Atheist Minister Fights to Keep her Job

[jacee]

Can Home Depot demand you have to be a Christian? And fire a Muslim because they aren't the correct religion? That's the correct analogy.

No it isn't, because in this job, having a certain religion is a job requirement.

I know a religious exemption exists... and should exist... I'm just playing the devil's advocate to point out the ridiculousness of believing in myths and the lengths we go through to prop up those myths.

Religious beliefs are exempt from our Constitution...

Religious beliefs are exempt from psychiatric disorders! If anyone other than a deeply religious person heard voices telling them what to do, they'd be diagnosed with a mental illness/syndrome.

[The_Squid]

No it isn't, because in this job, having a certain religion is a job requirement.

And in every other profession in Canada (other than working for a religious group), it is illegal to specify "you must be Christian"...

[jacee]

And in every other profession in Canada (other than working for a religious group), it is illegal to specify "you must be Christian"...

It is legal to specify 'You must speak French or Italian or Cantonese' or whatever language is required to do the job.

That isn't discrimination. It's a job requirement.

It is also legal to specify 'You must be able to lift 50 pounds'.

That isn't discrimination. It's a job requirement.

And you can specify 'You must have expertise in Keynsian economics' if the job is to teach that. Again, not discrimination but a job requirement.

And I would think it will be legal to specify 'You must be a United Christian' if your job is to provide religious guidance in the United version of Christianity.

The woman lost 2/3 of her congregation.

That speaks to inability to do the job for which she was hired.

.

Edited August 10, 2015 by jacee

[Mighty AC]

This is what happened with Matt Dillahunty, and now he's the host of the Atheist Experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty

I've met Matt and his wife Beth, who occasionally appears on the show, but is a major part of other podcasts. I imagine they have some pretty complicated marital spats.

[cybercoma]

And in every other profession in Canada (other than working for a religious group), it is illegal to specify "you must be Christian"...

Are you really arguing that it's discrimination when synagogue's don't hire Muslim imams? That's stupid.

[Smallc]

Are you really arguing that it's discrimination when synagogue's don't hire Muslim imams? That's stupid.

Yeah. I get his point, but, this is one of those cases where discrimination makes sense.

[The_Squid]

Are you really arguing that it's discrimination when synagogue's don't hire Muslim imams? That's stupid.

No.... I don't really care. Just making a point about myths being above the Charter....

[cybercoma]

No.... I don't really care. Just making a point about myths being above the Charter....

There's a difference between unreasonable discrimination, like in a job where your religion doesn't matter, and reasonable discrimination where your religion is fundamental to the job. I'm as atheist as they come, but the argument that this is religious discrimination is stupid. This is a minister's position. Believing in the faith you're preaching about is not just important to the job, it's literally the only thing that matters.

[WIP]

This is what happened with Matt Dillahunty, and now he's the host of the Atheist Experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Dillahunty

And now he worships human potential at the secular humanist church of techno-optimism.....the point needs to be made now that atheist/humanist movements are arriving at foundational beliefs (dogmas) that NOBODY has all of their beliefs sourced in reason and evidence, and changes ALL of their beliefs when they are contradicted by available evidence. Case in point: Matt Dillahunty is not going to stop believing that today's climate change crisis can be prevented through new, superior technology solutions, no matter what evidence is throw at him.

[kimmy]

And now he worships human potential at the secular humanist church of techno-optimism.....the point needs to be made now that atheist/humanist movements are arriving at foundational beliefs (dogmas) that NOBODY has all of their beliefs sourced in reason and evidence, and changes ALL of their beliefs when they are contradicted by available evidence. Case in point: Matt Dillahunty is not going to stop believing that today's climate change crisis can be prevented through new, superior technology solutions, no matter what evidence is throw at him.

This is sheer drivel. Having an opinion of how future events will unfold is not the same as a belief in facts that aren't supported by evidence, and it's ridiculous to try to equate the two things.

-k

[Mighty AC]

Case in point: Matt Dillahunty is not going to stop believing that today's climate change crisis can be prevented through new, superior technology solutions, no matter what evidence is throw at him.

What does that have to do with secular humanism or atheism? Also, what does that have to do with the concept that it is beneficial to believe as many true and as few false ideas as possible?

[WIP]

This is sheer drivel. Having an opinion of how future events will unfold is not the same as a belief in facts that aren't supported by evidence, and it's ridiculous to try to equate the two things.

-k

Matt D repeats a lot of the drivel of "enlightenment values" as said and written about by Hitchens, Dawkins and other atheist writers. In Europe, the new atheists have taken the ground once occupied by their state church leaders, that the nations of Europe conquered and exploited the rest of the world through their superior genius and work ethic. Only difference was that they would have labeled it divine providence.

Supposedly, the Enlightenment marks the great break in history when we abandoned a cycle of rise and decay, and entered the age of progress that...with a few bumps and hiccups along the way, will trend endlessly upward making the lives of each generation better and better, through new expanding knowledge and the discovery and application of new technologies.

The whole point about the importance of deconversions from traditional religions (something they especially go after liberal believers for more than fundamentalists) is only justified if there is a reasonable prospect that we are indeed making this place a better world. If we're not, and the unqualified application of new technology has unforseen deleterious consequences, then so much for paradise on Earth!

From what I hear when evangelical atheists speak, the message is something like sure we've got a few problems now like global warming, nukes, and sometimes even overpopulation gets a mention; but these are all problems that we can solve...how do we know this? Well, we don't! A hard, unsentimental look at the state of this world today, and what we would have to do to avert disaster, makes some climate scientists skeptical about the long term survival of the human species itself, though it's not something they like to say out loud to too many people. But, just like many endtimes religious believers will get up on their roofs and wait for Jesus to return for them, the atheist activists just put faith that techno solutions will do the job, and pray that enough windmills and solar panels will be built to avert disaster before positive feedback effects start to set in.

[Mighty AC]

From what I hear when evangelical atheists speak, the message is something like sure we've got a few problems now like global warming, nukes, and sometimes even overpopulation gets a mention; but these are all problems that we can solve...how do we know this? Well, we don't!

From what I hear all Twilight fans use soap containing both triclosan and plastic microbeads. How can we allow the proliferation of popular vampire fiction if it poses a threat to our health and environment!!! WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

Anyway, I hope the preceding sentences help you to see how ridiculous your post was.

Is it possible that some Twilight fans use questionable hygene products? Yes.

Does that mean being a Twilight fan equates to the use of certain soaps? Of course not.

Do some atheists believe in X? Probably...provided that X does not equal gods.

Do all atheists believe in X? Almost certainly not...again provided that X does not equate to the lack of proof for the existence of gods.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Mighty AC

[TimG]

A hard, unsentimental look at the state of this world today, and what we would have to do to avert disaster, makes some climate scientists skeptical about the long term survival of the human species itself, though it's not something they like to say out loud to too many people.

You are a doomsday cultist that is no more rational than any believer in a religion. Every piece of information you get you contort until it fits into your doom and gloom ethos. If a piece of information repudiates your belief system you reject by claiming is false propaganda spread by nefarious forces intent on tricking the world for their selfish ends. It is outrageously hypocritical for you to accuse anyone else of having irrational belief systems since you are a poster boy for irrational thinking. Edited August 12, 2015 by TimG

[The_Squid]

You are a doomsday cultist that is no more rational than any believer in a religion. Every piece of information you get you contort until it fits into your doom and gloom ethos. If a piece of information repudiates your belief system you reject by claiming is false propaganda spread by nefarious forces intent on tricking the world for their selfish ends. It is outrageously hypocritical for you to accuse anyone else of having irrational belief systems since you are a poster boy for irrational thinking.

Says the poster who doesn't believe scientists when their conclusions conflict with his political ideology...

[TimG]

Says the poster who doesn't believe scientists when their conclusions conflict with his political ideology...

If you actually paid attention to my arguments you would find that I look at the science itself and don't care about the spin placed on it by activists. Ignoring the spin does not mean I ignore the science. You should learn the difference.

[Mighty AC]

If a piece of information repudiates your belief system you reject by claiming is false propaganda spread by nefarious forces intent on tricking the world for their selfish ends. It is outrageously hypocritical for you to accuse anyone else of having irrational belief systems since you are a poster boy for irrational thinking.

If you actually paid attention to my arguments you would find that I look at the science itself and don't care about the spin placed on it by activists. Ignoring the spin does not mean I ignore the science.

Looking at your two quotes I think "false propaganda spread by nefarious forces" is the same as the "spin placed on it by activists" you refer to next. The actions are the same. Self examination is difficult for everyone.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Mighty AC

[TimG]

The actions are the same. Self examination is difficult for everyone.

So ignoring the unhinged claims of climate activists and actually reading the carefully nuanced claims in the IPCC WG1 report is unreasonable? Go figure. Any real science is full of uncertainties and caveats and is only as good as the assumptions that underpin the analysis. Such nuance is always lost in the political debates and I don't apologize for having little patience for people that claim certainty when there is no basis for such claims.

[cybercoma]

You are a ________ ________ that is no more rational than _________. Every piece of ____________ you get you contort until it fits into your ______ and ___________. If a piece of __________ _____s your _________ you reject by claiming is _________ spread by _________ intent on _______ing the world for their selfish ends. It is outrageously hypocritical for you to accuse anyone else of having ___________ since you are a poster boy for ______________________.

This post is even funnier when you turn it into a MadLib.

[kimmy]

Matt D repeats a lot of the drivel of "enlightenment values" as said and written about by Hitchens, Dawkins and other atheist writers. In Europe, the new atheists have taken the ground once occupied by their state church leaders, that the nations of Europe conquered and exploited the rest of the world through their superior genius and work ethic. Only difference was that they would have labeled it divine providence.

Supposedly, the Enlightenment marks the great break in history when we abandoned a cycle of rise and decay, and entered the age of progress that...with a few bumps and hiccups along the way, will trend endlessly upward making the lives of each generation better and better, through new expanding knowledge and the discovery and application of new technologies.

First it was "hur de dur! The atheists supported the Iraq war, because Hitchens!"

Then it was "hur de dur! The atheists are racist against the Muslims! Harris and Dawkins hate the brownish man!"

Now it's "hur de dur! The atheists want to ruin the world with technology!"

The whole point about the importance of deconversions from traditional religions (something they especially go after liberal believers for more than fundamentalists) is only justified if there is a reasonable prospect that we are indeed making this place a better world. If we're not, and the unqualified application of new technology has unforseen deleterious consequences, then so much for paradise on Earth!

First off, "only justified if there is a reasonable prospect that we are indeed making this place a better world" is false. Swaying people away from potentially harmful beliefs (like "climate change is a hoax because God would not allow humans to change His creation" or "climate change is irrelevant because Jesus will return shortly and the earth will be left in ruins after the chosen are taken to Heaven" or "it would be better to let my daughter drown than see her shamed by being touched by a male rescuer" or so on) is always justified.

Secondly, since when has the application of new technology been the exclusive domain of atheists? Since never. Go back through history and you'll find that the arrival of almost every world-changing technology, from widespread availability of electricity, to industrialization and the steam engine, to urbanization, to agriculture, to in all likelihood fire and the wheel, came times in history when religious beliefs held sway.

North American native peoples may have had their traditional beliefs and culture, but they didn't turn up their noses at the horse and the rifle when they saw the potential to put food in their childrens' bellies.

From what I hear when evangelical atheists speak, the message is something like sure we've got a few problems now like global warming, nukes, and sometimes even overpopulation gets a mention; but these are all problems that we can solve...how do we know this? Well, we don't! A hard, unsentimental look at the state of this world today, and what we would have to do to avert disaster, makes some climate scientists skeptical about the long term survival of the human species itself, though it's not something they like to say out loud to too many people. But, just like many endtimes religious believers will get up on their roofs and wait for Jesus to return for them, the atheist activists just put faith that techno solutions will do the job, and pray that enough windmills and solar panels will be built to avert disaster before positive feedback effects start to set in.

"How do we know this?" We don't know this.

Belief in the possibilities of technology might not solve everything, but it's more realistic than every other idea out there. God *isn't* going to protect the ecology for us, nor standing by to wait for the events of Revelations a realistic solution.

Atheists by and large recognize that resources are finite and that the "go have dominion over all the earth" type thinking isn't sustainable. Atheists, by and large, support access to contraception and reducing population growth; the "go forth and multiply" types in the Christian and Muslim faiths by and large don't.

Many atheists support advances like cleaner energy sources and less pollution and ecological conservation as a means of mitigating the damage humans are doing to the earth. What do you propose as the alternative that atheists are overlooking?

-k

[WIP]

Says the poster who doesn't believe scientists when their conclusions conflict with his political ideology...

Yes, and I don't claim to have it all figured out. But along comes the guy with the vested interest to run the local global warming denial campaign here to call me irrational!

[WIP]

First it was "hur de dur! The atheists supported the Iraq war, because Hitchens!"

Then it was "hur de dur! The atheists are racist against the Muslims! Harris and Dawkins hate the brownish man!"

Now it's "hur de dur! The atheists want to ruin the world with technology!"

-k

Because atheism as movement to organize around, speak and write books about is not some sort of existential vacuum that contains no presuppositions and is only concerned with overcoming religious and supernatural beliefs.

Hitchens made it pretty obvious, if you read his books, that he seen himself as part of a wider secular movement to not only end religion and belief in God, but also to promote western secular values abroad...including the Middle East. That's why Hitch took the leap of faith to become a Neocon, though most of his atheist book-writing brethren like Dawkins and Harris were unwilling to leap quite as far. But if you pay attention to Harris still, as I did recently when I heard him doing a long form interview somewhere, he still can't conceive of America engaging in regime change abroad for brutally selfish economic motivations rather than the expressed goals of promoting democratic principles in the Middle East. I'd say he's an idiot, but what do I know, I don't have doctorate degrees in philosophy and neuroscience!

But, when it comes to foundational beliefs of what secularism is supposed to mean today, they and every other writer I've come across who is an antitheist believes the basic framework of western supremacism: liberal social values, representative democracy, capitalist economies, and an unqualified faith in the promise of new technologies are all part of the new secular atheist dogma!

First off, "only justified if there is a reasonable prospect that we are indeed making this place a better world" is false. Swaying people away from potentially harmful beliefs (like "climate change is a hoax because God would not allow humans to change His creation" or "climate change is irrelevant because Jesus will return shortly and the earth will be left in ruins after the chosen are taken to Heaven" or "it would be better to let my daughter drown than see her shamed by being touched by a male rescuer" or so on) is always justified.

Oh, I could have told you from growing up with near-term 2nd coming of Jesus ideology, that the belief that Christ will return soon to save the day, leads many endtimes believers to have a nonchalant attitude about the consequences of global warming. If James Inhofe really believes it, that may be part of his thinking to just take the oil industry money and ignore the consequences; but that doesn't explain the decisions of the supposedly rational, hardnosed businessmen who run the oil and coal companies! I have never read or seen anything about either David or Fred Koch actually giving a crap about religion, or care about anything aside from money and promoting the religion of capitalism - libertarianism. And yet they are the ones paying Inhofe and other stooges to run their disinformation campaign. More likely that they are psychopaths, and like most high-functioning psychopaths who rise to high places in today's business environment, they only care for short term profits, consequences be damned! So whether most of these cretins believed in God/or not, would be immaterial.

And it needs to be pointed out that, even in America, the vast majority of Christians, especially younger evangelicals, do believe climate change is a crisis, and want more emphasis on environmental issues from their politicians. So, even though Christianity comes from a type of middle eastern agrarian religion that separates God and spirit from nature (unlike pantheism), it's completely bogus to make a claim that Christians and most religious believers would care less about the environment than secular atheists.

Secondly, since when has the application of new technology been the exclusive domain of atheists? Since never. Go back through history and you'll find that the arrival of almost every world-changing technology, from widespread availability of electricity, to industrialization and the steam engine, to urbanization, to agriculture, to in all likelihood fire and the wheel, came times in history when religious beliefs held sway.

Never said it was! But since the name 'Matt Dillahunty' was raised earlier, I started thinking about how he and other panelists on their Atheist Experience show and others like their 'Nonprophets' podcast, Point of Inquiry, the Humanist Alternative, and scores of atheist bloggers all feel a strong need to present a hopeful picture of the near future. My hunch is that, since these are people who tell even the mildly religious progressives that they need to abandon religion, they feel the need to offer a quasi-religious secular alternative to heaven. And what other heaven substitutes are there besides faith in humanist principles that we will invent and innovate our way to the kind of world promised on the first Star Trek TV show almost 50 years ago? A blunt, critical assessment of the promises and pitfalls of ready acceptance of new technology is...admittedly hard to find, but it is out there in the wilderness among a handful of heretics who have taken a step back to make an overall assessment: Techno-Fix

North American native peoples may have had their traditional beliefs and culture, but they didn't turn up their noses at the horse and the rifle when they saw the potential to put food in their childrens' bellies.

And that proves? Actually some tribes saw that those plains tribes that adopted horses and rifles started acting just like the white man: slaughtering more bison than they could use and leaving dead carcasses all across the grasslands. The Blackfoot were a dominant tribe in the plains, but were decimated by their unwillingness to change and adopt the new reckless European way of life. Through a combination of declines in bison and attacks from other tribes, white interlopers and armies, most of them ended up in the forests of Montana and across the Canadian border. But, what did that do for the other plains tribes in the end? Except leave most of them in the most abject poverty in America - at the Pine Ridge Reserve! Thanks for making my point.

"How do we know this?" We don't know this.

Belief in the possibilities of technology might not solve everything, but it's more realistic than every other idea out there. God *isn't* going to protect the ecology for us, nor standing by to wait for the events of Revelations a realistic solution.

YOu might want to read that book I left a link for above! Michael Huessemann revives a point referenced early in the book by some ecologists 40 years ago like Barry Commoner, that every technology applied in the world has unexpected consequences because ecological systems are complex and chaotic....not simple linear systems that the engineers designing technologies can easily expect in advance. And Commoner also made the point from what he was seeing in the 1960's that rather than remove the new invention, the most likely solution....even back then...was to apply a counter-technology to fix the problems created in the environment by the first tech. Each counter-technology extends the likelihood that it will also require a counter-tech solution and so we end up with an endless spiral of ecological destruction. Air, water, soil contamination seem to be issues these days that have fallen off the radar while all of the attention is on climate change; but those problems created by new industries, new gadgets requiring exotic metals and minerals, new chemicals, plastics etc. are stlll out there and playing a role in species extinctions and other crises today.

Atheists by and large recognize that resources are finite and that the "go have dominion over all the earth" type thinking isn't sustainable. Atheists, by and large, support access to contraception and reducing population growth; the "go forth and multiply" types in the Christian and Muslim faiths by and large don't.

Many atheists support advances like cleaner energy sources and less pollution and ecological conservation as a means of mitigating the damage humans are doing to the earth. What do you propose as the alternative that atheists are overlooking?

And if atheists (which I am one too btw) recognize "that resources are finite" why do most atheists who gain attention have nothing to say about an economic system that requires constant, exponential growth to keep itself from collapsing?

"cleaner energy solutions" does not address the issue of overall energy demand, and doesn't answer the question of how serious they take environment as an issue! It should be the most important issue, since we don't have functioning economies if our planet can't run a biosphere! As one ecologist put it:"try counting your money while you're holding your breath if you want to know whether ecology or economics is the most important issue."

Edited August 14, 2015 by WIP

[kimmy]

Basically you have used over 3000 words to explain that you are angry that some prominent atheists don't share your views regarding sustainability.

-k

[WIP]

Basically you have used over 3000 words to explain that you are angry that some prominent atheists don't share your views regarding sustainability.

-k

Well you have an unfair advantage, since you could fit your slogans on a twitter post, while I have to pull up a whole lot of history to demonstrate that these atheist movement leaders are lying when they say they are not part of a broader agenda.