Religious Beliefs vs. Personal and Professional Responsibilities

This has been a recurring theme in this blog, and in many other places.  In a recent post (Let's Rename the Discovery Institute to the 'Re-writing History Institute'), I tried to make this clear, at least my own position, but I decided to really lay out my thinking on the subject.  In that post I said:

"In my opinion, religious beliefs do not trump personal and professional responsibilities."

Let's expand upon that for a while.  When I use the phrase 'personal and professional responsibilities', what I mean is that as one goes through life, one assumes various responsibilities, for example:

• By accepting a job, you accept the requirement to perform specified duties.  
• By signing up for a college course, you accept the requirement to perform assignments and participate in the activities of the class.  
• When you get married you accept a number of responsibilities, too many to list in this short paragraph.  
• When you enter into a personal relationship with someone, there is a certain amount of give-and-take as the two of you define many of those responsibilities.  
• Becoming a parent, by deliberate choice or not, you have an even longer list of responsibilities, all revolving around the care and development of a new life.

You assume these responsibilities through specific actions of your own, YOU decided to attend school, YOU decided to accept a job offer, YOU decided to enter into a relationship, YOU decided to have children . . . while I know some folks who didn't make that particular conscious decision, they still took the actions that resulted in childbirth.  Whatever the reasons, you made these decisions, and many more, and each and ever one of them came with a set of personal and/or professional responsibilities.  Sometimes those responsibilities conflict and overlap, and part of your life is always spent dealing with them.

Now why do I separate Religious Beliefs from personal and professional responsibilities?  While many would lump them into 'personal', and I am sure you can make an argument for that -- I want to focus on them in a different light because religious beliefs can, and do impact many other decisions because for many people it's part of their decision-making criteria.

For example selecting a college, many people elect to attend a non-secular school because the school aligns with their religious beliefs.  Personal relationship criteria is often based on religion, as in not dating or marrying someone who didn't share the same religious faith.  While it is only one of the possible sets of criteria, it is one of them commonly used.  I worked with someone years ago who was single . . . and enjoying it to the fullest, including the late 1970's Sexual Revolution.  However for all the women he was involved with, he would not consider marrying a single one of them unless they were Jewish!  That was an absolute hard-line for him.  He dated, had sex, had three children that I knew of . . . yet refused to consider marrying any of the mothers of his children because they didn't share his belief set.  I'm not trying to pass judgment on his behavior, simply offering it as an example of how religious beliefs are often used as a decision criteria.

My issue revolves around what do you do when your religious beliefs conflict with already accepted personal or professional responsibilities.  My position is simply, your personal religious beliefs should in no way come before your personal and professional responsibilities!

So let's look at a few examples, like college.  If you do not want to learn subjects that conflict with your religious beliefs, then go to a school that is also based on those beliefs.  If you go to a public school, you do not have the right to force the school to comply with your beliefs.  That's what I am talking about with this conflict between personal responsibilities and religious beliefs.  Imagine a Catholic student in a Muslim school demanding the school support their belief set!  I know, I know, the immediate question is why would a Catholic go to a Muslim school in the first place . . . but you can ask the same question about why an Evangelical Christian would attend a public school and then demand the school let them opt out of classes that disagree with their religion?  Yet that seems to happen all the time.

Personal relationships are like that as well.  People of different religious beliefs, and even the same religious beliefs can come into conflict over those beliefs.  Yet people manage to overcome those difficulties regularly.  Those that cannot, end those relationships in one manner or another.  They say breaking-up is hard to do, but hopefully you learn the lessons and carry them into your next relationship.

Having children is a huge set of responsibilities, and the news has frequently cited examples of where parents caused actual harm, and even death, to their children in the cause of complying with their religious beliefs.  Children haven't yet had the option of accepting any set of religious beliefs, so forcing their compliance on the parents belief set seems more than a bit unfair, and in many cases deadly for the children.  I've stated many times that children shouldn't be even exposed to religion until they are over 18.  After all, they can't vote, drink alcohol, or join the military, so they should get to examine the options and elect once they know what those options are.

When it comes to professional responsibilities, when you accept a position, you also have to accept the responsibilities that come along with it . . . all of them!  If there are responsibilities that you cannot accept due to your religious beliefs . . then do not take the position!  If the responsibilities change while you are in the position and the new ones conflict with your religious beliefs . . . then you have a choice to either suck-it-up and do the job or resign your position and go find something else to do.

Now I mentioned this recently to someone when that Kentucky Clerk decided to put her religion ahead of her responsibilities and they immediately brought up an example of what if your responsibilities involved killing.  My response was that now you are talking beyond religion and into legalities.  Being a policeman or a member of the military may well involve the taking of a life, those acts, when done in accordance with the law, are not illegal.  Any other form of killing is illegal and needs to be be dealt with.  Legal issues aside, what I am talking about  specific examples where people allowed their belief set interfere with their responsibilities, like:

• Kim Davis from Kentucky
• Nathan Abrahams and Woods-Hole Oceanographic Institute
• Catherine Crocker and George Mason University
• Richard Sternberg and Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
• David Coppege and Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL)

Each and every one of them put their religious beliefs ahead of their professional responsibilities, and they aren't the only ones.  In these cases, they made their stand and were held accountable to one degree or another.  The Discovery Institute (DI) and others like to hold these names up as example of some sort of religious persecution, but the reality is their religious views weren't the ones being violated, they were trying to use their religious views to violated the rights of others and then using their religion as a shield to allow them to discriminate against others.

That's why I consider religion to be one of the most dangerous forces on Earth.  It is incredibly divisive.  While some religions pay lip service to religious freedom, their acceptance of most other religions is one of tolerance rather than acceptance.  Most think the idea of religious freedom is one that protects them while they use their religion as a license to discriminate against those who do not share their beliefs.  I wholeheartedly disagree!  

Bottom line, is that religious beliefs are personal beliefs.  No one has the right to force those beliefs on anyone else, adult or child.  If personal or professional responsibilities conflict with  religious beliefs, then either take care of those responsibilities in spite of the beliefs or get out of the situation.  Resign from a professional position, get out of a personal relationship, even if it means giving a child up for adoption . . . which in my mind is certainly better than refusing them needed medical treatment because of religious beliefs . . . the child doesn't end up dead and the parent doesn't end up in jail.

While people like to say things like God, Country, Family . . . the exact order needs to be a bit more fluid.  But of the three, I would place religious responsibilities far in the back, well behind personal and professional responsibilities.  I know there are many who will disagree!  Personally I cannot imagine any deity worth following having a problem with someone accepting and handing their responsibilities.  There are so many different belief sets, that to try and follow them all would be insane.  Yet every time a theists asks for a religious exemption, that's exactly what they are trying to do, build a system that not only supports their belief set, but allows them the ability to force their belief set onto others.

I look at things a little more . . . well  . . . black and white.  When you accept personal and professional responsibilities, you make a commitment.  You made the choice, now you should live up to them.  If your religious beliefs will not allow you to carry out those responsibilities . . . then do not accept them.  Don't take the job, don't enter the relationship, and above all else, do not have a child.  But once you accept those responsibilities, then accept them fully and carry them out!  If you cannot, or will not, carry them out, then what you are is a liar and using your religious beliefs as an excuse for lying is contemptible.  Clear enough for you?

Why would the Discovery Institute call it 'Censorship'

A few hours ago I posted "Is anyone actually censoring the Discovery Institute?", a post about how no one is actually censoring the Discovery Institute (DI), just presenting an opposing view.  One of my acquaintances read it and dropped me a line that asked "If they aren't being censored, why do they call it censorship?"  Rather than answer it in an email, I am going to address it in a post.  I do highly encourage people to leave comments instead of emails.  That way we can have an exchange in the open.  But that being said, why in the world would an organization like the Discovery Institute call opposition censorship?

Simple answer, it's all about perception.  You see if the DI complained about someone, pretty much anyone, airing an opposition viewpoint, people who call their complaining -- whining.  I mean how can you argue about an opposing view with any teeth in it and not come off as nothing but a whiner?  But . . . if you can build a perception that the person, or group, expressing an opposing view is doing something else, then you have a chance of gaining some level of public support.  So by categorizing people like Jerry Coyne and Neil deGrasse Tyson as censors, they are trying to create an automatic negative perception.  After all everyone knows censorship is usually considered a bad thing, right?

Actually this is a pretty common tactic.  I mean what negative activity of the last century and a half has the DI been trying to associate with Darwin and the Theory of Evolution?  How about all of them!  The obvious one is the association their pet pseudo-historians are always trying to sell is blaming the Nazi's, Word War II, and the Holocaust on Darwin and the Theory of Evolution.  After all, everyone knows the Nazis were bad, so if anyone buys into their bogus connection, it casts Darwin in a negative light.  Of course, it's all marketing.

But it's not just big things, last year in the post that awarded Tyson their 'Censor of the Year' award, they actually tried to blame a shooting in NC on the fact the shooter was an apparent atheist, actually calling him a militant atheist and reminded that he

" . . . is accused of murdering three Muslim students. Since the triple slaying is potentially explosive in an international context, social and other media are abuzz with analysis of the man's views on religion."

So therefore Atheism = violence, so being a theist is a good thing, right?   But . . . if you read the article giving that dubious honor to Tyson, why would an atheist who committed murder be a candidate for censor of the year?  They bring it up, but never support their supposed thinking.  What it looked like they were trying to do is make a connection between Tyson and his less-than-flattering comments during Cosmos about religion and violence done by an apparent atheist.  Did they address Tyson's comments about some of the negative impact religion and religious organizations have had on science?  No, it's easier to make a connection between Tyson and a murderer, you get more mileage out of that.  Even if they deny that was their intention, writing the post the way they did makes the connection for some people.

The DI are masters at Public Relations and Marketing.  Anyone who says something negative about the DI or Intelligent Design is automatically a target.  Do you remember little gem from 2006: "Canadian Quilters Attack Intelligent Design" from Evolution 'News' and Views and "“ID is a Myth” Quilt Wins National Contest" from Uncommon Descent.  Yes, a quilter . . . a single quilter did a quilt that made fun of Intelligent Design . . . and she is suddenly part of a cabal of Canadian Quilters who are attacking ID.  See my point?  They can't even allow someone to make a little fun of their pet version of Creationism without trying to gain some PR mileage out of it.  A humorous quilt is suddenly an attack!

That's why the DI calls Jerry Coyne and Neil deGrasse Tyson their 'censors of the year'.  It's because it offers them a PR opportunity.  Jerry and Neil did nothing that can be remotely called censorship . . . . unless you change the definition of censorship to the airing of an opposing view.  That's also why they complain about the lack of adoption of ID as an opposing view to evolution as a matter of free speech and academic freedom.  It has nothing to do with the lack of science supporting ID, no that wouldn't be something they can whine about.  But if they accuse people of denying free speech and schools going against academic freedom, they can market more and more.  The minor detail that no one is abrogating their right to free speech and that pseudo-science isn't covered under academic freedom having absolutely nothing to do with it makes no difference to them, it's all marketing.  There are plenty of examples:

• They want ID to be treated as a theory, so instead of doing any actual science, they simply market it as fait accompli and dare anyone to claim it's not a theory.  Of course they forget to use the definition of a scientific theory, but why let details get in the way of their 'reality'.  
• Guillermo Gonzalez doesn't get tenure at ISU and it must be because of his support for ID, not because he failed in his duties, again why bother with facts!  
• Nathaniel Abraham gets fired from his job as an evolutionary biologist can't possibly be because of his refusal to do his job, it must be because he supports Creationism/ID.  
• David Coppedge get fired as part of a downsizing and it must be because he supports ID.  His appeal and lawsuit denied because of him trying to use his workplace to force his religious beliefs on his co-workers and there were numerous complaints.  Again, facts . . . the DI doesn't need them!
• Can't get your pseudo-science published in real scientific journals, so just open your own journal and redefine peer-review to mean 'having a group of people who already agree with your religious ideas say nice things'.  The minor detail that real peer-review and your pseudo-peer-review have nothing in common matters not at all.
• Look at the recent debacle they are crying about, the United Methodist Church denying them a table at the UMC's General Conference, something well within their rights to do, especially given their support for actual science.  It's called a 'banning' in a multitude of posts on any site where the DI has influence.

Hopefully now you understand why the DI would call opposing views as censors.  A couple of last thoughts.  Since the DI hasn't been able, or apparently willing, to substantiate ID with anything resembling science, they have nothing other than marketing.  Which could also explain why they have so few scientists working there.  It's mostly lawyers and philosophers.

It also explains why when I read anything coming from a DI-related source, like Evolution 'News' and Views, I try and investigate the real source of the issues.  The DI has proven over and over again that they have no credibility when presenting anything that it will even resemble objectivity.  I mean Canadian Quilters on the attack?  Seriously!

Does the Pope really support Kim Davis?

Reported on Why Evolution Is True, "Pope implicitly supports Kim Davis’s refusal to grant marriage licenses to gays" the Pope made a few comments that appear to support the Kentucky embarrassment Kim Davis.  I think he messed up here!  Here is his comment:

"I can’t have in mind all the cases that can exist about conscientious objection … but yes, I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right."

Aside from the whole "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and give unto God what is God's" argument, let's look at this realistically.  The Pope just gave his consent for anyone who conscientiously objects to anything carte blanche to do whatever they want and cite their conscientious objection as justification.  While I would normally say something like 'he screwed the pooch', but I don't think that wording is appropriate for the Pontiff.  In any event, this is just too wide open, but I am sure someone will be mentioning it in a future case.

What's my objection to it?  I have no problem with a conscientious objector voicing their opinion, but what I have a problem with is their total freedom to avoid responsibility.  One example, obviously, is Kim Davis.  Her objection is noted, but does her objection give her the right to fail in carrying out her duties?  No it does not.  She should have quit her job, but that would require a certain level of moral courage.  But let's look at it from another point-of-view.  During coverage of the Kim Davis idiocy, the owner of a bake shop stated that he would not do a wedding cake for a gay couple because he felt it was against his religion.  Ladies and gentlemen, that's called discrimination and it sounds like the Pope just put his papal stamp of approval on it.  What's next, a racist who conscientiously objects to serving minorities?  A misogynist who refuses to provide a service to women? I had hoped we were past this foolishness, but I guess we are not.  We appear to have an infinite capacity to hate other human beings and are perfectly willing to use religion to foster that hatred through discrimination.

There are already laws in place to accommodate conscientious objectors, the military is an excellent example. But it is not left to the individual to make their own determination.  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.  Imagine trying to run a military based on the Pope's comments?  Or a fire department, police, or any government agency.  What about a business?  Does a business have a right to discriminate based on the business owner's religion?  Up until recently the answer was no!  But everyone now has papal approval.

Are my examples far fetched?  Then let's dial it back down a bit.  Should a parent be able to refuse a vaccination for their child on religious grounds?  Even knowing how that can affect not just their child, but the other children they interact with?  That's legal in two states, it will be interesting to see the illness rates of preventable diseases will be in the future.  How about refusing medical care for a child?  That happens much more often than it ever should.  Anyone who uses their religion to avoid their responsibilities is wrong, regardless of what those responsibilities are, whether it's issuing marriage licenses or raising children.

The Pope said when asked if this principle applied to government officials carrying out their duties, he replied:

“It is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right.”

Sure, a government official can object, but their objection doesn't give them the right to avoid carrying out the responsibilities of their office.  That's what we are talking about, not someone's conscience, but their responsibilities.  When the two are in conflict, you either carry out the responsibilities in spite of your objection, or you resign your position on principle.  If you cannot resign, as in the military, you can either carry out your responsibilities or be held legally responsible, just like anyone who refuses to do their job! 

Anyone else remember Nathanial Abraham?  How about Jean Camara? Nathanial was hired at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute as an evolutionary biologist.  AFTER being hired he revealed that his religion didn't believe in evolution so he couldn't 90% of his job.  After some efforts at negotiation, Woods Hole fired him.  He sued . . . he tried everything, but lost in the end.  Yes, he tried religious discrimination. 

Jean Camara is a new one, earlier this year.  Apparently he was hired by Costco as a cashier's assistant.  His religion said he couldn't handle pork or alcohol, even though he knew Costco sold such items.  Costco transferred him to wrangle the shopping carts in the parking lot.  Two weeks later he was fired for insubordinate conduct.  He's currently suing for  . . . wait for it . . . religious discrimination.

In both cases I think Nathanial and Jean are guilty of fraud, accepting a job knowing full well they were not going to be able to fulfill the job requirements.  Yet in each case accommodation was discussed and apparently rejected in some form.  Nathanial refused to accept 10% of his salary for only being able to do 10% of his duties, and Jean allegedly became insubordinate. 

But I guess the Pope might give each of them more ammunition.  Who's next Guillermo Gonzalez?

Jerry Bergman has a book out, should we care?

Has anyone read "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth about Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" by Jerry Bergman?

I've seen a few news releases on it, and so far it looks pretty much like re-warmed nonsense. His book is apparently, since I haven't read it, a long whine about how some folks -- starting with Jerry Bergman himself -- blame their own failures on prejudice and discrimination . . . yet have no actual evidence to back it up. I bet Guillermo Gonzalez, formerly of ISU, and Nathanial Abraham, formerly of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute are prominently on display. Funny how failure to meet the requirements of tenure (Gonzales) and failure to do the work you were hired to do (Abraham) probably won't be mentioned.

I wonder if Bergman will mention how each of them (Bergman, Gonzalez, and Abraham) had availed themselves of the appeal process and so far have failed. Wow, just looked up the author online, and it's funny. The article (Ohio scholar reports bias against 'Darwin doubters') says he has 9 degrees, yet the bio shows 5 -- wonder if he counts minors as a separate degree. Hmmm the bio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Bergman) also mentions how he was denied tenure because he claimed to have credentials in psychology when, in fact, he "had no psychological credentials." Gee, so it looks like, according to Jerry here, lying on your CV is synonymous with discrimination for religious reasons. I wonder if Jerry has been talking to Kennie Ham who also seems to think lying for God is OK.

I wonder if he talked to John Freshwater of Mount Vernon Ohio who not only got caught for teaching Creationism/Intelligent Design, but for burning a cross into student's arms. I will lay dollars on the line that he never discussed anything with Chris Comer who was fired for her job for doing her job. Stuff like that never seems to sink in to apologetics like Jerry.

On second thought I doubt Bergman has much new to say. If I see it around the Library I might read it . . .but I certainly won't be paying any money for it.

Just peeked at Leaf Cutter Press, the publisher. Funny how the article doesn't mention the CEO is Kevin Wirth, who is also behind the Access Research Network, one of the many anti-science organizations who claim to be impartial and objective . . yet never seem to be able to provide any viable scientific evidence for their position. Surprised Jerry didn't use the Discovery Institute Press.

A quick update on Nathaniel Abraham and Chris Comer

Remember Nathaniel Abraham? He was the Woods Hole Biologist who was fired when he refused to perform aspects of his job that related to Evolution because he didn't believe in Evolution. I originally blogged about him here in "How about another Firing". I also discussed him a little in "Abraham and Gonzales" and in "Coexistence II -- Liberty University", where he found new employment.

Why am I bringing him back up? Well I was looking back through a few older posts and realized that I hadn't caught any news on his lawsuit. You might remember that after failing to win an appeal before the Massachusetts Board that handles Discrimination complaints -- they found that Woods-Hole had a perfectly reasonable expectation that he would perform the job for which he was hired to do. Well after failing that, he stewed for a while and sued. Well buried in a few places was the notice that his suit was dismissed. To bad it was dismissed on a technicality, apparently he has a limited time-frame to sue, and he stewed about 9 months too long. He's probably working on an appeal, but I can't find anything on it. If anyone else hears about anything, please let me know.

Since I am updating the case of Nathanial, how are things for Chris Comer? She was the subject of my very first post on this blog, "Is Texas Stepping Backwards". She was the Texas State Science Curriculum Director who was FIRED for doing her job. She forwarded an email about a presentation by Barbara Forrest, co-author of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design and an expert witness in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Why was this a crime? Apparently the State Board of Education wants to remain neutral in the controversial issue of Intelligent Design/Creationism vs. Evolution.

Well it looks like she has availed herself of her legal rights and is suing. Not sure if/when the suit comes to trial, but I plan to keep my eyes open. Here is a link to the suit itself. It makes surprisingly interesting reading. From my take she is not interested in seeking damages , but she is interested in protecting the science education of Texas school children. She is specifically not asking for damages, her only monetary request is to cover her costs. The other remedies are all policy statements correcting the 'neutrality' policy and she wants her job back. She is one terrific person!

Coexistence II - Libery Univ

This is a follow-up to my Dec 9th post titled "Can Creationism and Science coexist in the same person?" For that post I was pretty optimistic, but now the other side rears its head.

I learned an interesting thing, Mr. Abraham who, as you may have read here, was fired by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute for refusing to perform evolutionary aspects of the job he was specifically hired for. He is currently suing the Institute because the State Board that listened to his complaint of being discriminated against because of his religious beliefs sided with Woods Hole.

If you read my previous posts on this issue, you know my stance. But where did Mr. Abraham end up? He's teaching at Liberty University, a Liberal Arts College in Va founded by Jerry Falwell. He's teaching biology of all things. Now according to the it's own website "All professors are dedicated Christians who affirm students in the faith, challenge them to grow spiritually, and encourage them to evaluate all things from a Christ-centered perspective. Each department is committed to an integration of faith and discipline, showing how Biblical presuppositions and a commitment to Christ govern research and teaching." Hmmm from the sound of that Mr. Abraham should be teaching Creationism along with Evolution. I wonder how he's handling those responsibilities?

Liberty professor Marcus R. Ross was featured in a report on creationism. Ross "believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe, and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old," but earned his Ph.D. in geo-sciences from University of Rhode Island with a dissertation about "the abundance and spread of mosasaurs, marine reptiles that, as he wrote, vanished at the end of the Cretaceous era about 65 million years ago. Hmmm just what are these people training their students to do? To be honest with you, I would describe this as a LIE! How does this man reconcile his beliefs, obviously he just lies about them when faced with scientific criticisms like those required for a PhD. Sure, that's real Christian!

This college also has a "CENTER FOR CREATION STUDIES: The Center for Creation Studies was established in 1985. The Center provides a course called “History of Life,” required of all Liberty students. Its purpose is to increase their appreciation of the rational basis of their
faith and to equip them to deal with the creation-evolution controversy."

I love the required of all Liberty students part, isn't that a trip! I don't see a CENTER FOR EVOLUTION STUDIES? I wonder if this is as one-sided as it sounds. My guess is yes, it's heavily leaning as far to the Christian Right as it can without losing accreditation.

Well after all that stage setting, here is my concern. I've said it about Michael Behe and I guess I can say it about Mr. Abraham. It is inconceivable that someone teaching biology would not be expected to deal intimately with evolution! Hiding your personal beliefs behind a college degree and using that same college degree to legitimize pseudo-science should be a crime. Apparently Liberty University also has a dinosaur fossil on display claiming it's about 3,000 years old -- That's not just bad science, that should be criminal behavior! Apparently, according to Wikipedia the school is "currently . . . looking for biology teachers with 'a young-earth creationist philosophy' . . . Furthermore, the school asserts 'there is now mounting evidence that man and dinosaurs did indeed live on earth at the same time' and says that 'the chances are good' that there were dinosaurs on board Noah's Ark." Hmmm What did Lewis Black say "These people watched the Flintstones thinking it was a documentary!"

I think Mr, or I guess I should call him Professor, Abraham has found himself an ideological home. I just hope he doesn't get fired for refusing to teach the evolutionary part of the curriculum -- because that wouldn't help his court case against Woods Hole.

Now the rest of us need to realize is that this school is affiliated with several medical schools and it's graduates may be your Doctor. I just hope they spent more time in Medical School dealing with the realities of Evolution than they did at Liberty. It does make you think!!!! I think a clue would be treating an infectious disease with 1950's antibiotics that real doctors know are no longer effective because the disease has evolved since then. I know I'll be looking at the sheepskins on my Doctor's walls a bit closer!!!

Abraham and Gonzales

I have a question for any Intelligent Design (ID) supporter who cares to answer me. This is a serious question, I am not trying to set you up for a fall. Now Professor Gonzales was denied tenure by Iowa State and he and the Discovery Institute is claiming he was the victim of religious persecution. Mr. Abraham was fired for refusing to perform specific evolutionary aspects of his job and he filed with the Massachusetts Commission on Discrimination (which was denied) citing discrimination for religious reasons. he has since filed suit again citing his firing was a denial of religious beliefs.

Now my question, how does the Discovery Institute, and Professor Gonzales reconcile religious grounds with their almost mantra-like denial that Intelligent Design is not a religious position? It's like with the right hand they are emphatically denying there is any connection between religion and ID and yet on the left hand if Intelligent Design played a part in Professor Gonzales' denial of tenure how can they claim religious persecution?

I don't know how an ID supporter will answer but I know how I see things. I am sure Professor Gonzales' support and activities concerning ID played a part in his denial of tenure, but as a contributing factor not as a reason. I believe he was denied tenure because he failed to fulfill aspects of his job as a tenure applicant. When you take a tenure position you know several things, first you know you are operating on the clock. Most organizations have a time frame for you to be granted tenure. This prevents any individual from holding a position for an extended period of time without progressing towards tenure. The Professor had seven years. Second there are specific requirements concerning graduate student adviser, research, and even bringing in external research funding. He had to have known of these things going in. According to the college he had one . . . ONE . . . graduate student complete his dissertation, published no significant research, and missed by a factor of more than 50 the same level of external funding brought in by his contemporaries ($22K vs $1.3M). Yes, his focus on ID did play a part, it prevented him from doing his job!

Mr. Abraham has a slightly different take, he has ,after all, expressed no support for Intelligent Design that I am aware. But I do believe his beliefs played a part in his being fired, but again as a contributing factor, not the reason. His beliefs led him to refuse to perform something like 90% of the job he was hired to do. His refusal is what brought on his being fired. Apparently Woods Hole offered to pay him for the 7-10% of his salary for the work that he was willing to perform, but he decided that wasn't good enough. Sure he wanted to get 100% of his salary for doing less than 10% of his job! Woods Hole isn't Welfare, Mr. Abraham! Yes, his beliefs played a part, but the reason he was fired was his refusal to perform the work.

Each side claims that they are the victim of religious persecution. I remember the case of several airmen in the United States Air Force who joined a religion that forbade them from taking orders from women. When a female officer gave them a lawful order, they refused to comply. In the end, despite cries of religious persecution they were discharged as being unfit for military service. I see the parallels even if the Discovery Institute and Mr. Abraham's lawyer refuse to.

Well so there you have my question and also my viewpoint. I am curious as to yours.

How about another firing

So far the score is one science curriculum director fired for doing her job and one professor denied tenure for not doing his. Notice the trend here?

Let's add to the trend. Mr. Nathaniel Abraham. a biologist was hired in 2004 at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. Later that same year he was fired because he refused to work on the "evolutionary aspects" of the National Institutes of Health grant for which he was hired, even though the project clearly required scientists to use the principles of evolution in their analyses and writings.

Now three years later he is suing because he feels his civil rights were violated and he was fired based on religious grounds. Now this isn't his first attempt at some sort of restitution. This article mentioned that "Abraham filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination in 2005. The commission dismissed the complaint earlier this year [2007], saying it would be challenging for Woods Hole to employ Abraham because of his request not to work on evolutionary aspects of the project."

Would you fire someone hired to be a butcher because they are a vegetarian and refuse to cut and package meat? Would you fire a doctor who refuses to see patients? I know I would get fired by my college for refusing to teach classes. I would expect it and so should Mr. Abraham! If an employer cannot fire someone who fails to perform required aspects of the job for which they were hired to do, what recourse do they have?

Apparently he didn't disclose his beliefs before being hired. Now I know Woods Hole didn't ask him his beliefs because that's not a question a reputable agency wouldn't ask. What I am sure they did is spell out the responsibilities of the position before he was hired. I say that for two reasons. I am pretty sure an Institute like Woods Hole would be trying to hire qualified people and Mr. Abraham also shares that responsibility by understanding the job requirements before accepting the position. So I believe it is reasonable for Woods Hole to have an expectation that Mr. Abraham would perform all the tasks required of the position, and I guess the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination agrees with me.

Another article on the subject identifies his lawyer as David C. Gibbs, III, the general counsel of the Christian Law Association. (Current project: "Keeping Christ in Christmas.") . Take a look at that link. The webpage says "Is it illegal for my community to include religious symbols in its Christmas holiday celebrations?" "Can Christian teachers in public schools legally teach students the true origin of Christmas?" "Can I say 'Merry Christmas' to co-workers at the office?" How can you equate all three of those? I will agree that many communities go to far in the name of political correctness by banning any mention of Christ and religious symbols in celebrations. But the second one is against the law! Teachers are hired to teach specific areas and just because a teacher is a certain religion, it is illegal for them to teach their personal religious beliefs in a public school classroom. My own parochial school teachers would agree. Laymen should leave the teaching of religions to those equipped to handle it. I can imagine the hue and cry if a teacher who happens to be non-Christian started teaching their beliefs! I also believe any teacher that does that in the public school should be fired . . . are you paying attention Mr. Abraham. Such a teacher would be doing exactly what you did . . .they would not be doing the job they were hired to do. If they insist then the school system has the right to fire them! The school system has to have the right to fire them.

OK, back to the trend. Another creationist FAILS to do their job and is held accountable for it. Mr. Abraham can join Professor Gonzales and they can commiserate over a beer their fates and their own role in what happened to them. Gentlemen, the world isn't out to get you, the world isn't even out to eradicate all things religious. In your cases you failed to meet expectation and paid the price for your failure. There are various methods of appeal and even the legal system to help address your concerns, but don't set your own expectations to high. If an organization is allowed to have an expectation of you doing your job, then I hope a court will recognize this and deal with you accordingly. I plan on keeping an eye on this suit and see what happens, I hope we all do!!