Why is the Kentucky Human Rights Commission sitting on Martin Gaskell's religious discrimination complaint?

Martin Gaskell, who has sued University of Kentucky for religious discrimination, filed a complaint with the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights in May of 2008 and still has heard nothing. Exactly how many years does it take for the Human Rights Commission to process a religious discrimination complaint?

While the Human Rights Commission, which is sponsored by the state and paid for by taxpayer dollars, can't find the time to answer religious discrimination complaints, it seems to have plenty of time on its hands to engage in liberal political advocacy. While Gaskell's complaint gathers dust in the Commission's inbox, they were hard at work fashioning a resolution calling on the Kentucky General Assembly to include sexual orientation in the state’s civil rights statute.

The Kentucky Commission on Human Rights isn’t chartered to lobby state government; it’s chartered to enforce the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. It needs to lose the taxpayer funded political activism and get on the stick.

While the Human Rights Commission was working feverishly to advance a liberal political agenda, cobwebs were forming on this man’s religious discrimination complaint. If the Civil Rights Commission can’t find the time to deal with religious discrimination, which is part of the current civil rights laws, why is it asking for an expansion if its mission?

A court recently gave a green light for Gaskell’s suit to move ahead, and it the suit is expected to come to trial on February 8. The Kentucky Commission on Human Rights is a tax-payer funded organization chartered to combat discrimination.

Gaskell ran the student observatory at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and is widely published in the field of astronomy. Internal UK e-mails suggest he was the most qualified candidate for the position of Observatory Director at UK until it became known that he was a Christian. When this fact was discovered, a number of staff and faculty conspired to prevent him from getting the position, according to Gaskell.

When Gaskell failed to receive any response from the Kentucky Human Rights Commission, he filed suit.

He shouldn't have had to.

This just in: Philosophy is STILL not dead

The recent publication of Stephen Hawking's The Grand Design resulted in a few outbreaks of philosophy bashing on the part of the Scientoids. Hawking tries to make the case that, because of unverified--and indeed unfalsifiable--scientific theories, that philosophy "is dead," a position that is, in itself, a philosophical and not a scientific position.

And not a particularly sound philosophical position at that.

These are people who don't seem to realize that, in order to attack philosophy, you actually have to engage in it. They also are apparently unaware of Etienné Gilson's great maxim (HT: First Things magazine) that "philosophy always buries its undertakers."

These are the people who are so narrowly focused that they really think science is the only means to truth--another position that engages in the very thing it reviles, since the question of whether science is the only means to truth is not a scientific question, but, once again, a philosophical one.

If philosophy really is dead, it's going to take someone practicing it really well to prove it. And, of course, if they did that, they would disprove their own assertion in the very act of stating it.

The is why the most recent post at Talk Reason--normally a bastion of scientism--is so interesting. Here is John Wilkins of the "Evolving Thoughts" blog, pointing out the bad philosophy being perpetrated by a few bad philosophers posing as good scientists:

I know, I think, why some people seem to think that all that matters is science. I too think science is pretty ****ed important. But once you stop knowing about things, and start arguing about things you cannot know by science, you are doing philosophy, and so it is a little, dare I say, hypocritical, to argue, philosophically, that philosophy is ****. Not to mention self-contradictory.

Read the rest here.

My comments on FOX-41 on Instant Racing

My comments last night on the Franklin Circuit Court's decision to approve Instant Racing:



My comments are also included at WAVE3, and WHAS-11

Is the Opposition to Climate Change Ecological or Technological?

by Thomas Cothran

Let's set aside the empirical question concerning climate change (i.e., is human activity causing dangerous weather patterns) for a moment and ask about what sort of politics under-girds the climate change movement.

I propose that the concealed political agenda behind much of climate change advocacy is, at bottom, anti-environmental. The reason behind the regulations issued in response to climate change warnings is precisely the desire to avoid real change; environmental regulations seek to preserve technological society. If we could find a new source of energy in nature, a cleaner fuel, and so on, we could maintain our environmental ideology--that nature exists primarily to be exploited by a form of industrial capitalism set free from the natural limits of human needs.

Climate change advocacy warns of an apocalypse that will end life as we know it, precisely because it seeks to protect life as we live it. As the global economy increasingly becomes driven not by the satisfactions of basic human desires but by profits abstracted from fundamental human needs, the natural limitations on industrial activity are increasingly abandoned; for profit, unlike human needs, has no upper limit.

The fundamentally violent relation of human beings to nature that regards nature primarily as a resource to be appropriated rather than as a creation that is good in itself, a thing to be safeguarded rather than assaulted, is not called into question by the climate change movement but rather sublated, concealed, made more sustainable.

Climate change advocacy therefore does not seek to end the assault on the earth, but to extend it, to make it more complete, to make it more cunning.

More evidence that public schools are hopeless

This story is being filed in the "Why education reform never works" file.

According to the News & Observer, North Carolina school districts are "using their Race to the Top funds to advance structural reform by… purchasing iPads." Durham, N.C., says the report, is spending $3.5 million in Race to the Top funds to “put Apple iPads in the hands of students and teachers at two low-performing schools.” “Our kids are telling us, ‘This is how we learn. This is what we want,’” says Durham Public Schools Superintendent Eric Becoats.

Yeah. I bet. They probably want lunch time extended to three hours, but don't tell Superintendent Becoats. Says Frederick Hess at Education Next:

Ah-ha, yes, this is the change we’ve been waiting for. Look, I own an iPad. I like the iPad. But I’ll tell you, when I’ve been to schools that feature one-to-one computing, personal computers, and iPads, they seem to get mostly used in one of two ways. Neither impresses me. The first involves students working on graphics, clip art, powerpoints, or adding sound and visual effects to video shorts. The second is students Googling their way to Wikipedia for material to cut-and-paste into powerpoints or word files.

This was all brought home to me again, just the other week, when I had a chance to spend a couple days visiting acclaimed “technology-infused” high schools. Yet, most of what I saw the technology being used for was either content-lite or amounted to students using Google-cum-Wikipedia as a latter day World Book Encyclopedia. Making powerpoints and video shorts is nice, but it’s only us “digital tourists” who think it reflects impressive learning.

I'm sure I will be attacked once again as an enemy of public education, but with friends like those in the Durham, North Carolina school district, public schools don't need enemies like me.

University of Kentucky: Higher ed's poster child for religious discrimination

When the Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" came out several years ago, Darwinists, critical of the movie's portrayal of several cases in which believers in Intelligent Design were discriminated against by the Darwinist establishment, denied that scientists who differed from the prevailing consensus were discriminated against in academia.

All of a sudden comes the case of Martin Gaskell, who was the top candidate for the position of observatory director at the University of Kentucky until a few professors, mostly in the biology department (New motto: "No Christians need apply"), got it in their heads that he was a creationist--or Intelligent Design advocate, they don't appear to know the difference-- at which point his candidacy was effectively over.

The main argument used by the Darwinists against "Expelled," was that the cases didn't actually constitute discrimination based on Darwinistic dogmatism. In the Gaskell case, their main argument is that they should be discriminated against because of his religion because his religion forces him into something less than Darwinist purism.

The irony of the case is that Gaskell is not a creationist. He has said he thinks creationism is bad science and that he has no problems with the standard theory of evolution. The worst thing he said about the theory of the theory of evolution is that it had some flaws.

But dogmatists brook no dissent, nor do they tolerate anything but complete acquiescence.

Had Gaskell been some sort of secularist, he might have gotten by with the remark and gotten the job. But Sally Shafer, who apparently acts as UK science's heresy hunter, determined, according to an e-mail now made public, that Gaskell was a "potential evangelical."

The University is claiming, in the face of the facts, that it didn't do anything wrong. And, of course, they're getting support from those we could have predicted would stick their heads in the sand, primary among which is P. Z. Meyers:

Of course, Gaskell has a predisposition: he's a devout Christian, so that persecution complex is rooted deeply. He claims he was denied the job because he's an evangelical Christian. I say he's just inventing rationalizations…something else his religion has made him very good at. And the newspapers are helping him out.

Never mind those damning e-mails and the entire discussion attested to by witnesses that it was his religion that did him in. And never mind the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that some of these same people would club you over the head with if the institution had discriminated against a minority.

In fact, one of the arguments used to defend UK's actions in the Gaskell affair is to say that he would have public outreach responsibilities and that his religious views would embarrass the University. Okay, let's just simply apply this to a similar discrimination case against, say, an African American, another group protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Let's say that the University of Kentucky was looking for an agriculture extension officer for a certain part of the state. The job obviously involves public outreach. And let's say that this part of the state had few if any black population and a history of racist sentiment. And let's say an African American man applied for the job and was clearly the most qualified applicant on paper.

And let's also say that at the University there were faculty and staff in the agriculture department who indicated in their e-mails that they didn't think highly of blacks and that there was a concerted effort to torpedo his candidacy for the job, and that one of the reasons they gave for saying he was not qualified--in spite of his expertise and experience--was that they felt that his race would impair his ability to do outreach in this part of the state.

What then? Well, I think we know what would happen then: there would be an outcry the likes of which we have seldom heard.

The case has now gone viral. The New York Times covered it on Saturday, and the Washington Post on Friday.

Now the University that talks a good game about Tolerance and Diversity in its press releases is about to become higher education's poster child for religious discrimination.

Mild winter in Britain? What mild winter in Britain?

Just in case you were wondering about predictions of exactly how Near the End Is, you might want to check out the situation at The Met Office in England, a frequently cited authority on Global Warming. Turns out the Met Office predicted a mild winter in England this year.

Oops.

As anyone listening to the news knows, England is now experiencing what appears to be the coldest December on record, "the worst December weather the UK has seen for almost 30 years."

But the even more interesting thing is that the Met Office is now denying that it made this prediction:

The Met Office has not issued a seasonal forecast to the public and categorically denies forecasting a ‘mild winter’ as suggested by Boris Johnson in his column in the Daily Telegraph.

But the blog Autonomous Mind points out that the Met Office, along with experiencing a warm weather deficiency, is also experiencing a memory deficiency. Here, says Autonomous Mind, is what the Met Office was saying in October:

The latest data comes in the form of a December to February temperature map on the Met Office’s website.

The eastern half of England, Cornwall, Scotland and Northern Ireland is in for temperatures above the 3.7C (38.6F) average, more than 2C warmer than last winter.

The map also shows a 40 per cent to 60 per cent probability that western England and Wales will be warmer than 3.7C (38.6F), with a much smaller chance of average or below-average temperatures.

But it doesn't apparently matter, says the Met Office:

Following public research, the Met Office no longer issues long-range forecasts for the general public...

Say whut? The organization that is predicting long term Global Warming is no longer predicting long term Global Warming?

What they mean, of course, is that they are not making forecasts about the weather months in advance, which, in relation to their Global Warming climate predictions, are short term forecasts. But here's the problem, if they can't get short term weather forecasts right, then how can they be trusted with long term climate forecasts?

We have already pointed out on this blog how all weather events are now considered to confirm the Global Warming hypothesis. In a previous post, one representative of the Chicken Little contingent went great lengths and a lot of effort to argue that my citations of articles showing that both short term cold weather events AND short term warm weather events are both taken as confirming the Global Warming theory were somehow misrepresenting the articles.

But all of the bluster from this particular individual doesn't change the fact that this is exactly what the articles suggested: that warm weather in Europe and lack of snow is somehow and indication of Global Warming and that record short term cold and increased snowfall are also confirmation of it. Both are to be taken as consisted with the Hypothesis.

So our first Global Warming Observation here at Vital Remnants is this:

I. All short term weather events are taken to confirm the Global Warming Hypothesis. No short term weather evidence can be considered to disconfirm long term predictions of Global Warming. This makes it very difficult to consider the theory scientific, since one of the criteria used by the Scientizers is that science must be falsifiable. It is scientific only to the extent that it has long-term falsifiability. So in the short term, anyone who points to colder weather and snowfall anomalies as reason to doubt the Hypothesis, can conveniently be dismissed as a crank while anyone who uses warm weather and the exact same snowfall anomalies as evidence for the Hypothesis is celebrated--or, if properly situated academically, given more grant money. It also makes it quite convenient for adherents of the Hypothesis, since no one is allowed to say that they are blowing smoke for another 40 years.

But now we have our second Global Warming Observation:

II. Long term Global Warming predictions must be considered reliable in spite of the inability to get short term predictions right. In other words, despite blowing it on short term weather predictions, which would seem to be more simple and straightforward than long-term climate predictions, we are still supposed to believe that the long-term climate predictions are correct and to spend lots of taxpayer money on that assumption. In other words, in those cases in which their predictive capability can actually be tested now, their ability to predict can look very poor, but in those cases in which their predictive capabilities cannot be tested, we are supposed to trust them.

So when you hear in the media say that snow is "now just at thing of the past," and "snow is starting to disappear from our lives" in 2000, for example, and then your country experiences disruptive snow in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, you tend to begin to doubt whether these people really can be trusted to tell you what it is going to be like in 40 years.

So there they are. And I will have to warn all those who will now descend on me telling me how ignorant I am about Global Warming that I will have to insist that my assertions must be dealt with according to the same rules they demand apply to their assertions: they cannot be disconfirmed by short term evidence, and their inaccuracy in areas in which they are testable cannot be taken as an indication of unreliability in areas in which they are not testable.

More evidence for Global Warming

This just in from England's The Daily Mail:

The Big Freeze will hold us in its grip for at least another month, forecasters warn.

Arctic conditions are expected to last through the Christmas and New Year bank holidays and beyond.

With temperatures expected to fall to -15c (5f), the Met Office said this is ‘almost certain’ to become the coldest December since records began in 1910.

Yesterday’s snowfall was largely in the South and West, and in Wales while the South was braced last night for another 10in of snow accompanied by treacherous ice.

Now we go back to Global War ..., er, I mean Climate Change alarmists to explain why this is evidence for Global Warming...

HT: Anthony Watts

Europe to Ireland: Prevening the killing of babies violates human rights

Time magazine reports that the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that a woman's rights were violated because of the Ireland's anti-abortion laws. The woman had had cancer and then became pregnant. She feared that the pregnancy would bring her cancer back, but when she couldn't find any doctors to tell her she was right, she sued in the European Court.

I mean, what do doctors know about things like health, anyway?

The European Union's legal authorities don't like the fact that Ireland's abortion laws protect unborn children "except in cases of cervical cancer, pre-eclampsia and ectopic pregnancy"--in other words, in cases in which the mother's life really is in danger and not, as in the U. S., where the procedure basically serves as birth control.

Laws against killing babies violate human rights? Maybe these people didn't learn anything after all from the last big war about the value of human life.

There are silly evangelical interpretations of the Bible that point to the European Union as the Beast of Revelation. I may have to reassess them now.

Where was the KY Human Rights Commission on the Gaskell Affair?

The Associated Press is on the story of the Scientific Inquisition at the University of Kentucky:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — University of Kentucky scientists wondered to each other in internal e-mails if an astronomer's Christian faith would interfere with a prestigious job as the director of a new student observatory, according to court records in the man's discrimination case set for trial in February.

Even though Martin Gaskell says he is not a creationist, he claims he was passed over for the job at UK's MacAdam Student Observatory three years ago because of his religion and statements that were perceived to be critical of the theory of evolution.

While we're all marveling at the intolerance of a university that preaches Tolerance and Diversity but practices Intolerance and enforces Uniformity, let us take a moment ask where Kentucky Human Rights Commission was during all this.

According to the deposition of Gaskell, it was revealed that, on the advice of his attorneys, he had filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, but never heard anything back. Why does the Human Rights Commission have plenty of time to use its statutory status to lobby for left wing social causes but has no time to bother with religious discrimination complaints from people like Gaskell?

The next thing to go, care of same-sex "marriage" advocates: Incest laws

The cultural barbarians are at the gates, pressing their irresistible logic. Now that we are subjecting things like same-sex "marriage" to the "rational basis" test in courts, why not also apply it to incest? Here is Eugene Volokh, already asking the questions that, if we follow the logic of those who are pushing for the legalization of same-sex marriage, will bring incest laws down as well:

Given the recent news story about father-adult daughter incest, I thought I’d ask a few questions about adult-adult incest (speaking specifically of parent-child, grandparent-grandchild, or brother-sister, and setting aside cousins and the like):

(1) Should it be illegal, and, if so, exactly why? Is it just because it’s immoral? Because legalizing incest would, by making a future sexual relationship more speakable and legitimate, potentially affect the family relationship even while the child is underage (the view to which I tentatively incline)? Because it involves a heightened risk of birth defects (a view I’m skeptical about, given that we don’t criminalize sex by carriers of genes that make serious hereditary disease much more likely than incest does)?

(2) Given Lawrence v. Texas — and similar pre–Lawrence decisions in several states, applying their state constitutions — what exactly is the basis for outlawing incest? Is it that bans on gay sex are irrational but bans on adult incest are rational, and rationality is all that’s required for regulations of adult sex? Is it that bans on gay sex don’t pass strict scrutiny (or some such demanding test) but bans on adult incest do? Is it that Lawrence rested on the fact that bans on gay sex largely foreclose all personally meaningful sexual relationships for those who are purely homosexual in orientation, whereas incest bans only foreclose a few possible sexual partners?

Read the rest here, if you have the stomach. And if your stomach is strong, read the comments.

More on UK's Gaskell Affair: What a tangled web they're weaving

Well, the defenders of Scientific Correctness have themselves into another fine logical mess.

They are claiming once again that Intelligent Design is a religious, rather than a scientific position. So far the claim has served them well. It allows them to simply dismiss it without actually doing any intellectual heavy lifting. They can simply raise their noses high, sniff audibly, and utter, in a dismissing tone, vague things about the integrity of science.

But the Gaskell affair at the University of Kentucky has got them all tied up in logical knots. Gaskell was the best qualified of seven candidates for the post of observatory director at UK until one member of the search committee got wind that he was a Christian, at which point some members of the committee--and apparently some faculty in the biology department--began a campaign to smear his reputation in order to deny him employment. They ended up hiring the third best candidate for the position rather than have a Christian on staff in one of their science departments.

It started when Sally Shafer, a UK staffer apparently in charge of keeping the university religion-free, Googled information on Gaskell and discovered he had given a lecture at UK in 1997 on science and religion, in which he went over the long list of Christian scientists in history and said that he adhered to the majority position in science that the universe--and the earth--were very old. He went on to say that, although he accepted natural selection, there were some unanswered questions about it.

Shafer, apparently appalled that Gaskell would discuss religion and science in the same lecture, and clearly disturbed that he had used the two words anywhere in the same vicinity, swung into action and reported Gaskell to the search committee as (brace yourself, this is strong language) a "potential evangelical."

Several other appalled committee members began calling him a "creationist" and "Intelligent Design" advocate, although the first is certainly untrue, and the second is not entirely clear from the record. In any case, the consequence was that he was passed over, even though, according to court documents, he was clearly the most qualified candidate. Gaskell then sued the university for religious discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But what is interesting is the reasons now being given to justify his treatment at the hands of UK's Scientific Inquisition.

According to the critics of Intelligent Design, ID is a religious position, not a scientific one. But if it is a religious position, then those who hold it cannot be discriminated against on the basis that they hold it under the Civil Rights Act. If ID is a religious position, then its advocates should not be allowed in university science departments. But if it is a religious position, then it is discrimination not to hire them on that basis.

Oooh. Not a good dilemma to be in. But the critics--on this blog anyway--just go on blindly ignoring the inconsistency.

Again, it is not clear that Gaskell holds to an Intelligent Design position. We're just granting it for the sake of argument here.

If Intelligent Design is a religious position, then Gaskell cannot be denied employment on the basis of holding believing it. And if it is scientific, then he should not be denied employment for holding it.

Go ahead Maniacs, tell me how you get out of this one.