WHAT'S YOUR THEOLOGICAL WORLDVIEW?

I found this quite by accident, at this site, which mentioned a completely different Scott Hatfield, who is apparently not a science teacher, but a pastor. I doubt that it really describes me that accurately in every respect (older forms of worship don't alienate me), but I think it's interesting to look at. I'd be curious to see how any other readers of the blog might have scored, though of course if you're shamelessly godless (and why should that be shameful?) then it may not work that well for you---but the results would still be interesting.

You scored as Emergent/Postmodern. You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this. Emergent/Postmodern 68% Neo orthodox 61% Classical Liberal 61% Roman Catholic 61% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 57% Modern Liberal 57% Charismatic/Pentecostal 32% Reformed Evangelical 21% Fundamentalist 7% What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com OK, alert, this post had bad links, but I FIXED 'EM!

IN PRAISE OF JUMPSTARTERS

Well, the previous post seems to have struck a nerve. It didn't hurt, either, to be linked to PZ Myers' fabulous blog, Pharyngula, at which locale I am active and (it's still hard to say this without pinching myself) appreciated. Once again, I have to say thanks to the many who have given me much-valued criticism, support and encouragement. I think, in this post, I'll focus on some of the folk who I think of as 'jump-starters'. These are the ones who write, who speak out, who do things within the Central Valley/Northern Californai who stand up for science education, for critical thinking, for religious freedom. They are 'jump-starting' the evolution of the community:

• Mark, who is founder of the Fresno area meetup group for skeptics, has a charming blog of his own and encouraged me to start my own. Right now Mark is dealing with that cruel and pesty thing we call 'reality', but he has a long-standing challenge to creationists of all stripes that you can read in this essay here. He's sort of the Anti-Hovind, you might say.
  


• Madhu, who not only encouraged me to blog, but really sort of shamed me into it by naming me a contributor to this blog, whose title really says it all. He and his colleagues at CSU Fresno have lended me valuable advice and often-bemused counsel on the various occasions I've taken the science education battle to the public, or even the pews.
  


• Zeno, who encouraged me on Pharyngula to put my views out there for public critique, has an interesting recollection about a similar example of intolerance toward non-believers that was published in Fresno. I had no idea until he mentioned it that he, too, was a graduate of CSU Fresno----but I'll try to remember to not, in a job interview, advertise that fact too loudly.
  

These are just some of the folk in my neck of the woods who seem to be doing their part to make my part of the planet safe for science. Or at least, less dangerous, I hope. Thanks, guys!

CULLED FROM TODAY'S HEADLINES

An appalling story, culled from my (sigh) region’s largest newspaper (the Fresno Bee), has to do with lawsuits being brought against CSU Fresno and it’s athletic department, alleging discrimination and wrongful termination. The details have gotten juicy, with allegations of lesbianism and (gasp) atheism:

In a conversation with Johnson at the North Gym, the athletic director told her not to bother asking Vivas or Wright about getting settled in Fresno, she (Johnson) testified.

"You don't need to ask those two about where to put your children [in] school, because they're lesbian and they don't have children," she said Johnson told her and her husband. "So they won't have any knowledge of that ... and ... they're not going to be around much longer."

It was the first time during the trial a witness testified about directly hearing Johnson -- or any school administrator -- call Vivas a lesbian.

Johnson-Klein said former associate athletic director Randy Welniak also called Vivas a lesbian. "The one that sticks out was when Randy took me behind closed doors and said he had just learned of a situation where he just found out why Lindy was such a bitch. That he just learned she not only was a lesbian. She was an atheist.

"I was appalled. ... I couldn't believe one more time I was hearing this from a male supervisor."
Then, Johnson-Klein went after Welty with one of the most startling remarks heard during the trial's nine days.

"Sharon Welty told me," Johnson-Klein said in an adamant tone, "that John Welty's [first] wife left him for another woman. And that he loathed lesbians because of that."

She was an atheist. Gasp! That pretty much says it all: an administrator justifies his distaste for one of his colleagues by labeling her an ‘atheist’, as if atheism is somehow, don’tcha know, some sort of inherent evil.

Some might observe that, due to the circumstances regarding her termination, that Johnson-Klein’s testimony might not be credible. That’s only marginally better, in that it would say that the disgruntled ex-coach is gambling that hanging the label of ‘atheist basher’ on her former supervisor is a credible riff for public consumption.

This is wrong on a number of levels, not the least of which is the presumption that atheists are miserable, hateful people, and that it is ‘OK’ to harass and drive such folk from the workplace. Presumably, the who feel this way would also describe themselves as ‘believers’.

Color me nauseous. Many of my friends are happy, well-adjusted people who happen not to be persuaded of any particular supernatural being’s existence. The technical term for such folk is ‘atheist’, which means, literally, one who is not a theist. It is not a moral failing, nor does it follow that those who hold this position are anti-religious bigots. The bigotry, it seems to me, is on the other side.

What creed is this, that would hold that the free exercise of a human being’s liberty of conscience entitle them to persecution and abuse?