Are we sure this is so as a legal matter? I don't support a
Senator's voting against a nominee based on the nominee's religion, but it
doesn't seem obvious to me that a Senator's so voting violates the Religious
Test Clause - or is there some conclusive historical or doctrinal evidence to
the contrary?
Eugene
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marc Stern
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 1:59 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Francis Collins and Acceptable Criticisms
As a legal matter, the claim that someone's religious views are disqualifying
comes close to, if not actually constituting a prohibited religious test for
public office especially as the NIH to which Collins was nominated is a federal
institution subject to the tests clause directly.However there are cases in
which the federal courts ahve upheld the discharge of political appointees who
have made (hostile) religious statements about homosexuality.
Marc Stern
________________________________
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anthony Decinque
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 4:48 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Francis Collins and Acceptable Criticisms
I think that begs the question, in a sense. You say, "If he has said anything
about science that is antithetical to sound science, that would be a fair
ground of criticism." Mr. Collins states that he believes in the virgin birth.
Is that antithetical to sound science?
I don't really want to get into a religious debate or comment on the validity
of Mr. Collins's specific beleifs. I want to know when someone's advocacy of
ideas that are antithetical to a profession can be used to disqualify that
person (legally). You can change the hypothetical if you want. A faith-healer
that is applying to be Surgeon General?
A
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Douglas Laycock
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
The alleged "ideas that are antithetical to the values underlying the job" are
simply his religion. Some consider his religion antithetical; he does not. It
is not antithetical unless you accept certain other assumptions about the
relation between religion and science -- assumptions that his critics adopt but
that he rejects.
If he has said anything about science that is antithetical to sound science,
that would be a fair ground of criticism. But if he is sound when he talks
about science, and the only evidence against him is the inferences people draw
when he talks about religion, that is simply a religious disqualification.
Quoting Anthony Decinque
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>:
> Francis Collins has been selected to be the head of NIH, where he will have
> substantial authority to allocate the nation?s scientific research funding.
> There are a few criticisms of Mr. Collins being made regarding his religion..
>
>
> For this list, I wanted to set aside a specific criticism. Specifically,
> let?s ignore criticisms based on Mr. Collins using his government position
> to promote religion. (For example, if Mr. Collins were to give a speech, as
> head of the Human Genome Project, claiming that DNA is evidence for God.)
>
> Instead, I wanted to get the list?s opinion on a different criticism. This
> criticism goes like this: (1) science is a product of another, deeper, more
> important feature ? skeptical thinking; (2) Mr. Collins does not practice
> skeptical thinking; (3) in fact, Mr. Collins has made many statements
> undermining and contradicting skeptical thinking. Therefore, the criticism
> goes, Mr. Collins should not be the head of NIH because he undermines what
> science is all about.
>
> To get a flavor of the criticism, you can read this
> piece<http://www.reasonproject.org/archive/item/the_strange_case_of_francis_collins2/>by<http://www.reasonproject.org/archive/item/the_strange_case_of_francis_collins2/%3Eby>
> Sam Harris.
> It is an elaboration of a NY Times editorial Mr. Harris recently
> authored. In
> response, biologist Kenneth Miller wrote in the NY Times that Mr. Harris has
> ?deeply held prejudices against religion? and opposes Mr. Collins merely
> because ?he is a Christian.?
>
> What does the list think? Should it be acceptable for an employer to
> discriminate against a job candidate on the grounds that the candidate
> believes, practices, and advocates for ideas that are antithetical to the
> values underlying the job? (Again, assuming that the candidate would not
> otherwise abuse the post and would generally do a fine administrative job.)
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Anthony DeCinque
>
Douglas Laycock
Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215
734-647-9713
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
