Update: Christian Astronomer Settles Lawsuit Over Discrimination Claim
- Posted on January 19, 2011 at 1:30pm by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
Astronomer Martin Gaskell. (Photo: AP)
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — An astronomy professor who sued the University of Kentucky after claiming he lost out on a top job because of his Christian beliefs reached a settlement Tuesday with the school.
The university agreed to pay $125,000 to Martin Gaskell in exchange for dropping a federal religious discrimination suit he filed in Lexington in 2009. A trial was set for next month.
Gaskell claimed he was passed over to be director of UK’s MacAdam Student Observatory because of his religion and statements that were perceived to be critical of evolution.
Court records showed Gaskell was a front-runner for the job, but some professors called him “something close to a creationist” and “potentially evangelical” in interoffice e-mails to other university scientists.
“We never thought from the start that everybody at UK was some sort of anti-religious bigot,” said Frank Manion, Gaskell’s attorney. “However, what I do think this case disclosed is a kind of endemic, almost knee-jerk reaction in academia towards people, especially scientists, of a strong religious faith.”
A statement from University of Kentucky counsel Barbara Jones Tuesday said the school’s “hiring processes were and are fundamentally sound and were followed in this case.” The university does not admit any wrongdoing.
“This successful resolution precludes what would have been a lengthy trial that, ultimately, would not have served anyone’s best interests,” Jones said in the statement.
Gaskell has said he is not “creationist,” or someone who believes the Bible’s origin story puts the age of the universe at a few thousand years. He also said his views on evolution are in line with biological science.
After applying for the job in 2007, Gaskell said he learned from a friend at UK that professors had discussed his purported religious views. E-mails turned over as evidence in the case showed that university scientists wondered if Gaskell’s faith would interfere with the job, which included public outreach and education.
One astrophysics professor at UK told department chair Michael Cavagnero in an e-mail that hiring Gaskell would be a “huge public relations mistake.”
Gaskell referred questions from a reporter Tuesday to Manion, a Kentucky lawyer with the American Center for Law & Justice, which focuses on religious freedom cases
Manion said documents and e-mail communications turned over by UK in the case showed strong evidence of religious bias, including a professor who surmised that Gaskell was “potentially evangelical.”
“The fact that somebody could say that without realizing the implications, speaks volumes,” Manion said. “Because all you have to do is substitute any other label – potentially Jewish, potentially Muslim. Nobody would say that.”
Gaskell is currently working as a research fellow in the astronomy department at the University of Texas.
—
Associated Press Writer Brett Barrouquere contributed to this report.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 590 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 415 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 379 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 415 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 379 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know 100 Comments- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 415 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (110)
hempstead1944
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 6:52pmShould have been 125 million…..
Report Post »Joshua7
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 6:46pmI think scientist take themselves say tto seriously. I’d bet that fifty percent of what they say is fact now will be history tomorrow. Remember Pluto?
Report Post »Center right
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 6:07pmI don’t understand why people even try. These men of science do not want the truth. Ive been studying apologetics, and that at least try to study the facts.
Please support My new Blog called Freedom Apparatus. I am a Journalism and Mass Communication Major and a Political Science and Government minor, and I also believe that we do not have enough Fiscal Conservastive Journalism in the press (believe me, it is true) and I think we need more. I am still in my first year, but figured that I should get a start now. Thank you, and God Bless you all.
Report Post »Freedom Apparatus—
http://tbladel.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/sarah-palin-the-liberal-boogieman/
The Third Archon
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 5:42pm“Gaskell has said he is not “creationist,” or someone who believes the Bible’s origin story puts the age of the universe at a few thousand years. He also said his views on evolution are in line with biological science.”
That‘s because he’s not retarded, and so long as he understands these simple things, I don’t care what if he calls himself a Christian, Muslim, Jew, HIndu, Buddhist, Atheist, or whatever on Sundays, when he’s not teaching Astronomy.
Report Post »tv1a
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 4:58pmI haven’t cared for UK since those racists hillbillies ran Tubby Smith out of town.
Report Post »holisticlady
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 4:48pmLate term abortuion is just that “killing babies with scissors only before they exit the birth canal. This guy has been accused of some horrible crimes but later terms are performed every day. These babies can survive outside the womb.
Report Post »tv1a
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 4:27pmI‘m a creationist who doesn’t subscripe to the 6,000 year old earth theory. I believe time as we know it could be 6,000 years old, but the earth could be much older than that. There is scriptural evidence which suggests the possibility the earth is older than what creationists believe.
Report Post »Deutscher
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 4:39pmYou are free to believe the moon is made of cheese. But it could be a problem if you want a job representing a university as a geologist, or astronomer. Looks like maybe they were a bit preemptive in dealing with him, so he got some cash and everyone is satisfied.
Report Post »tv1a
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 6:38pmUniversities used to be where differing opinions were encouraged. Not anymore.
Report Post »Deutscher
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 8:09pmScience is not about opinions. I take it you are not a science major.
Report Post »countryman
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 3:38pmwhy do people who are supposed to be christians not stand up for God
Report Post »NFYRx
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 4:09pmAsk Peter, if you meet him, he did it 3 times. I think we all have at one time or another.
Report Post »ofallon
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 3:28pmMr. Gaskill should have held out for 1.25 million instead of $125,000. He had them on the ropes big time. $125,000 is chicken-feed in proportion to the offense.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on January 20, 2011 at 1:19amHow much do you think astronomers get paid? ‘The guy would probably have to work until he’s 150 before his actual damages equalled 1.25 million.
Report Post »FoxholeAtheist
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 3:03pmThis guy is dangerous. He needs to be put out of academia.
Report Post »Taquoshi
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 3:33pmWhat?
Can’t tolerate someone else who believes differently than you do?
You must be one sorry excuse for a human being.
Report Post »jimbo541135
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 2:46pmWeather he is a christian or not, the ruling still sets a favorable precedent for those who are.
Report Post »NFYRx
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 4:06pmwhether no weather
Report Post »NFYRx
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 2:40pmHe’s not a christian. Read the story, he said it himself.
Report Post »JD Carp
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 2:29pmMazeltov Professor! Spend it wisely, aw’ go ahead and buy something fun.
Report Post »60yroldfemale
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 2:24pmMs Jackson Lee, NASA is on the phone for . They have the answer to your question about the Mars Rover. It has found the US flag left by the Astronauts. LOL
Report Post »autumnsmommie
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 2:17pmJust goes to show, that if your are a christian you are wrong and attacked. I thank god for our 1st admendant rights. Imagine if we did not have our rights that were given to us by god. If he was an athiest, musilum, islamic or bupist he would of had the job. No Questions asked. I AM PROUD TO BE A CHRISTIAN!!! Sorry had to say it.
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 2:27pm“pride goeth before the fall”
sorry. had to say it. but I do agree with most of your premise (minus all that “rights come from god” crap)
Report Post »Deutscher
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 3:43pmAgain. The first admendment had nothing to do with this.
The first amendment does not mean you can’t be fired for what you say.
Report Post »Taquoshi
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 4:07pmThe problem here, Deutcher, is that the Professor did not say anything. He was not on “trial” if you will. The case was about what his peers believed and wrote about him in emails.
Manion said documents and e-mail communications turned over by UK in the case showed strong evidence of religious bias, including a professor who surmised that Gaskell was “potentially evangelical.”
“The fact that somebody could say that without realizing the implications, speaks volumes,” Manion said. “Because all you have to do is substitute any other label – potentially Jewish, potentially Muslim. Nobody would say that.”
The key words are “Potentially evangelical”. Doesn’t mean that he was evangelical – and even so, what if he was? Taking it out of the religious sphere for a moment, the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes the following statement:
The following reproduces the articles of the Declaration which set out the specific human rights that are recognized in the Declaration.
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
I’m not advocating the U.N. here, personally I think our own Declaration of Independence is far superior, but it says something really loud and clear when the United Nations includes it in Article 2.
Report Post »Unless I am greatly mistaken, the University of Kentucky is a STATE university and I can‘t see the State of Kentucky condoning the denial of a promotion based on someone’s suspicion that a professor is “potentially evangelical”.
Chet Hempstead
Posted on January 20, 2011 at 1:21amI don’t know Autumnsmommie, I think they might think twice about hiring a bupist.
Report Post »13thgenerati0namerican
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 2:12pmSometimes I wonder where my clothes went, or if they were made by the Chinese!
Report Post »P.R.E.Z.
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 2:10pmDoesn’t surprise me in the least.
This should just be one of MANY suits that should be filed. This kind of academic discrimination has been going on for quite some time. The atheistic religion is well accepted on campuses around the country but the reverse is somehow invalid and lessens the validity of a scientist’s competency because of their faith. This was not the case with Sir Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, or George Washington Carver, to name a few. But what in the world did those guys know anyway.
Report Post »Deutscher
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 3:48pmIf you hold a religious belief that is counter to the science you are hired to teach, I think that’s a problem. If a biology professor is a creationist, or a geologist is a young earther, or astrophysicist is a creationist, I can see how a university might want someone else to represent them.
Report Post »Paul G
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 1:58pmHEY BLAZE??? Where’s a(even one) story on the Christie and judge Mohammed appointment? I want to see/read the comments about that from all the Christie fans out here….
Report Post »MrButcher
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 2:24pmfunny you should mention that under this article.
such responces would, i think, reveal a distinct hypocricy.
All supportive of this christian scientist but dismissive and ridiculing of the muslim appointee in NJ.
It is blatantly Un-American to hold a person’s faith and religion against them. But it is very American to question said faiths and religions with impunity.
Its funny, though, so many christians want the creationalist junk taught in schools or, at least, given equal time. I’m willing to grant that on one condition: evolution is taught and given “equal time” in churchs. Deal breaker? I think so.
Report Post »clipper
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 3:23pmHere’s a comment for you.I bet you are a N.J.teacher or municipal worker or maybe just a plain union thug.While I agree with you that this muslim judge story is concerning to say the least,until I get more info about Christies connections I am going to remain satified that I voted for the right person for N.J.
Report Post »Deanna in Missouri
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 1:57pmI really wish that instead of taking the money these people would let this go to trial.
Report Post »pap pap
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 2:07pmMe too the Trial would put a lot of things in the right place and a lot of people in their place.
Report Post »13thgenerati0namerican
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 1:52pmI throw rocks!
Report Post »Republic Under God
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 3:17pmYour throw rocks!
Report Post »DashRipRock
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 1:38pmScientists
we dont need no stinking scientist
When science starts labling everthing that challenges thier dogma as heritics
Report Post »then science isnt science anymore it is a religion
neofan
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 2:18pmScience has proven the church wrong time and again throughtout history though. Gallileo was a prime example.
Report Post »DogTags
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 3:49pmThe science religion is really jealous of its tenets being believe without question. It is funny how these people who vilifiy religion because it is “nothing but faith” blindly believe in the “scientific” dogma. Their blind faith is almost admirable. I have all this evidence of a Designer, and they believe we came from monkeys anyway.
Report Post »DashRipRock
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 4:21pmNEO
You missed my point dumbass
I saying through peer review science has become a RELIGION
Report Post »encinom
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 7:12pm@DashRipRock
You siad no such thing, your original post was vague. Anyway peer-review is a method that challenges the assertions and theories of other scientists. It tests them and checks the facts, none of that exists in religon.
The Flintsons was a cartoon, not a documentary, creationists need to be reminded of that fact.
Report Post »ChillyinAlaska
Posted on January 20, 2011 at 3:33amFunny how the trolls get so worked up when their belief in what THEY call science (junk science) is challenged. Just because they don’t call others heritics, just DENIERS meaning the same!
The THEORY of “glowbull warming”, goes right along with the THEORY of evolution. Same old problem, those claiming to be scientists who distort and manipulate the data for ideology or personal gain. No matter, they and their co-conspirators can‘t be trusted and you can’t believe ANYTHING they say.
ENCINOM?
Theories need to be proven wrong? The THEORY of evolution hasn’t been debunked? HA! Theories need to be PROVEN right, not disproven! When others, including the SKEPTICS, can take the data and get the same results, then the theory would stand. In the case of the evolution of MAN, there is a HUGE missing link, as well as a LOT of assumptions by scientist based on a small fragment of a skeletal remain, piece of a jawbone or part of a skull and then they want to build a WHOLE human being out of a small fragment. Pardon me, but I think it prudent to remain skeptical of theories like this..
How about that THEORY of GlowBull Warming, it’s been “de-bunked” and discredited, as well as those so called “scientists” shown to be liars, cheats and conspirators, and still these ‘BELIEVERS” in the religion of (junk) science continue to assert the theory as fact and the skeptics to this theory as heritics, errr, DENIERS! They could redeem themselves if they just released the data and methods they used to reach their conclusions, so the skeptics could fact check them, but they won’t do this as then the cheating would be exposed to the world and now they can claim a SLIVER of doubt!! Why prove themselves guilty beyond that sliver??
I think I will just continue to believe in the theory of intelligent design. There is a lot more evidence for it than there is for evolution, and those “believers” in evolution really just want it for an excuse to not believe in a creator.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on January 20, 2011 at 10:19am@ChillyinAlaska
Are you that doped up on religon?
There is no science that backs ID. None. Intelligent Design is nothing more than creationism pretending to be science. Who is this great Designer, Vishnu, Oden, Zeus, some Mayan god? The only religous creation myths support this theory. Evolution is science. There is a body of scientific research, books and journals that support this.
As for climate change, the theory that CO2 and other greenhouse gases introduced by man into the atomsphere is altering the climate is supported by the research. The emails never debunked this fact, they only showed that research scientist can say nasty things about each other, not htat Beck would report on the independant investigation, or tell you that his sources are paid for by big oil, big chem and big business.
Report Post »BringbackCoolidge
Posted on January 21, 2011 at 12:04pmAnd the win goes to….ChillyinAlaska.
encinom,
Report Post »ponder the complexity of the human eye, or the ridiculous complexity of a single DNA strand, Compare the human eye to a camera, a DNA strand to a data-filled computer chip. Let’s take a look at the white house, or the splendor found in the pyramids. Did the Polaroid suddenly turn into a Nikon D300? Did the mac-book pro appear out of nowhere? Did the brick-factory blow up, and after the dust cleared, the white house or the pyramids stood proud and tall? These things were intelligently created. Now using this logic, even the pyramids are simple compared to the Grand Canyon. The camera is simple compared to how the human eye works. A computer chip compared to a singe DNA strand? forget about it. What’s funny to me is the scientific community has become the roman-catholic church in the Galileo days. It is no longer about unbiased research and asking bold questions, it is about manipulating data to fit an agenda, obtaining grant money to conduct research, and making sure the creationists are expelled from the scientific community. We are supposed to question everything with boldness, even the very existence of God. I did. I found him. I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, not a man-made religion complete with rules and regulations God did not create. Once I found this relationship, it is very easy to see Christ’s fingerprints on everything. Science and Christianity go hand-in-hand. Thousands of scientists are beginning to discover that. Much of these arguments are speculation. I have my beliefs, you have yours. But to say that there is more evidence that points to evolution, zero science in creationism, and there is no FAITH involved in believing the theory of evolution is really quite blind, and anti-scientific. Darwinism, also known as “Dawkinsism” It truly is a religion in itself.
Gonzo
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 1:35pm“something close to a creationist” and “potentially evangelical”
Report Post »Egads, we can’t have that now can we?
encinom
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 2:13pmActually, no. The position was one of science, not religon. Creationism belongs in sunday school, not in science labs.
Report Post »DogTags
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 3:45pmencinom, your blind faith in “science” makes you an irrational person. You live by faith yet pretend you have none and vilify other theories of origins because it challenges your faith. What are you afraid of? Evolution being exposed as the fraud that it is?
Report Post »CaptainAwesome
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 3:59pmit depends on what kind of evolution you are talking about. No one can deny micro evolution, not the religious or the atheist. Macro-evolution, however, is easily questionable. And for the record, Darwin never set out to explain how life started, despite the misleading title of his book. It‘s today’s scientists that have taken a rather easily supported theory and tried to use it to explain everything…which it can’t and easily falls apart under scrutiny when used to support macro-evolution. And to say that evolution is imcompatible with faith is to show a lack of understanding in terminology because most christian scientists would have no problem saying evolution on a micro-level very much is supported biblically and scientifically. The question always goes back to the origin of information and if it was possible for all the information carried in all the dna in our world could originate from one cell. That is quite clearly an unsupportable position with no supportable scientific data. When speaking of evolution it’s important to clarify which type is being discussed and also to realize that micro-evolution is easily supported. To those decrying evolution is anti-biblical it‘s important not to ’look a fool’ when discussing this to a more scientific mind, otherwise, how could you ever witness to them when you deny a very easily and supportable fact.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 4:03pm@DogTags
I am sorry, but what lab can you test the theoriest of creatists. Science is debated, tested, review andrevised as facts change, religon is base on dogmatic beliefs that do not change. The theory of evolution has been modified since it was first proposed, it hasn’t been debunked.
But whose creation myth are we to use, the Chrisitian’s, the Hindu’s, Mayan‘s how about the Shinto’s. Can you disprove any of their creation myths. Keep faith and religon out of science labs, it has no place there.
Report Post »Taquoshi
Posted on January 20, 2011 at 7:18pm@ Encinom -
The issue is not what the professor did or did not believe. It was that his peers discussed what they thought he MIGHT believe and he was denied the promotion on that basis. You might want to read my response to Deutscher under the Autumnsmommie’s post.
Someone in the group expressed concerns that the professor could be “potentially evangelical”, which means absolutely nothing. It would be the same thing as my saying that you could potentially be bulemic or picked up for DWI. In theory, you could, but it has absolutely no basis in fact, which actually puts it in the realm of slander. And since the other teacher actually put the statement in writing, it would also constitute libel. Once again, it’s not what the professor did or did not believe, but what the other staff believed (falsely) about him.
Report Post »Knight Templar
Posted on January 20, 2011 at 9:06pmOnce upon a time there was nothing
Report Post »Suddenly nothing exploded
Now nothing is everything
Knight Templar
Posted on January 20, 2011 at 10:48pm@encinom
Report Post »facts do not change
NickDeringer
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 1:35pmIt’s time we started suing these people for slandering Christianity.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 1:42pmSlander has to be against a single person. You can’t slander a religion.
Otherwise, we’d all be in trouble over telling the truth about Islam and the shockingly large number of Muslim terrorists.
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {cat folk art}
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 1:46pm@leftfighter
Understood, there is in the nation the right to hold to whatever one believes in, whatever matters of faith or non-faith, and to express the same. It is not to be the cause of discrimination against what position one holds anywhere, for then it does become discrimination at that point when the line is crossed.
Report Post »Paul G
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 2:20pm“…because of his Christian beliefs”
Gaskell has said he is not “creationist,” or someone who believes the Bible’s origin story puts the age of the universe at a few thousand years. He also said his views on evolution are in line with biological science.
Doesn‘t sound like much of a ’Christian’…
Report Post »neofan
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 2:35pmNickderanger, I’m pretty sure there is no legal grounds for doing that.
Report Post »RobertCA
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 1:34pmonly $125K ?
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 1:39pmAnd how much of that went to his layers?
Report Post »CatB
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 1:43pmMy thoughts exactly …
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 1:53pmHe’s employed at the University of Texas, so he hasn’t lost anything in reality. He wasn’t damaged in that he lost a job. And, again I say, “HOORAY FOR TEXAS!”
Report Post »RobertCA
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 2:13pmI would like to see that money go to a charity .
Report Post »Taquoshi
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 3:56pmThe American Center for Law & Justice often takes cases pro bono. At least they were willing to represent him, alot of law firms wouldn’t have. With the content of the emails, it sounds like the Professor could have really put the screws to the University of Kentucky, but chose not to. I don’t think he was looking to make money off this, so I’m not going to speculate what the lawyers may or may not have charged. I will say that it doesn’t make the University of Kentucky look very good, even though they say they did nothing wrong. The flip side of that is that they didn’t do it right, either.
Report Post »Sparky101
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 7:33pmThat sucky “university” got off easy. They probably laughed all the way to the government trough.
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {cat folk art}
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 1:33pmI am glad he had the guts to stand firm and hold onto his rights and conviction of faith against those who opposed him. Vindication comes at last.
This is a good example for us all to hold firm to our faith.
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {cat folk art}
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 1:40pm@The Blazers
I have found out that once again there is someone using my name falsely; it is the same creetin who has snagged others on this sight, please pay no attention to them, they do not have the link that goes to my online gallery and are seeking to cause no end of chaos on the sight.
Whoever is doing this please stop the blaze is a great sight, and you are nothing more than a thief of others identities and expressions.
snowleopard3200 {cat folk art}
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 1:48pm@The Blazers
Forgot to add…the copycat also is a abysmally bad speller, and is claiming that the bible is a bunch of made up stories; it sounds like good old Broker 0101 or one of the trolls that attacks us quite regularily has returned once again like a bad itch – they just do not stay gone.
Report Post »Cherished Emblems
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 1:54pmWhen we bring the Savior back into our lives, as Glenn Beck did, we will restore this great nation of ours. God bless!
http://www.cherishedemblems.com/
Report Post »Ironmaan
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 1:56pmChristians are clearly under attack here and abroad.
Report Post »http://guerillatics.com
zeakster
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 2:09pmif he had convictions he would have taken the case to court this serves no one but himself the discrimination goes on
neofan
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 2:15pmSnowleopard, I have to admit something. I was signing in as “beckisnuts” to get even with them for their Beck bashing. But now it looks like a copycat is causing mayhem here and I’m feeling some regrets. Glenn taught us the 4E’s and after reading his new book, I realize that behaving vengefully is only dragging us all down here on The Blaze. I’m sorry for starting this trouble and hope it stops here now.
Report Post »JESUS-IS-LORD
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 2:32pmThe Zionists will make him an “accident” soon. That’s their style.
Report Post »RabidPatriot
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 2:34pmThis scientist is a thief. He should give back the money. He said he is not a “creationist” because he does not believe the Earth was created a few thousand years ago. A creationist is someone that believes that everything was created by God (intelligent design). Creationist science opposes the theory of Darwin’s inter-species evolution. There is no actual proof of inter-species evolution. It is called the “missing link” for a reason. The amount of blind faith required to believe that we evolved from absolute nothingness with no help from a higher power is greater than the faith required to blow yourself up for a herd of virgins. Creationist science deals with intra-species evolution. Proof of intra-species evolution is everywhere.
Young Earth is the belief that a handful of people have that the Earth is a few thousand years old. Anyone that has ever found a fossil would know that Young Earth is based on blind faith and not reality. Atheists love to group all people that believe in God with the craziest element they can find. It is an attempt to assassinate the character of the opposition without having to debate their ideas.
Back to the thief scientist. If you do not believe in creationism, your not a Christian. Your an atheist that goes to church. It is like an atheist that does not believe in evolution. If you are going to have a worldview it should at least be consistent.
Report Post »neofan
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 2:45pmRabidpatriot, you said:
“Atheists love to group all people that believe in God with the craziest element they can find. It is an attempt to assassinate the character of the opposition without having to debate their ideas.”
Hey man, that’s kind of what Glenn does with liberals and progressives. In fact, that is exactly what he does. I never realized it until I read your statement.
Report Post »DogTags
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 2:47pmEvolution is not only incompatible with Scripture it is also a ridiculous theory of our origin. (It began raining on the rocks and then some chemicals combined to form amino acids then proteins then a single celled living organism then became a fish, then a reptile then a mammal then a human. It takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe in Intelligent Design.) It is irrational to try to reconcile biological evolution with the Bible. If evolution is a process of the fittest surviving and the weak dying off over billions of years, God could not have used evolution. Before man there was no sin, before sin there was no death, therefore before man there was no death. Man brought death upon creation according to the Word of God. If you put your faith in evolution, you have to believe that death existed before man in contradiction to God’s Word.
This professor is not a hero. but somewhat of a coward.
God’s Word and science can be reconciled. The evidence points to design in nature suggesting a Designer, but a religious faith prevents discussion about Intelligent Design. Naturalism is the religion of a lot of scientists. They believe that only things seen, smelled, heard, touched, or tasted are real. Just because someone says “this or that is scientific” does not mean they are not espousing a position of faith. Evolution is a much faith as Intelligent Design. And Intelligent Design is much more science than evolution.
http://americancreed.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/separation-of-church-and-science/
Report Post »neofan
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 2:57pmDogtags, there was death before man. What the hell are you talking about dude?
Report Post »Taquoshi
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 3:31pmBefore everyone runs too far down this road, I’d like to point out that the issue is not whether or not the Professor was/is/might be/could have had contact with/or may have known either a Young Earth creationist or a creationist. It isn’t even about creationism, intelligent design or evolution. It’s about his peers expressing concerns about what HE MIGHT POTENTIALLY BELIEVE, which apparently disagreed with their personal beliefs. It is also about his lost of a promotion due to their disagreement with his possible beliefs.
Read the last sentence of the quote below carefully and think about what is being said here.
Manion said documents and e-mail communications turned over by UK in the case showed strong evidence of religious bias, including a professor who surmised that Gaskell was “potentially evangelical.”
“The fact that somebody could say that without realizing the implications, speaks volumes,” Manion said. “Because all you have to do is substitute any other label – potentially Jewish, potentially Muslim. Nobody would say that.”
Report Post »countryman
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 3:37pm@ neofan read the bible and become educated
Report Post »DogTags
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 3:37pmNEOFAN, If you accept Scripture as Truth, as the Word of God, you have to believe that man’s sin brought death into the world. That is my point. Evolution is a religious faith that is incompatible with scripture.
Science has confirmed Scripture over and over. You are a real religious zealot, Neofan. Here I have all this evidence of design in nature pointing to a Designer. What do you have? A fossil record that is void of any transitional forms, no half species observable today, no success in experimenting with generating life in a test tube. So, evolution fails the observation and experimentation part of the scientific method yet you believe it anyway. I admire your faith in an irrational theory. Maybe, though, it is time to get a better theory.
Report Post »RabidPatriot
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 4:02pm@NEOFAN
To a degree, I agree with you. Glenn Beck has a tendency to lump together the worst and least of a worldview. To say that President Obama and Chairman Mao are the same is silly. But denying that they share a similar belief system is equally silly. When Glenn Beck is vilifying progressives he should be more precise. He should say “I am not not talking about non-active coffee house self-professed progressives. I am talking about the progressives that are trying to fundamentally transform America.”
America is a great place. For people that contribute to this great nation and pursuit happiness, America is a place that has no equal. Other people believe that humanity can be perfected. The problem is, equality can never be achieved. You cannot get the least of society to improve themselves to the level of the best of society. To achieve equality, the best of society has to be oppressed by the government through regulation and laws to bring them down to the level of the least. The reason why this always fails is that the best of society always rises up and overthrows the tyranny of evil men.
Not all progressives want to fundamentally change America. We should find a different name for them like Starbuckgressive or Pseudogressive.
Report Post »Mr.Nick
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 4:10pmEvolution, or at least the concept thats being taught as “evolution” today, is a farce.
My faith has absolutely nothing to do with my doubt of evolution either, it has to do with the evidence supplied to support the theory – there is just not enough of it.
A lot of individuals love to cite evolution without knowing much about it, and thats a problem. I believe there are many that absolutely hate religion to the point they’re willing to accept and champion a notion other than God – regardless if its the truth or not – anything other than God works for them.
So, I’m not satisfied with the theory of evolution one bit, and there are plenty of others that feel this way to boot, and quite frankly it should NOT be taught as fact as it is today.
Report Post »FromtheBasement
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 4:15pmOkay, two things.
First, I find this to be a good outcome to what is obviously a case of religious discrimination in the workplace in general, and in academia specifically. Kudos to Prof. Gaskell.
Second, why is it that whenever religion is mentioned in general, and Christianity specifically, it devolves into a word-fight over what Christianity is and whether or not one person is a Christian or not? “You’re not a Christian because …” (insert your own dogmatic description of what it means to be a Christian, here). Come on, people. You should know better than that.
Report Post »RabidPatriot
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 4:24pmWhat many people do not know is that Darwin believed in God. There is a large amount of proof in his own writings in his belief in a higher power. Darwin observed differences in same species. He found proof that individual species of animals changed to adapt to their environment over time. He speculated that based on this same species evolution that it was possible that, for example, one kind of bird could have evolved from a different kind of bird. To this day, there is no proof that even this small amount of evolution has ever taken place. Darwin never anticipated that his discoveries would be manipulated by Atheists to try and debunk intelligent design by forming it’s own religion of Secular Humanist Darwinism and call it proven science.
Report Post »RabidPatriot
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 4:35pm@FROMTHEBASEMENT
Christianity is what it is. Over time mankind has changed the meaning of what Christianity is to fit their own agenda. There are so many sister religions, sects and cults based on Christianity, sometimes you have to wade through the weeds to get to the core. Usually, if you have to peel back your belief system, like a banana, to get to the core Christianity part, your probably in the “other” category.
Report Post »cykonas
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 4:49pmYou apparently spend too much time on here, with very little of import to add.
Report Post »cykonas
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 4:59pm@RABIDPATRIOT
Report Post »I have never read a weaker defense for a position in my life. Every one of the positions you talk about are matters of faith. No one can prove any of them.
RabidPatriot
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 5:03pmcykonas
My input may be too much for you. I will step back from the college level stuff and return to the 9th grade for a moment. How about my picture would eat your picture and make lots of little beagle piles all over the backyard.
Before you break a blood vessel in your head, I’m just kidding. It would probably only be one big pile. I’m still kidding.
Report Post »jamesctheman
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 5:13pmWe are glad to have him in Texas. If he has a moral compass & obviously well educated to be considered for the top job then they lost out. Thanks UK. We need more professors in our Universities with some sort of moral compass.
Report Post »cykonas
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 5:19pm@Rabid
Report Post »Please do step back from the college level stuff. I think your parents would cringe at how they wasted their money had they chosen to send you. Returning to the Freshman year of High School would be a good move for you. If you ever got that far the first time you seemed to have missed a lot. Good luck the second time through. Try paying attention this time, and please attend a private school. Your public school education is not only sorely lacking, it’s showing through for all to see.
The1776er
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 5:33pmDogTags just won the game. Nicely done, sir.
Report Post »RabidPatriot
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 5:35pm@cykonas
I earned my education by serving this great nation of ours. After I received my degree, I returned to military service after completing officer candidate school. During my second tour of duty I was permanently disabled and returned to civilian life and earned my Masters Degree in Psychology. I am now in the middle of my Doctorates Degree in Counseling. That type of dedication you will never understand. When I am done with my education I will work to help you out pro bono.
Report Post »NeoFan
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 5:54pmYou gotta love the hard core security of this blog.
Report Post »cykonas
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 6:00pm@Rabid Patriot
With all sincerity, thank you for what I am sure was your distinguished service. I am sure that you believe that your education places you on a higher plane than most of the rest of us; but just as an FYI, it’s Doctorate, not Doctorates. If you earn more than one then it is “X” Doctoral degrees. But I digress. Your career track is eerily like that of Major Nidal Hasan. Hmm, since I don’t know your real surname I have to wonder if maybe the command is just passing you along so as not to upset the PC applecart.
As you know nothing about me, I don’t think you are in a position to assess my ability to understand dedication, or, for that matter, anything else. I am glad that you feel yourself superior to the rest of us. I’m hope that you will be an asset to your education, and to your country. Your offer of Pro Bono assistance is appreciated, but I respectfully decline it. You see, I’ve grown accustomed to paying my own way; I rely on the government, and those that suck at it’s teet, for nothing.
Report Post »RabidPatriot
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 6:38pm@cykonas
I know more about you than you might think. So far, your only purpose here was to attack me. You did not have a good retort so you attempted to deflect by trying to associate me with a known terrorist. You also stated that my last name would some how give you some insight into my terrorist affiliation which sends up the red flags for a tendency for bigoted viewpoints. You also did it in an indirect passive aggressive sort of way which would generally indicate lots of hidden anger and the need to be the victim. You also indicated that my achievements probably made me feel superior to everyone else on the blog. Though I was clearly addressing you and only you. That is also a victim-hood red flag with need to involve other people to come to your defense. If pro bono makes you feel uncomfortable maybe I can talk to someone in your area to work you out a deal.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on January 19, 2011 at 9:33pm@RabidPAtriot — While I appreciate your dedicated service to our country and admire your perseverance in regards to your education, none of those things make you immune from writing idiotic things. This line of reasoning is completely devoid of logic and features some sophomorically bad categorization as well.
Report Post »Happy Killmore
Posted on January 20, 2011 at 8:13am@CYKONAS
The Ft. Hood shooter was a PSYCHIATRIST not a PSYCHOLOGIST. The training is totally different. A psychiatrist goes to medical school to earn an MD or DO (depending on the school) then goes through a residency program in psychiatry. Do a little research yourself before you make your own ignorant statements.
Report Post »Malachai
Posted on January 20, 2011 at 6:47pm“My faith has absolutely nothing to do with my doubt of evolution either, it has to do with the evidence supplied to support the theory – there is just not enough of it. ”
I don’t know what “Enough of it” is for you, but frankly I think you either aren’t looking hard enough or, more likely, you just don’t WANT to find it. There is MOUNTAINS of evidence of evidence; there is a reason there is a 98%+ consensus about evolution (HINT: It has nothing to do with conspiracies or elitism.) Transitional fossils out the wazoo, observed evolutions, repeated predictions on where fossil types would be found, etc etc etc. If you actually look (and I mean beyond trash sites like answersingenesis.com) you’ll find them.
As for RabidPatriot….. I don’t even know what to say…. First off, working on multiple “Doctorates” says nothing whatsoever to your knowledge of evolution. Zero. There have been numerous Nobel Laureates of various Sciences that went full wackadoo when they tried to veer into OTHER sciences so to even remotely try to imply that that just because you are Ed-u-ma-ka-ted you must be correct is just… no. Also, trying to try evolution to being it’s own religion is old, tired, and belies and ignorance to the topic and that you are just relying on the old chestnuts that anti-evolutionists like to throw around. At least use something substantial.
No, the example of “small changes” isn’t one.
Report Post »Knight Templar
Posted on January 20, 2011 at 9:30pm@Malachi
I don’t know what “Enough of it” is for you, but frankly I think you either aren’t looking hard enough or, more likely, you just don’t WANT to find it. There is MOUNTAINS of evidence of evidence; there is a reason there is a 98%+ consensus about evolution (HINT: It has nothing to do with conspiracies or elitism.) Transitional fossils out the wazoo, observed evolutions, repeated predictions on where fossil types would be found, etc etc etc. If you actually look (and I mean beyond trash sites like answersingenesis.com) you’ll find them.
This paragraph reveals you pick your facts out of the air.
98%+ consensus–not really.
MOUNTAINS of evidence—not.
Transitional fossils—no.
Observed evolutions– who is old enough to do that?
Report Post »BringbackCoolidge
Posted on January 21, 2011 at 11:27amAnd the win goes to….Dogtags.
Report Post »