July 31st, 2009 at 10:28 am
Peter Beattie, then it’s an ideological blog and not a science blog, which is pretty much what people have been saying.
Mistaking an ideology for science isn’t limited to the NA’s, it’s a common enough intellectual fallacy. Like most of those who make that mistake, the NA’s hold themselves above taking into consideration the topics and observations outside of “science” that would help them avoid that mistake.
If Collins is guilty of some kind of “sin” it’s in stating the truth that religion can accommodate science, I’ve never seen a supported assertion that he has injected religion into science. A career like his wouldn’t stand even one verified instance of that. Coyne and PZ are no less guilty of trying to inject their ideological position into science, even more so, I’d say.
25. Anthony McCarthy Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:43 am
— Marc, there is already a religious test for any scientist appointed to public office - there is no way on earth that any open atheist would even be considered for the position. Atheists don’t want to impose a religious test - we want the one that’s already imposed to stop. Lee Harrison
The prohibition on a religious test to hold public office is binding on local, state and federal government, the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. It isn’t binding on THE PEOPLE, the voters. They can take any consideration they choose to take in how they cast their vote. There is absolutely no legal restriction that prevents them from doing that, there is none that could ever be made to work.
I really resent the lie that atheists are “where gay people were fifty years ago”. Fifty years ago atheists became a protected class under civil rights legislation and pre-existing provisions of the constitution. They have legal recourse if they are discriminated against in all covered areas specifically under the prohibitions about discrimination based on religious belief. Gay people, such as me, aren’t covered in more than local and state law against discrimination and in not a single state do we have equal rights to straight people.
"It isn’t binding on THE PEOPLE, the voters. They can take any consideration they choose to take in how they cast their vote."
ReplyDeleteThen please explain why you seem to take such umbrage when one of those people who happens to disagree with you vents their opinion on how they would vote.
And this is something of a non sequiter since the people don't actually vote on the position of science advisor at all - all of the 'religious test' phrasing is a rhetorical device to point out the bigotry of the general populace against atheists and the fact that the government chooses to go along with it when it should be ignoring such considerations.
"I really resent the lie that atheists are “where gay people were fifty years ago”."
Good - so do I. It's untrue and is too easy to form into a strawman. Which you did, because not to many atheists are actually saying this - even when Dawkins came up with the Out campaign, directly modelled on the various gay pride movements and out campaigns of the past, he made it very obvious (to anyone without a chip on his shoulder) that adopting the GLBT's largely succesful model was not meant to imply that atheists had it as bad as gays did.
Having said that, it is still true that, according to one recent survey, every other looked-down-upon minority would be considered for public office in the U.S. before an open atheist.
Also, Anthony - you answered my comment to Marc, but you didn't actually the question I posed to you: what is PZ's 'stated position' on the purpose of his blog, and can you point to where it's stated? I can point to several - not just the one on the top of every page.
ReplyDelete