No Christians need apply (Erin)

This seems to be the key part of the objection, at least as I read the parts of the article cited:

Some in the field complain about what they see as Dr. Collins's evangelism.

As long as Collins keeps his professional career focused on science, I couldn't care less if he were a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist or even a Scientologist.

But I do not want the head of the NIH to use his position to evangelize.

But the fact that Dr. Collins' profession of a faith that millions of Americans share raises concerns and objections to his appointment is, itself, a troubling sign of that possible future.

The NYT didn't site single person voicing objection based on religious belief and said he was almost certainly going to be confirmed. Rumblings in the bowels of Daily Kos are not predictors that there is serious opposition based on the fact that he's a prominent Evanglical.

If there was SERIOUS concern, the NYT and Peretz could point to some serious blogger or editorial writer. They can't.

As the young people say, Peretz is doing a little "concern trolling."

So when Peretz wonders about the increasing sense that left-leaning liberals would prefer to exclude Christian believers from government jobs, the objections raised to Dr. Collins' appointment are an excellent illustration of that idea.

Um, yeah ... your, oh let's call it paranoia, might have more basis were it not for the inconvenient fact that the President - the fellow who appointed Dr. Collins to this position - is himself a left - leaning liberal.

So on the one hand, we have allegations that some anonymous grumblers aren't all that happy with this appointment - and on the other hand, we have the Nation's most powerful and influential left-leaning liberal, the President of the US, selecting this fellow for the job.

Let's just say that Erin's fears do not seem to be well grounded.

But the fact that Dr. Collins' profession of a faith that millions of Americans share raises concerns and objections to his appointment is, itself, a troubling sign of that possible future.

No, it's a reflection of wariness based on the behavior of several very high level administrators in the previous administration.

above was me.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Seems that would be a genuine help in any academic/scientific pursuit.

I once read that american inventor George Washington Carver went into his lab and asked God what to do with the peanut. So God showed him what to do with the peanut. Who knew? But I think that's awesome!

Christianity is a concern when a position, like the head of the NIH, is dedicated to the medical science and scientific research in general. And as recent events reveal, Intelligent Design can be used by Christians to subvert Science. So some fear that Francis Collins will be sympathetic to supernatural causation. However this fear is completely baseless;

The intelligent design perspective, which is so prominent now in the evangelical church and, of course, is a flashpoint for debates about the teaching of science in schools, is basically this one, that evolution might be OK in some ways, but it can't account for the complexity of things like the bacterial flagellum, which are considered to be irreducibly complex because they have so many working parts and they don’t work with any of the parts dropping out, so you can’t imagine how evolution could have produced them.

This is showing severe cracks scientifically in that the supposedly irreducibly complex structures are, increasingly, yielding up their secrets, and we can see how they have been arrived at by a stepwise mechanism that's quite comfortable from an evolutionary perspective. So intelligent design is turning out to be – and probably could have been predicted to be – a God-of-the-gaps theory, which inserts God into places that science hasn't quite yet explained, and then science comes along and explains them.

I think I would also say intelligent design is not only bad science; it's questionable theology. It implies that God was an underachiever and started this evolutionary process and then realized it wasn't going to quite work and had to keep stepping in all along the way to fix it. That seems like a limitation of God's omniscience.

- Francis S. Collins, May 2009

The article also contained such gems as "He believes that it's possible to see evidence of the divine in things like physics equations or patterns of human behavior. ... This is an audacious claim for any scientist to make, and Collins does not deserve a free pass on this from the scientific community". To say that it is an "audacious claim" to be able to see God in nature is a slam against all religion, not just Christianity.

sorry - but since the guy has been nominated and is likely to be appointed - it is a bit on the premature side to say "Christians need not apply". Not to mention that he was appointed by a left leaning guy - the President.

I see no widespread objection to his appointment - so this is fear mongering.

And does any of this lend any credibility to Erin's fear mongering claim that Christians are discriminated against?

How would you like to be a Christian and a scientist and have Steven Pinker be the one deciding whether or not you got funding or tenure?

In some states, say Arkansas, atheists are not allowed to run for public office not serve on juries.

Complete and utter bull.

Larry,

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/02/an_advocate_for_atheists_in_ar.html

Larry,Open mouth , insert foot

Any such law has been unenforcible for decades in any state in the United States, to say that Arkansas bars atheists from public office is either a demonstration of ignorance or bald-faced lying.

The state of Arkansas disagrees:
Arkansas State Constitution, Article 19 Section 1
http://www.sos.arkansas.gov/ar-constitution/arcart19/arcart19-1.htm

So does Maryland:
Maryland State Constitution Articles 36 & 37
http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/mdmanual/43const/pdf/const.pdf

And Massachusettes:
Commonwealth of Massachusettes Constitution Article 3
http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm#cart011.htm

And Mississippi:
Mississippi State Constitution Article 4 Section 265
http://www.sos.state.ms.us/ed_pubs/constitution/constitution.asp

And North Carolina:
North Carolina State Constitution Article 6 Section 8
http://statelibrary.ncdcr.gov/nc/stgovt/CONST4.HTM#VI

And South Carolina:
South Carolina State Constitution Article 4 Section 2
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/a04.htm

And Tennessee:
Tennessee State Constitution Article 9 Section 2
http://tinyurl.com/ktjrjn

And Texas:
State of Texas Constitution Article 1 Section 2
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/txconst/sections/cn000100-000400.html

I made the claim, here's the evidence.

Laws like these remain on the books in many jurisdictions because they aren't repealed.

One of my favorites, locally, is that a woman cannot sit on a man's lap while riding public transit unless there is a pillow separating them

My sense making the rounds of the science blogs is that for most people who know a lot about Collins, there is really no issue. Some, like Pinker, want assurances that he will not evangelize in his position. That would be appropriate IMO if he were of any faith or sect. TBH, most people will not even care to ask anything about his faith. He is not there to convert others.
I do think that there may be some general concern from those who do not know much about him. Evangelical has come to mean anti-science, pro-war, pro-torture, pro-war, pro right wing for many people.

Steve

I'm loathe to defend the New York Times, but having two objections implies there was another objection besides the one you've stated. That objection seems to be that he boosted hopes up too high and oversold the benefit of a project. That may or may not be a valid criticism, but it's not one purely based in disdain for his religion.

As for non-believers being appointed I think Obama may have already done that. Is Steven Chu of any religion?

Did Christians whine this much when our faith was actually being tested like being fed to lions and crucifixion?

Richard Bottoms
July 15, 2009 8:30 PM
Did Christians whine this much when our faith was actually being tested like being fed to lions and crucifixion?

It is my understanding that they went to their deaths singing hymns and thanking God that they were allowed the privileged of a martyr's death.

They definitely weren't worried about whether or not they would be denied tenure.

"Not my constitution. Take it up with them. They may not enforce it but it's still on the books." Jayne

TR: I believe there are cities that still haven't on the books that American Indians must not enter city limits. I think Chicago or Buffalo or some such removed such a law a few years ago. (Whichever city it was there'd been American Indians in town for decades)

I'm for removing these laws on atheists, but if it's never enforced it's mostly a symbolic thing. You're not actually oppressed by it at all.

"Any such law has been unenforcible for decades in any state in the United States, to say that Arkansas bars atheists from public office is either a demonstration of ignorance or bald-faced lying."

And there we have it. When a Christian individual is nominated for an important position and some people raise concerns about his faith, Christians are being persecuted. Nevermind that the nomination has broad support otherwise and that he looks to have a lock on the position, Christians are being persecuted.

Yet, when laws in several states are cited that bar atheists and other non-believers in the Christian deity from holding office, testifying in court cases, or other public acts, many of the same folks who cry foul in the earlier situation now say that since these laws are not enforced it is not persecution.

Laws on the books are not a threat, but complaints on some blogs are.

Such is the modern state of victimhood Christianity.

Can some one explain why the nomination of a preffessing evengelical christian some how supports the claim "no christians need apply"
It seams to me that it is realy that one group of christians considers all other proffesing christians are realy not christians since they read the same book and come up with a different interpitation. Talk about religious bigatry.

Just to recap, the laws cited against atheists from various states were struck down by the Supreme Court in 1961 and by subsequent civil rights laws and CANNOT be enforced. They are no longer valid and legally do not exist.

I, for one, would support their symbolic removal from the statute books but I can understand why a state legislator might think it unnecessary since the law are already as dead as the dodo bird.

"Just how oppressive is a burning cross?" JeA

TR: When the group doing it is violent and may mean it to indicate violence is coming? Very oppressive. In England they have "Guy Fawkes Day" which has a clear anti-Catholic history, but has mostly devolved into just a party. How oppressive is that? Mildly so if that. And that's what the Arkansas or Massachusetts deal is more like.