interesting point:

"“I’m not surprised at the reaction, because social media is kind of the new Ku Klux Klan white hood,’’ TODAY’s Star Jones said Monday. “It allows you to be anonymous and to say the kinds of things that you would never say to a person to their face. "

Personally, I thought the ad was terrific!  I'm not sure what it says about me, but I hadn't noticed the family was interracial until reading one of the bigoted comments on Facebook which pointed it out.  What was even better was that Cherrios brought the family back for a Super Bowl ad!  Now that's an appropriate response to bigotry.

As you can see, I do have to agree with little kennie's phrase, just not his cause, we are facing a potential catastrophe, but kennie is one of the ones pushing us closer and closer to that disaster.  His use of religion to push an environment of fear, mistrust, division, and intolerance is driving us toward that catastrophe.  Of course if/when a catastrophe occurs, he'll be standing on the sidelines blaming it on everything but his own personal hatred and intolerance.  Yes, kennie will be one of the causes, but one he will never admit -- after all he thinks god is on his side.  Certainly not the god I was taught about in parochial school, but a version even few Christians seem to recognize.

There are times, like when I read posts like this I do hope there really is a god and one that lives up to all of the ideals so many religions claim.  That way bigots like kennie will get their just reward, and a real hot one at that.  But in the meantime, kennie will keep making a living preaching intolerance and pushing hatred, incapable of recognizing the damage he does.

State Sponsored Discrimination

I don't know about you, but I dislike discrimination in general.  The laws banning many types of discrimination have mostly done a lot of good things.  Yes, I know you can find examples of some of those laws . . . or more likely the application of those laws . . . didn't help, but by and large anti-discrimination laws have positive results.

As you might know from reading this blog, I particularly dislike religious discrimination, mainly for one simply reason.  There is absolutely nothing that makes one religion any better than another, so the idea of discriminating based on a religious difference seems even more ludicrous than most forms of discrimination.   While I disagree with religious discrimination coming from private groups . . . I disagree with it even more when the State funds it.

Yes, Texas is on the verge of passing a bill (it's in front of their Governor now) that will allow religious groups that are paid by the State to place children for foster care/adoption to not only discriminate based on their religion, but are immune from prosecution when they do so.  How utterly ridiculous!  How many children are going to be denied homes?  How many parents will be denied an opportunity to foster or adopt because they are gay, atheist, or hold a different religious tradition from the adoption agent?  And it will be wholly, or partially, funded by the citizens of Texas.

This is not a protection of someone's religious liberty, it is a license to discriminate and not just at the expense of children and potential parents, but at the expense of every taxpayer in Texas.  Let me remind you:

I think we need to add a new line onto this graphic:

You Religious Liberties are being violated when you are denied an opportunity to foster, or adopt, a child based on your religious beliefs.

Your Religious Liberties are NOT being violated when people who do not share your religious belief are free to foster, or adopt, children.

I have spent a lot of time in the Great State of Texas, but . . . Come on, People!  Do you really want to pay for State-Sponsored Discrimination?

Is This Religious Discrimination?

Case in point, a recently announced lawsuit little kennie ham and Co. filed against the Grand Canyon, claiming religious discrimination.  Answers in Genesis (AiG) has a press release about it: "Discrimination Lawsuit Filed by Christian Geologist Against Grand Canyon Park Officials".  When I first heard about the lawsuit, my initial thought was let him have some damn rocks.  I mean, it doesn't sound all that unreasonable.  However, what if everyone who visited the Grand Canyon wanted to take rocks home with them?  Why it might be twice as big as it is and the natural formations and beauty might be ruined.  So I assumed there was a vetting process for approving such requests.

So just a tiny bit of digging, and I found the following:  the evaluation criteria used in determining whether or not to approve research proposals:

• Is the proposed research in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and federal administrative policies?
• Will the proposed activity result in degradation of the values and purposes of the park?
• Could the proposed research be performed outside of the park?
• Is the proposed research important to the stated scientific resource management goals of the park?
• Does the proposed research unreasonably disturb park resources or visitors?
• Has the proposed research been peer-reviewed by recognized experts and recommended as scientifically valid? (copies of at least two peer-reviews must accompany the proposal)
• Does the proposed research require additional state, federal, or local permits? Have those permits been obtained?
• Does the proposed research require collection of specimens or artifacts? What will be the disposition of any collected specimens?
• Does the proposed research encumber NPS resources that may be limited (e.g., government housing, equipment, or logistical support)?

Now, regardless of the opinions of Answers in Genesis, who claims 'religious discrimination' for every slight, real or perceived, my initial question is did the Park Service apply their evaluation criteria on Snellings proposal?  And, according to Exhibits (Here's a link to the 115 page pdf file), it looks like they did.  Now the AiG is claiming that they made Snelling jump through hoops others didn't have to jump through, and I really don't care about that.  I am sure the rules are different for scientists who have a history with the Park and who have been approved multiple times.  The question for me is did they apply this criteria, and it sure looks like they did.

AiG's complaint seems focused on a couple of things.  First off this criterion:

• Has the proposed research been peer-reviewed by recognized experts and recommended as scientifically valid? (copies of at least two peer-reviews must accompany the proposal)

Snelling submitted three peer reviews, but he and AiG seem to have a problem with the idea of 'recognized' experts.  Apparently the park Service rep, Rhonda Newton, didn't recognize the people who reviewed Snelling's proposal.  So instead of dismissing his proposal out-of-hand, she asked a couple of actual recognized experts the review it.  I would call that due diligence, but I am sure little kennie and Co. see it differently because they didn't get the answer they wanted.

The original three 'peer' reviewers were not only 'not recognized' experts, but were well-known creationists, as is Snelling himself.  The recognized reviewers had a number of things to say about 'creation' scientists that were certainly not very flattering.  The also addressed the fact that Snelling hasn't done much science since getting his degree back in 1982 . . . here's a quote:

With a pedigree like that, I am not surprised the proposal got turned down.  The other reviewer pretty much said much the same thing.  The last line "would not need to be done in the Grand Canyon" addressed something earlier in the review, about how the proposal's samples could be found at a number of other sites and didn't have to be done at the Grand Canyon.  Which means the proposal also failed on this criterion:

• Could the proposed research be performed outside of the park?

As a result, regardless of the opinion of the recognized reviewers of pseudo-scientists such as Snelling, the proposal was refused on grounds set in the evaluation criteria  Now if I had been the reviewer, I would have denied them for an additional reason.  According to the National Park Service website:

"A researcher must be an official representative of a reputable scientific or educational institution or governmental agency." (Science Research Permits).

Did Snelling qualify?  Well, it's kinda funny.  In his application there was no mention of Answers in Genesis.  Seriously, here is a shot from his proposal application:

Mailing address in Australia, international phone number for . . . Australia.  And yet the lawsuit is being brought forth from AiG in Kentucky?  And . . . buried in the Exhibits (page 86) is something different:

According to this Snelling does not live nor work in Australia, but Kentucky.  Gee, did he move suddenly?  I don't think so.  I think he was hiding his affiliation because he knew that AiG does not meet the requirement of being a "reputable scientific or educational institution or governmental agency".  AiG is a ministry, it says so on their own website:



But after being refused for failing to meet the evaluation criteria, suddenly his religious affiliation is important and becomes the basis for his lawsuit.  Does that sound a little funny to anyone else?

OK, let's sum up.  We have a proposal that seems to

• misrepresent the principle researcher affiliation with AiG,
• fails at least two of the evaluation requirements for a permit (lack of recognized expert peer review and samples can be obtained outside the park), 
• and whose stated agenda can be met from other locations.  

In addition, when his affiliation is uncovered it further justified a permit denial (because he's not part of a scientific, educational, or government agency), he's suing for religious discrimination.  Funny how the lawsuit happens right after a certain hamster-haired serial misogynist and liar signed an executive order that can be (mis)used to allow religious organizations be more discriminatory. Timing is everything!

Yea, that's how I see it, Trump gave them an inch and little kennie is trying to turn it into the universe.  If this wasn't happening in Kentucky I would assume the lawsuit would die a quick death.  But this is the state who let a government employee fail to perform her job in the name of her religion and the state that recently let a judge recuse himself from adoption proceedings involving gay parents -- even though it is legal in Kentucky.  So who knows what will happen?  Luckily the Grand Canyon isn't in Kentucky or the Governor would try and pander more voters by making an executive decision of his own.

Is there Really a War on Christians

Since I commented on this in a recent post "Growing and Disturbing Trend, Discrimination by Theists!", one of my friends asked about my opinion on the, often-mentioned in the press, the 'War on Religion . . . most often expressed as a 'War on Christians'.  In my opinion, I do believe that some people have gone way to far . .  for example wanting to remove "In God We Trust" from our currency or trying to mandate 'Happy Holidays' instead of, what has certainly become a secular holiday for most of us, 'Merry Christmas'.  I also think many theist go overboard on professing their faith, like the waitress who says "May Jesus Bless You." to all of her customers.  But what I do not agree with is that there is some sort of war on religion.

If you look at nearly every cry of "War on Religion/Christians", what do you see?  Very little taking away of a citizen's rights, but most often -- by a huge majority -- it is the taking away of an effort to force people other to conform to their beliefs.  Think it through.  What is wanted most often isn't to protect someone's actual religious freedom, but to demand special privileges for no other reason than their specific belief set.

Here's my take.  For decades religion has forced it's way into many non-religious aspects of our lives. For example, did you know that the phrase 'Under God' wasn't added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, almost 67 years after it was written.  "Blue Laws" are another example, you can argue about them all you want, their original purpose was using civil law to enforce a specific set of religious beliefs, beliefs not shared by all Americans!  If you dig a bit into the history of 'marriage', you might be surprised to discover that religions weren't originally a source of authority for granting marriages, that came along later in many cultures.

What I am trying to get at is that religion, and here in the US that means most often one variant of Christianity or another, has played a large part in all of our lives -- whether we share the beliefs or not.  The majority of what gets termed a 'War on Christians' isn't taking away any of their rights, but removing their ability to force other people to share their beliefs.

You don't agree?  OK, explain how Kim Davis' refusal to put her name on a legal document infringes on her religious beliefs?  You can give it all the energy you want, but all you are doing is rationalizing her behavior.  She had a job and she refused to do it, claiming some sort of special privilege because she disagrees with gay marriage and citing her narrow-minded religious beliefs as an excuse.  You may sell yourself on your rationalization, but you can't sell it to me.

I've read all her excuses and the comments from the pandering politicians and other theists who want to hold her up as a symbol.  None of it means anything!  She wanted, and still wants as far as I can tell, special privilege to not do her job when she disagrees with something and Kentucky let her get away with it.  If the Governor had any balls, she would have stayed in jail until she was relieved of her duties and then removed from office following proper procedure.  It would have been because of her refusal to do her job . . . not her religious beliefs.

Find me another example, just one, where the 'war' wasn't a demand for some special privilege.  I haven't been able to find any.  Removing the 10 Commandments from public buildings seems a bit extreme, but if out government organizations are supposed to be blind when it comes to supporting one faith over another, maybe it shouldn't have been there in the first place.

So what exactly is the 'war', I see it as an excuse.  Christianity, and most organized religions, are on the decrease.  There is a myriad of reasons, but people don't seem to handle the myriad of reasons all too well . . . so they pick on one or two and blame everything on that.  Plus religious leaders, like political leaders, like to polarize their followers by pointing at something or someone to blame.   Look at the number one reason cited often, gay rights . . . so the highly publicized sex scandals, the demographic changes of our population, the increase in cross-religious marriages, the higher education, and the stand of many religions on nonsensical positions (like evolution and birth control) has nothing to do with the decline, it's all the fault of the one group of people who are doing nothing more than demanding for the same rights as everyone else!  (source)

Funny you don't see LGBT advocates asking for special privileges, you see them demanding the same rights as every other citizen.  In fact when you look back at the Civil Rights Movement and even going back to the Suffragettes of the early part of the 20th century, what you see is not a request for special privileges, but a demand for the same rights as other citizens.  I believe that's why those movement were ultimately successful, because no matter how you dress it up, denying any group of citizens the same rights as others is eventually found to be illegal and Unconstitutional, as it should be!

But that's not true of the religious 'war' hawks.  They don't want the same rights, they demand special privileges and are using this artificial persecution as one of the means for getting it.  They want the right to scoff at public law and use their religion as a basis for discrimination, like Kim Davis.  They want the ability to pick and choose their clientele based not only on their religion but on the religion or sexual preference of their potential clients, like Masterpiece Bakery.  It's one thing to make decisions based on legal areas . . for example a bartender who refuses service to someone already inebriated.  But it's another thing to refuse service because of a different religion, sexual orientation, race . . ..

Why am I picturing students being assigned to certain college classes because the professor doesn't want to teach LGBT students because of their religion?  How about a professor who refuses to teach women or minorities?  I'm sure you can scare up a religion that will let you justify that.

The bottom-line for me is that as soon as you hear someone claiming a war on their religion . . . look at what they trying to do.  Odds are excellent that what they are asking for is not a protection of their rights, but the requirement to force other people to conform to their beliefs.  That's not Religious Freedom, that path leads to tyranny!

Growing and Disturbing Trend, Discrimination by Theists!

You know for all the talk about a war on Christians, what about the war by Christians?  Do businesses and government officials have the right to refuse service because they share a different religious tradition than potential customers?

Of course the biggest example is Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to sign marriage licenses because they couples didn't meet her personal idea of marriage.  But this seems to be a new trend.

Lawmakers in many states are pushing for laws to protect people when they discriminate based on their religion . . . no, let's be real . . . These are laws designed to protect Christians who object to issues like gay marriage, contraception, and any issue their religion claims is wrong . . . regardless of the legality of such a position.  Lawmakers are pandering yet again . . . and of course without thinking things through.  In my opinion they are trying to set religious beliefs above civil law. One problem is there is no actual definition for what is a religious belief and what is not.  So what I see happening is not just more Kim Davis', but many businesses refusing service for any list of reasons and claiming a religious exemption from the law.

The bottom line question is should undefined religious beliefs superseded civil law?  I did use the word 'undefined', but it really isn't necessary.  Imagine the arguments trying to codify religious beliefs and identify which ones allow discrimination and which ones do not.  It would be a lawyer-ing heaven and a nightmare for the rest of us.  One of my issues is we already have a system in place to insure one group isn't able to discriminate . . . it's called the law.  But Christians want to scoff at the law, claiming their belief set serves a higher purpose.  I have said it before and I will say it again.  If your religion demands that you discriminate against other people, you are supporting the wrong religion!  If you disagree with gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same gender!  It's that simple.  But there is nothing legal of being able to force your beliefs onto other people, which is exactly what Davis did and more Christians want too.

In some ways I almost want one of those bills to pass and then have someone from another religion, say Muslin, and use their religion to perform some formerly illegal act of discrimination . . . and watch the fur fly!

Here's an another example, during the recent Ark Park opening there was a group of people protesting against the ark park, something they have a perfectly legal right to do!  In an effort to be prepared, they commissioned Five Star Septic and Portable Toilet Rentals for portable toilets to be sent to the July 7 demonstration. The rental company agreed, but on the day of the demonstration they asked the protesters representative if the toilets were for protesters. Upon learning that they were, the Freedom From Religion Foundation says the rental company denied service.

Now the parent company has issued an apology, but the fundamental question is did that company have the right to refuse service based on the fact it was protesters against a pseudo-religious mockery 'replica'?  I put the 'replica' within single quotes because you cannot be a replica of a fictional boat.   I'm picturing a florist showing up at a wedding and seeing it was a gay wedding taking their flowers and going home.  Where is the line drawn?  A clown who makes a living performing at children's parties joins a religion that specifies minorities as a lesser status.  Can the clown refuse service?  Do you think I am stretching the truth here?

There are already religions that put women in a subservient position, imagine the lawsuits when a manager refuses to promote a woman because that might put her in a supervisory position over men! But these laws may allow them to get away with just that!  Now the glass ceiling may have a religious layer added to it!

You think we have a lot of religions now, just wait until some folks realize if they codify their prejudices into a religion, they can get away with just about anything.

As you can tell, I am against this whole thing!  Civil law is the ONLY place that should govern the behavior of all citizens and it should address those things common to all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs.  In areas where religious beliefs may come into contact with civil law, like Kim Davis, you have a choice . . either uphold the law regardless of personal discomfort . . . or resign your position!  Allowing any one religion to overturn civil law is a huge mistake, but one politicians are willing to make if it means a few more votes in their pocket.

This is going to get even uglier before it gets much better, but it's a fight we need to win or each and every person in this country is in danger of becoming a second class citizen every time they run into someone of a different religion.  We'll start seeing aisles in supermarkets marked by religion because some religions are uncomfortable handling certain food items.  At the motor vehicle registration department I can already see two lines, one for men and one for women because some religions don't believe women should be allowed to drive so therefor any clerk who supports that religion shouldn't be made to serve women!  Will we start seeing even more segregated schools again?  Public schools based on religion?

Where can you draw the line?  I don't think you can, but pandering politicos won't tell you that because they are less interested in civil rights, but in votes to keep themselves in power.

The 'Ark Park' is not an Educational Institution! Nor is its purpose Recreational or Historical!

Make no mistake about it, in kennie ham's own words, his 'Ark Encounter' is a ministry, nothing more and nothing less.  He said it back in 2011 when he posted for one of his earliest Ark Park job openings:

The first paragraph of the Summary section is a little hard to read, here is what it says:

"Our work at Ark Encounter is not just a job, it is also a ministry. Our employees work together as a team to serve each other to produce the best solutions for our design requirements. Our purpose through the Ark Encounter is to serve and glorify the Lord with our God-given talents with the goal of edifying believers and evangelizing the lost."

Those are his words, not mine.  I just added the underlining for a little emphasis. Back a couple of weeks ago, kennie wrote this about the reasons he built his ark:

"Yes, our motive is to do the King’s business until He comes. And that means preaching the gospel and defending the faith, . . ."

So when you think of his ark park, in fact when you think of his pseudo-museum as well, you have to think an incredibly narrow Evangelical Christianity viewpoint and, most certainly, a ministry.

That being said, should public school students visit either his ark park or his pseudo-museum on school trips?

Let's ask it a slightly different, but more accurate way.  Would you support your local public school making a school trip to a Catholic Church for Mass? 

Of course not!  Don't get annoyed for me picking out the Catholic Church, I figured it was better to have a specific religion in the question, because that makes a much better analogy to Ham's places of worship.  So why would you send them to ham's church to be preached at?  That's what it is, isn't it? It's a ministry for preaching the gospel.  Plus, if you have ever visited his pseudo-museum you know it's not even the gospel of Christianity, but it's the gospel according to kennie ham.

OK, as reported over on The Panda's Thumb, "Atheist group warns public schools against field trips to Ark Park …", the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) sent a “warning” to more than 1000 school districts in Kentucky and neighboring states, advising them against field trips to the Ark Park. Of course, kennie had to respond . . . nothing really unexpected.  But what bothered me was how he tried to re-label his ark park . . . here is a quote:

"To repeat: as long as a school trip fits an educational, recreational, or historical purpose, for example, it would be constitutionally appropriate."

So, instead of being a ministry, now he is claiming educational, historical, and recreational purposes? Do you, or anyone, actually believe a visit to ham's ark park or pseudo-museum has a purpose that is educational, recreational, or historical?  Seriously?  Look at his original purpose, "edifying believers, evangelizing the lost, preaching the gospel and defending the faith."  Again, his words, not mine.  He's a garden variety preacher, selling his religion, and gets really whiny when anyone reminds him of that.  If he hadn't spent other people's money to build this monument to his own ego, he would have a revival tent somewhere.

He not only has a license to discriminate against Kentucky workers who don't share his religious beliefs, now he wants public schools to fund trips to his ministry so he can market his incredibly narrow set of religious beliefs to students, claiming educational -- of only his personal religion, historical -- of a flood that has no evidence of actually happening, or recreational -- people always have so much fun being preached at, don't they?

I have said it before and I have to say it again.  Kennie Ham's idea of religious freedom is not based on the Constitution, not matter he claims, nor is it based on even the idea of actual religious freedom.  He doesn't want anyone to have the freedom to believe as they wish, he demands that everyone believe as he does!  And if you don't wish to give him the opportunity to preach to school children, he calls you an 'antireligious zealot'.  Zealotry, bigotry, and discrimination seem to be the hallmarks of kennie and his ilk, not those who don't wish to give him free reign in his preaching.

I hope public schools keep as far away from his religious zealotry as possible.  Even if you share some of his beliefs.  A visit to one of his 'edifices to himself' isn't to share your common ground, but so he can tell you how wrong you are because you don't share all of his beliefs, narrow as they are

Good luck Kentucky!  You let him build this foolishness in your state.  The question I have is are you going to continue to support it, especially after giving him a license to discriminate?

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

A couple of stories caught my eye, one from the Discovery Institute and the other from the Facebook posts of one of the all too many Christian Evangelistas.

The one from the DI is almost funny, if it wasn't so pathetic.  Many times in the past I, and many others, have watched the DI use tactics that on the one hand they claim to abhor, yet are perfectly willing to use the tactics themselves.  For example claiming that scientists are discriminating against Creationists when the reality shows that it's not discrimination for getting fired (or not receiving tenure) when you refuse to do your job.  Or claiming that they cannot get published in mainstream scientific journals because of some hidden conspiracy -- when they aren't even submitting to mainstream scientific journals.  My personal favorite is scream discrimination when someone like David Coppedge or John Freshwater get fired yet when a Christian school fires a science teacher for teaching actual science, why aren't they screaming discrimination then?

You see, they have a habit of using disreputable tactics while frequently accusing the opposing side of using those same tactics, regardless of lack of evidence of their opposition actually using those same tactics.  So I want to talk to you about religious indoctrination for a moment and then get back onto the DI's back.  When does religious indoctrination start?  Well in most cases it starts pretty much at birth.  Children are exposed to the religious traditions of their parents.  Examples include baptisms, confirmations, bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs  . . . the list is pretty endless.  Children get quite seeped in it, various schools like Catechism classes, Jewish life classes, and many other religious themed community events geared toward children.  And yet . . . if anyone dare suggest science classes at an earlier age, the cries of 'brainwashing' get thrown around immediately.

Back to the DI, and their Evolution 'news' and Views site, "Evolution in Kindergarten: Now Brought to You by the National Science Foundation".  Now, the accurate part of the post is that the National Science Foundation  has awarded a grant (http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1561401) designed to address a fundamental problem in education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education, that natural selection is one of the most misunderstood biological processes.  Now, wouldn't you think an organization like the DI, who make public claims about wanting to improve the education of our young, would support such efforts?  But no, the DI calls it brainwashing and are dead set against it!

Anyone else see the problem here?  It's OK to start kids down a religious path from birth, but the very idea of correcting an identified problem with an important part of biological study is considered brainwashing?  Like so many other times, it's a case of 'Do as I say and Not as I do!"  They, and other religious organization, want, and in my opinion, need to start on kids when they are young.  The very idea of teaching real science at a younger age is the equivalent to brainwashing?  Seriously?  Remember this is the group who supports some Ohio teachers who wanted to inject Intelligent Design into the science curriculum back in 2004 and who have developed whole lesson plans for teaching ID to pretty much any age group.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qcQR0psc44s/maxresdefault.jpg)

I've said it before.  If we don't let children drive, drink, or vote before a certain age, they shouldn't be exposed to religion until that age either.  Haven't the dangers of religion been clearly identified over the years?  How much bigotry and intolerance have their root in the religious beliefs of the offenders, and how young were they when they started down this path?

---

The second one, and the one most egregious was identified to me by The Friendly Atheist (TFA), "Franklin Graham: Boycotting Companies Is Only Okay When I Say It Is".  In the article TFA posts copies of two of Franklin Graham's Facebook posts.  Here are the links to the actual posts if you want to read them yourself (Hobby Lobby post and Target post).  The comments are somewhat interesting too, but be prepared, especially if you do not know who Graham is.

In the first post he equates the boycotting of Hobby Lobby over their discrimination of employees because of the company owner's religious beliefs as:

" . . . calling for a boycott. Doesn't this sound like bullying, intolerance, and discrimination . . ."

In the second post he is promoting the boycott of Target stores because of their LGBT bathroom policy:

" I'm glad people are standing up and letting them know this is wrong."

If you're not familiar with Graham, don't worry.  Just think about any one of the Christians Evangelista that you are familiar with, and you'll get the picture.  I have trouble telling any of them apart.  They want to tell me how to live and to make me pay them for the privilege of telling me how to live.  I prefer the John Oliver discussion on televangalistas:

But as to the subject at hand . . . to me this is another example of 'Do as I say and not as I do'.  Boycotting Hobby Lobby is bullying, intolerance and discrimination . . . but boycott Target because it's the right thing to do, according to Graham.  Of course you see the difference, Graham agrees with Hobby Lobby and disagrees with Target. 

Reminds me of when little kennie ham whined and cried about on of his pet creation 'scientists' getting sandbagged into a debate with an actual scientists just about a year after he did the exact same thing and sandbagged a scientist into debating him.  It was OK when he did it because a little "Lie for Jesus" is OK because it's for God, but it should have been criminal when the same tactic is used against him (Turnabout is fair play!).

Ethical Response to Creationist Activities

I am sure you are aware of a growing issue about providing goods and services for people who, for some reason, you don't like.  Whether it's based on religion, sexual orientation, race . . . or any other rationalization, it's basically a form of discrimination and most often, it's illegal.  People like that idiot down in Kentucky - Kim Davis - who refused to do her job and issue marriage licenses for gay couples, the bakery owner - Jack Phillips - who refused to supply a wedding cake for a gay couple, and little kennie ham who is discriminating based on religion when hiring folks for his ark park.  The issue at hand is when and where a business can draw a line . . . plus the very basic question as to whether or not they even have a right to draw such a line.

When it comes to government agencies, the line is drawn for them.  Which is why Davis went to jail when she refused to do her job.  It's why people like public school 'teacher' John Freshwater in Mt Vernon OH and got fired for failing to do his job of teaching science.  When it comes to government agencies, complying with the law makes it fairly simply especially when compared private businesses.  Oh, and yes, I do not put kennie and his ark abortion into the category of private business because he's been asking for state funds to help build and promote his latest ministry.  Once you take tax dollars, the line between private and public shifts quite a bit.  Of course, kennie wants tax money and still be able to discriminate against many of the people who might need a job in Kentucky.  He only seems to care about the people of Kentucky as long as they toe a line he sets.  I do so feel for my neighbors to the South, but they keep letting kennie get away with it, so I don't feel that badly.  I would mention reaping what you sow, but they might get annoyed at me using a Biblical reference to highlight their foolishness.

But private businesses have always had a variety of rules for refusing service.  Many times it's a legal concern, like serving alcohol to someone already intoxicated or selling cigarettes to minors.  In those cases the legal and potential liability concerns need to be considered for a business to refuse service. Dress codes are another one.  I am sure you have seen signs like 'No shoes, No Shirt, No Service'.  This might be casually expressed, but what they are applying is a consistent enforcement of a dress code for their establishment.  As long as they consistently apply it, and not use it as a way of discriminating against certain groups, it's perfectly legal.  There are many, many examples of how to  . . . and the only way to put this . . . legally discriminate against an individual.  I know if I show up at my favorite restaurant without shoes or a shirt, I am not getting in, simple.

So how do you deal with providing the service you are in business to provide when the customer is someone who you  . . . disagree with?  Not providing the service based on your opinion is usually the wrong answer.  It might open you up to varying degrees of legal action, as Jack Phillips discovered. While taking a stand for something you believe in is great in principle, having your stand cost you your business might not be a particularly intelligent thing to do, particular if the point of disagreement isn't a legal basis for refusing service.

The logical part of me says that if you are in business, refusing customers is a pretty foolish way to do business.  But, as I said, to some people want to place their personal religious beliefs ahead of business, like the Kentucky idiot or the bakery owner.  That's all well and good, but don't cry later because you were unwilling to deal with the consequences.  What you need to do is come up with a way that lets you do your business AND maintain your principles.  One business did just that.

As reported on the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) "A Slap on the Wrist for Creationism", RapidWristbands, a premier manufacturer of silicone wristbands, received an order from a Creationist organization for over 100,000 wristbands that said "Debunk Evolution".  Instead refusing the order, which apparently would have aligned with his principles, he took the order and donated the profits from the order to the NSCE, an organization dedicated to defending the integrity of science education against creationist assaults.

What a creative way of maintaining your business while sticking a thumb in the eye of Creationists. I'm certain the Creationist group that ordered the wristbands might object and never place another order with that company, but I don't think CEO Fiyyaz Pirani is going to lose any sleep over it.  In many ways, I would love to hear the reaction of the Creationists.

Now this is nothing but my opinion, but think about it.  If the company had refused the order, I am sure the Creationists would have been appealing to either the court of public opinion, or a more legal venue, about being discriminated against.  But RapidWristbands didn't discriminate, it's the Creationist reaction to what the company's subsequent action is that interests me.  If they announce that they won't be making any future purchases, wouldn't that make them the party doing the exact form of discrimination that they would have been accusing RapidWristbands -- if RapidWristbands hadn't fulfilled that order?  I know, I am reaching a little bit here, but this is not outside of the realm of possibility, even probability?

I mean, isn't that exactly what Kim Davis did?  She refuse to do her job and when held accountable, she claimed religious discrimination.  After all, she had to sign a document for gay people.  Why she might have actually had to converse with them!  Imagine the horror!  So in reality she was guilty of discrimination and deserved to go to jail!  I know they changed the rules to 'accommodate' her newly found religious sensibilities, but was that the right answer?  Accommodation?  Does she have the right to refuse doing her public sector job because of her religious beliefs?  I disagree!

But then I tend to disagree with discrimination in any form.  If she own a rental property and refused to rent to a gay person, she would have more significant legal issues than she had for refusing to do her job.  But again, reaping what you sow.  If Kentuckians are actually displeased with Kim, they will find ways to let her know.  But the more vocal ones seem thrilled with her belated discovery of her religious convictions.  So Kentucky will continue to pay her and allow her escape the consequences of her action, but that's on them.

I don't know what she could have done to deal with this situation more creatively, as did RapidWristbands, but I would like to think an honorable person would have made more of an effort to find an alternative.  In her case, I think I would respected her if she had simply resigned.  Just like I would have respected Jack Phillips (The baker mentioned above) if he had simply fulfilled the order and not let his own religious beliefs justify discrimination.  Any religion that not only permits, but encourages, the discrimination against another human being is not much of a religion, in my opinion. Religious Freedom is not the freedom to discriminate!  And people wonder why I have issues with organized religion.

For me, it's actually quite simple.  If I am against something, I do not do it.  I am against drinking and driving, so I don't do it.  If you do it, then be prepared to face the consequences of your actions!  I am not against abortion, but what that really means to me is that I have never and would never put a woman into the position of having to make such a decision based on an action in which I had a contributing role.  My role is not to force everyone to believe in what I believe in, just like I do not feel that anyone else should be allowed to force me to believe in what they believe in.  You want to be against homosexuality, then do not be a homosexual!  You want to be anti-abortion, then take no actions that results in the need to make that decision for yourself!  You don't want to comply with the law and issue marriage licenses to gay couples, then do not take a job where you have to issue such licenses.  You want to refuse to make cakes for gay couples, then quite making wedding cakes.  Don't preach, don't whine, don't try and use the law to avoid the consequences of your beliefs, simply don't be in a position where you use your beliefs to discriminate.

I hope RapidWristbands business jumps based on this publicity.  I think their response is ethical and one of the most honest responses to this whole question of where do you draw a line.  You draw it in your personal behavior, not in forcing others to toe a particular line you set for yourself.

Kentucky, Why Do You Put Up with This?

Caught this one from over on The Panda's Thumb blog, "The Ark Park is hiring".  You probably know the story.  Little kennie ham formed a for-profit business to develop his version of a Noah's Ark, he called it "Ark Encounters", I call it the ark park.  Well, the reason he formed this for-profit company was to take advantage of the taxpayers of Kentucky and get some level of financial support from them to promote his ministry . . . which violates the US and Kentucky Constitution. If you doubt that it's going to be a ministry, here's a quote from kennie himself:

Here is an image from the site where kennie originally posted ark park job openings:
 The pertinent part is that first paragraph, which might be a bit hard to read, it says (I underlined the interesting phrase):

"Our work at Ark Encounter is not just a job, it is also a ministry. Our employees work together as a team to serve each other to produce the best solutions for our design requirements. Our purpose through the Ark Encounter is to serve and glorify the Lord with our God-given talents with the goal of edifying believers and evangelizing the lost."

Along the way he promised that the Ark Park would be complying with all State and Federal laws for hiring, which include no discrimination based on religion.  How many actually believed him?  Anyone? . . .Bueller . . .Bueller?  Here is a quote from his own blog:

"The Ark Encounter has confirmed over and over to the state and media that it will carefully adhere to all applicable federal and state laws in hiring"

That fiction didn't last long.  Back in 2011 I blogged "Kentuckians, kennie ham is making a mockery of you!" describing the blatant religious discrimination that kennie was requiring of his Ark Park employees.  The State of Kentucky tried to do something about it, but just recently a judge sided with kennie.  I don't think Kentucky has given up, they are delaying the improvements for a nearby Interstate exit that would have made it easier for people to flock to the park.  But I don't think any politician is going to really take action, I think they are too afraid of the religious communities in their State -- which I find funny because most Christian Denominations do not agree with little kennie's narrow viewpoint.  But then politicians don't really care as long as they can pander for votes.

Do I sound cynical?  You bet!  You can read more about it at Panda's Thumb and you can also read this article, "Noah's Ark job float your boat? Then you must be Christian".  I really enjoyed this comment:

"Ham said the statement signed by future ark employees won't distinguish between Christian denominations."

So let's re-cap.  In order to get access to taxpayer funds, little kennie stated he would comply with non-discriminatory hiring practices.  He reneged on that!  Now, it sounds like he's softening the blow by saying his discriminatory practices will only target non-Christians, that his practices won't distinguish between the multitude of Christian Denominations.

A simple question, does anyone actually believe that?  Check out the first paragraph of Ham's Statement of Faith.

"In order to preserve the function and integrity of the ministry in its mission to proclaim the absolute truth and authority of Scripture and to provide a biblical role model to our employees, and to the Church, the community, and society at large, it is imperative that all persons employed by the ministry in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to our Statement of Faith, to include the statement on marriage and sexuality, and conduct themselves accordingly."

Does this really looking like it can encompass all of Christianity?  Let's not forget that most Christians denominations disagree with Ham and his narrow version of Christianity.  Here is another interesting quote from an AiG article "So You’re a Christian—Really?"

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control."

You know, that describes every gay Christian I know!  Somehow, I can't picture them getting accepted for a job at hammie's ark park.  Nope, just can't picture it.

Every time a bigoted 'Christian' opens their mouth, another Atheist is created!

In a recent post (Paul Nelson on Will Provine) I said the following:

"I have found Christians, as a group, to be remarkably close-minded, many quite intolerant, and still others as absolutely hateful."  

I am sure some Christians who read it disagreed with me, as is your right to do so.  But I wouldn't be too proud yet.  Take a look: "Shannon and Carmen Wampler-Collins apply for marriage license in Rowan County" and listen to the  . . . bigots  . . . in the background.  I can't even say what's running through my mind right now, it's making me sick!


I saw a picture of what was purported to be a sign outside of a church, I can't find the image again, but I remember the words:

"If you think your religion allows you to discriminate, you are doing it wrong!"  

These bigoted morons better hope they lose Pascal's Wager, because if they win, they are up hell's creek without a paddle! 

Ed Brayton's Facebook post

Ed Brayton had a great Facebook post:

"Everyone who supports Kim Davis and this notion that government clerks should be allowed to refuse to provide government services based on their "sincerely held religious beliefs" should have to answer a couple of rather obvious questions:
1. Would you take the same position if the clerk claimed a right to deny a marriage license to an interracial couple? This is not merely a hypothetical, this exact claim was made following the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v Virginia.
2. Would you take the same position if the clerk was Muslim and claimed a right to deny driver's licenses to women? Or a Quaker and claimed a right not to issue any gun permits because of their pacifism?

All of those examples are absolutely identical legally. They can't try to argue that those examples are different because God doesn't *really* oppose those things but he really does oppose same-sex marriage because the government cannot make such a distinction. And they damn well know it because if the government did try to make that distinction and declare that a belief other than Christianity is the only true belief and therefore the only basis for such an exemption, they would lose their minds over it.
As always, they are engaged in special pleading and will refuse to apply their arguments consistently and coherently. Because when they say they want religious freedom, what they really want is Christian privilege. They want Christians, and Christians only, and only their particular type of Christians in fact, to be allowed to violate the law at will."

Gay marriage is NOT an attack on Christianity, but the restoration of civil rights that should have never been removed in the first place! 

Someone needs to tell Ken Ham that Religious Freedom is not a license to Discriminate

I guess I will try, but I doubt he's listening.  He's all about discrimination!  Didn't he once blame discrimination on Evolution?  I'll have to find the reference, but I recall kennie blogging something about witnessing discrimination in the 70's and feeling horrified, of course he never mentioned anything about it until recently when he jumped on the DI bandwagon and started blaming discrimination on Darwin.  But now we all know, religion is the cause of discrimination.

Little kennie ham just had to weigh in on the Kentucky clerk situation, what a shock.  I'm not going to link to it, mainly because do you really need to read it?  You know what he's going to say.  I haven't read it yet, but I did see the title "Another Religious Freedom Case in Kentucky".  Is this case really about religious freedom?  In a way, but I doubt in the way kennie treats it.

Historically, kennie has been trying to sell the idea that the whole world is turning against Christians and any time anyone says anything negative, it's an attack on Christianity.  I have several issues with that.  First of all, kennie and his minions [not the cute yellow ones] do not represent Christianity.  They are a small, but vocal, sect of Evangelical Christians that I prefer to call 'Hamians', mainly because they certainly do not reflect Christianity in much else but name.  Another issue is with his idea of religious freedom, and I have said this several times, in my opinion he defines religious freedom as:

"The freedom for me [kennie] to believe as I wish and the freedom to make you believe as I wish as well."

That, to me, is not religious freedom.  I have been to the Creation Museum, I have been on AiG's site for years.  I have laughed hilariously as Kentucky finally wised up to what kennie has been up to with his discriminatory hiring practices for the Ark Park.  Everything he does is designed to force the rest of the world to his viewpoint, whether we want to or not makes little difference to him.

I am sure you know about the Kentucky clerk, Kim Davis, who refused to give marriage licenses to gay couples because it was against her religion -- she refused up and just today went to jail.  She also ordered the other clerks not to do it because it was against HER religion, obviously their religion beliefs do not matter to her.  She was not jailed for her religious beliefs, but for contempt of court for her refusal to do her job as ordered.  You can find many links to this all over news sites.

You can probably guess my take on it.  She was voted into office to be the clerk, she was not voted into office to practice her religion.  It is illegal for her to use her religion as a reason to discriminate.  The clerkship is an office, not a person.  She has no right to discriminate!  She isn't issuing marriage licenses for herself, but for the county.  She should have resigned her position -- that would have made this a matter of principle -- and while I would still disagree with her and her principles, I would at least respect her.  As it is, I don't think she deserves any respect, and whoever is giving her legal advice even less.  But I bet kennie just loves her, I wonder how many times she'll be speaking at his 'museum' once she's released.

Actually kennie didn't have much to say, but he did try and sneak something in, did you catch it?  It's right in the title:  "Another . . .", what does he mean by 'another'.  What he did at the end of his little commentary was put a plug . . . oh here, you read it, I added the underlining:

"I also encourage you to learn more about a religious liberty case involving AiG and our Ark project that we have filed against the state of Kentucky."

Yes, supposedly kennie and his crack legal team are suing the State of Kentucky to get the state sales tax exemption back after Kentucky pulled it following the notice of his discriminatory hiring practices.  I've posted about it here, here, and also here.  In a nutshell, kennie had some help from Kentucky after promising to follow state hiring practices because the ark park wasn't a non-profit ministry.  Then after posting job openings that were discriminatory, blatantly discriminatory, the state pulled their support.  Little kennie is claiming the state is discriminating against him and wants his exemptions back.

You know, now that I see both issues side-by-side so to speak, I can see the parallels, no wonder kennie loves the clerk.  She discriminates and when held accountable, claims her religion as her shield.  He did exactly the same thing!  She took an oath to perform her duties, and kennie promised abide by state hiring practices.  She went to jail and kennie went . . . well . . . to a lawyers office to sue.  OK, the parallels only go so far, but it is interesting.

It will be 'fun' when he comes back from inflicting his point on view on Northern Ireland and hear what he says about her being in jail.  My only question is will he put her up for sainthood or martyrdom?  I do predict kennie will make an analogy of Jesus on the cross and the clerk in her jail cell.  Only time will tell.

Here is an interesting editorial cartoon:

Here a Victim, There a Victim, Wouldn't you like to be a Victim too?

One of the popular, and yet deplorable, tactics in use today is 'Victimization'.  It works very simply, you paint yourself up as a victim and then do your best to reap the rewards of your victimhood.  Frequently the rewards are a more positive public opinion or a gathering a like minds to pat you on the back and commiserate your victimhood.  Why I find this deplorable is that it's often used by people who are not the victim in the least.

I'll use two cases in point, the first is the Discovery Institute.

In the case of the DI, they like to complain that they are being discriminated against by the rest of the scientific community.  First I do have to question whether or not they are actually part of the scientific community.  I have made my feelings quite clear that I place them squarely within the religious community, very near other conservative Christian Groups.  But be that as it may, do they have difficulty finding acceptance within the scientific community?  They certainly do!  However, are they the victims of discrimination?  No they are not!.

There are standards within the scientific community that the DI refuses to measure up to.  These standards revolve around the methodology used to perform scientific work.  Refusing to perform to those standards doesn't make you a victim of discrimination, it does make your whines and complaint exactly what they are, whines and complaints.  The scientific community has been resistant to any number of pseudo-scientific ideas, and justifiable so.  I don't see any Astrologers whining about discrimination, do you?  The DI claim some very specific examples like:

• Richard Sternberg
• Caroline Crocker
• Michael Egnor
• Robert J. Marks II
• Guillermo Gonzalez

The story they spin doesn't seem to be well-related to the reality of what happened, as you can tell if you follow the links for each one.  Anyone see any actual discrimination?  No, what you see is people disagreeing, people failing in their responsibilities, or people trying to associate an organization with a private concern.  Claiming discrimination when you are not the victim of discrimination is a tactic and nothing more.  Actual victims of discrimination find themselves fighting to even be recognized because of the flood of phony claims of discrimination.

OK, enough about the DI for a moment.  My other example is going to annoy some folks.  Conservative Christians are using the very same method for the very same reasons.  In this country we have been engaged in a long debate over LGBT rights, currently the right of gay people to get married.  One of the interesting analogies involves people refusing service to gay couples over religious reasons.  Just today on the radio I heard that a civil servant in Kentucky was refusing the give out marriage licenses to gay couples because of her religious beliefs.  I don't know if she has been fired, but she already has a lawyer and the lawyer is already crying 'Religious Discrimination'.  My question is this, is she a victim of religious discrimination if she is required to provide services to gay couples?  An analogy I have also been hearing lately goes like this:

"Should a Jewish baker be expected to bake a cake for a Nazi ceremony"

While it sounds simple enough, I think the conservative Christians are missing the point, or at least reversing the issue.  Should the gay community be compared to the Nazi's or should Conservative Christians be the Nazis in this little example?  I bet that comment pisses some folks off, but what I hope instead is it makes them think about it. 

When you look at the relationship of the Jews to the Nazi's who were the criminals and who were the actual victims?  When you ask a Jewish baker to provide a service, you are asking the victim to provide a service to their oppressor.  Is that the case of the religious public servant providing a service to a gay couple?

Look at the treatment of gays by Conservative Christians?  Look at the physical attacks, the claims of how evil and dangerous gays are, and how many time gays are accused of being child molesters.  How about 'conversion therapies' aimed at 'fixing' gay people.  Who is the actual victim and who is the oppressor here?  Do gays have a history of discriminating against Christians or is it the other way around.  And it's not history, it's current!  The discrimination goes on, especially when a public servant refuses service on the basis of her religious beliefs.  The clerk is the one doing the discriminating, gay couples are on the receiving end.


Conservative Christians like to claim there is an attack on Christianity in this country.  When their behavior is designed to refuse the same rights and privileges they take for granted to another group of US citizens, then they are right, it is an attack.  But it is one brought about by their own behavior and one they well deserve to lose.  It's not discrimination and they [Conservative Christians] aren't a victim!

In each case the real victims are the ones being painted in the negative light, yet it is the ones doing the painting who are claiming the mantle of 'Victim'.  Please give it some thought the next time you hear someone from the DI claiming that real scientists don't take them seriously, or someone who refuses to obey the law, particularly a public servant, who refuses to do their job because of their personal beliefs.  Identify who the real victim is, and it's not always the one claiming to be the victim!

A License to Discriminate

As much as I hate to admit it, little kennie ham made a point I didn't originally consdider . . . it was in his response to his many critics about using state funds/tax incentives for his ark encounter ministry.  I did address it in my post "Kentucky Common Sense Part III", but there was one angle I didn't give much thought, so here goes . . .

In his post he tried to compare his discriminatory hiring practices to two other organizations, the  Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and American Atheists.  Little kennie claimed how foolish it would be to force them to hire people who disagree with their basic philosophy.  And he tried to use that as justification for his continued discriminatory practices.  As I said in Part III, since those organizations weren't asking for state funds/tax incentives, kennie's comparison was meaningless.

Now, I want to address this from another angle, can a vegetarian be a butcher?

I know, it seems like a really tangential thing to consider, but look at the question.  Can someone who butchers, cuts, packages, and sells meat be a vegetarian?  The answer should be an obvious 'Yes' and an equally obvious follow-on 'but why would they want to'.  The 'yes' is because there is nothing that says a butcher has to eat meat to be able to do their job.  The follow-on is really because it's challenging to see a vegetarian even wanting such a job.  I know a number of vegetarians and I cannot imagine any of them wanting to handle raw meat.  One of them gets nauseous watching the scene in Rocky where he's punching slabs of beef and any myths in Mythbusters that use a pig carcass really grosses her out.  In fact the one where they put the pig carcass in a deep-sea diver suit and . . . never mind . . . if you haven't seen the episode it's really cool . . . apparently unless you are a vegetarian.

There is the thing that I think little kennie fails to realize, his discriminatory practices let him avoid hiring anyone for any position who doesn't already believe his particular brand of kool-aid.  But the real question is why would anyone who didn't already believe as he does want to work there?  His belief set would probably discourage people who didn't share it from wanting to work there, as I am sure not being an atheist might discourage people from wanting to work for the Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU)  or the American Atheists.  While the law doesn't allow the atheist groups to discriminate, it does allow kennie to discriminate because he's a non-profit religious organization.  Actually I take part of that back.  I am pretty sure not being an atheist might discourage people from applying to the American Atheist organization, but it might not discourage folks from the Americans United for Separation of Church and State.  I mean responsible theists might have an equal interest in the separation of Church and State, right?  That's more conceivable than a non-atheist wanting to work for an atheist organization or a non-Evangelical Christian pseudo-biblical literalist wanting to work for kennie.  OK, back to the topic at hand.

I would think that kennie should be more worried about getting qualified people to work for his organizations, but that's not kennie's way.  He wants to first make sure of their 'religious reliability' and any other skills they bring to the table seems to be a distant second.  Is such legal discrimination really necessary?  If he needed someone of my skills -- should my disagreement with his religious beliefs be an issue for either of us?  Makes me wonder if kennie follows the old Soviet Union policy of appointing political commissars to oversee military officers to insure their political reliability?  Interesting comparison, don't you think?  Anyone know if one of the additional duties in kennie's places of business is that of 'religious commissar'?  Probably not, but I wouldn't be surprised if anyone voiced opposition to kennie what the result would be.  You might think it far-fetched, but I still remember the warning signs and omnipresent security on my visit to the Creation 'Museum'!

To me this is an example of little kennie using the law to his own end.  I wouldn't want to depend on kennie for my livelihood, but the law makes it legal for kennie not to hire someone like me, regardless of my skills and expertise.

Let's look at another example, can a pacifist work for the Department of Defense (DoD)?  Since the DoD has a great many employees, I am sure some of them would consider themselves pacifists.  So can they apply for a job and be hired?  Certainly!  Would their pacifistic beliefs get them fired?  No, however if they practiced their beliefs in interfering with the mission of the DoD, those actions would probably get them fired.  Right up until the point they started acting in opposition to the mission of the organization, their beliefs were a moot point.

Can a butcher be a vegetarian?  Certainly, and their job would be secure as long as they continued doing their job.  But the second they refuse some aspect of their job because of their vegetarianism, their job would be in jeopardy . . . as it should be.  But it would be in jeopardy NOT because of their vegetarianism, but because they were refusing to do the job for which they were hired.

Remember Nathanial Abraham, the Creationist hired by Woods-Hole Oceanographic as an evolutionary biologist, who after being hired refused to perform something like 90% of his job because he didn't believe in evolution?  Yes, he got fired and sued, claiming religious discrimination, and his many complaints and suits failed to change anything.  He was fired for failing to do his job, not for his religious beliefs.

How about David Coppedge?  A Creationist who was let go during a staff reduction who also sued for religious discrimination and whose suit ended in his being embarrassed.  He could have been fired because he tried to use his job to influence the people around him with his belief set.  But the bottom line is he was let go due to downsizing.

And my favorite -- John Freshwater!  He was fired for his actions, not his beliefs.  His actions included using a electrostatic device to burn student arms with a cross, displaying a Bible and other religious materials in his classroom even after being ordered to remove them, and failing to teach the subject for which he was hired to teach.  Even the US Supreme Court decided his appeal wasn't very appealing.

So the question really becomes SHOULD little kennie be allowed to hire based on people's religious reliability?  I know it's the law, but I think it's a ridiculous law.  When it comes to certain jobs, maybe, but not carte blanche.  A minister certainly should have the belief set of the people he will be ministering, for the most part -- although you could argue against that using military chaplains as a good example.  A fighter pilot should be willing to pull the trigger . . . these are examples of specific jobs where beliefs can impact the performance of the job!  But an accountant or a CAD designer?  What difference does their belief set have in the ability to perform their duties?  That's where I think kennie is stretching his discriminatory hiring practices past the breaking point and maybe it's time to change the law.  I'm sure kennie would say something like he's just protecting people from themselves, after all who would want to join an organization that might make them feel less than welcome or in any way uncomfortable.  I think it should be the individual's choice, not an institutional mandate.  If I am able and willing to do the job, my personal beliefs shouldn't matter -- unless they are central to performing the job!

No one should have the ability to discriminate in job requirements that have nothing to do with the ability to perform the job!  Little kennie should allow the very fact of working for organizations like his ministries discourage would-be job applicants, but he should not be given a license to discriminate!