Here We Go Again

Been there, seen this...

I saw this story about a professor suing for religious discrimination and was appalled by the specific language being used. In reviewing him for a position, though his credentials are impeccable, he was derided as “something close to a creationist" and "potentially evangelical." Never mind the fact that his scientific opinions are well in line with his peers, or that the minutiae of his opinions on evolution should be somewhat irrelevant, since he’s an astronomer.

Whether any actual discrimination took place, time will hopefully tell. He may have ultimately been passed over for legitimate reasons – but the fact remains that his faith became a part of the discussion. And, far worse, it was seen as a major problem, regardless of his actual scientific positions. Not an uncommon problem, unfortunately.


I’ve discussed the difference between dislike, discrimination, and actual persecution here before. This is another example of anti-religious sentiment that some, if not most, of the New Atheists will try to defend. As I said in a prior post:

“De facto” (in practice) discrimination has a bad habit of becoming “de jure” (by law) discrimination. When New Atheists spew out rhetoric about religion being “private”, or having no place in government, or having no place in science, or equating it with child abuse, they take a step down a very dark road….A legitimately “secular” society is interested in maintaining freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, not freedom of one religion, not freedom in spite of religion, and not freedom against religion. It’s certainly not in the best interests of America to have some, any, or all religious worldview(s) declared unacceptable for public expression.

Americans should easily recognize that we’re nowhere near this level of religious persecution, for any creed of any kind. Atheists aren’t being rounded up and jailed for rejecting belief in God. Buddhists aren’t being ticketed for discussing their views with non-Buddhists. Christians are not being forced to worship in homes rather than in churches. All the same, there is a growing attitude of intolerance – yes, I said intolerance – being levied against religious viewpoints.

When Sam Harris reviewed the book “The Language of God” by Francis Collins, he spoke straight from his bigoted heart. Harris declared first and foremost that Collins was obviously not possessed of a scientific mind…because he believed in God, and never mind his titanic achievements. That was the theme, substance, and foundation of every other embarrassingly snide remark made in his assessment. Richard Dawkins has placed religious upbringing lower in his personal moral gauge than pedophilia. This is the man titled by Oxford as the chair for “The Public Understanding of Science”, by the way. The books, articles, and lectures roll on, accompanied by suggestions, both overt and covert, that religion is a burden people ought to be freed from – one way or another…

…Here’s the warning for the religious critic so giddy about the prospect of expunging foolish superstition from polite society: what happens when the “Secular” state changes its mind? Once only one worldview is permitted, in practice, there is little to stop it from being enshrined into law. Once the establishment gets the right to decide what metaphysical, religious, or worldview ideas are or are not acceptable, what are you going to do when those in power start drifting away from your opinion? Complain about discrimination? When they tell you to either keep your fool ideas at home or spend a night in jail, or find another career, are you going to argue that even unpopular ideas have the right to be freely aired at all levels of society?

Of course, some will argue that the professor is free to say or believe whatever he wants; he just can't expect to get a job in a university if he does so. I'm 100% sure that type of argument would never be accepted by a New Atheist if a professor was turned down for being "something like an atheist" or "potentially anti-religious". Opinions and beliefs have consequences, but it's the responsibility of a free society to disallow discrimination where those beliefs don't impede or damage the job in question.