Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Forgot Your Password?
Fake Banner
Is AGW a religion?
By Robert H Olley | November 5th 2009 02:28 PM | 4 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Beamlines articles

All

About Robert H Olley

I work in the Polymer Physics Group of the Physics Department at the University of Reading.

I would describe myself as a Polymer Morphologist. I am not an astronaut, but I am a "Real


... Full Bio

Look what's happening in Britain! 

I have just been reading a newspaper article:  Climate change belief given same legal status as religion  which starts:

An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs.

In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that "a belief in man-made climate change ... is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations".

To the following blog: Official: UK law now says ManBearPig-worship is a religion to rank alongside Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc someone replied:

A Cloward-Piven strategy is an old leftist tactic for bringing down any business, ideology, belief, or govt service the leftist has a beef with. The tactic is to overwhelm their opponent with relentless, impossible demands, until chaos ensures, and the target collapses.

I'm not going to pontificate about this — that's what we have popes for — but I don't like the look of where this is leading.

Comments

Gerhard Adam's picture
It seems like this story is long on innuendo and a bit weak on actual details.  There has been nothing said about the reasons for the executive's dismissal, although it appears that there is going to be a court hearing that is intended to show that there is no causal link between the beliefs and the dismissal.  If that is the case, then this ruling means little or nothing.

However, depending on the requirements of the job, there is a reasonable basis for considering the weight a particular belief should have.  Simply stating requirements is insufficient since I have seen many such stringent requirements waived based on far less substantive beliefs.

...told a previous hearing that his views were so
strong that he refused to travel by air and had renovated his house to be
environmentally-friendly.


I'm not clear on why his house renovations were relevant to the discussion.  Even the issue of air travel is a bit suspect because there are many people that feel that way about air travel and it has nothing to do with environmentalism.  In fact, in the U.S. there are many people that refuse to travel by air because of concerns raised from 9/11.  Should such "beliefs" also be ignored and be the basis for termination?

Unless it can be demonstrated that there was some unreasonable demand or an inability to perform his job, I'm not sure why his beliefs are relevant in the slightest.  On the other hand, if he was dismissed because of his beliefs, then the court ruling is proper. 
John Bowers QC, representing Grainger, had argued that adherence to climate
change theory was "a scientific view rather than a philosophical one",
because "philosophy deals with matters that are not capable of
scientific proof."

I"m not sure how this statement could be made any more absurd that it already is.  In effect, it is being argued that if your viewpoint is scientific, then you aren't entitled to any legal protections from reprisals.  So presumably if your viewpoint is scientific, but your employer's is religious or even superstitious, then the employer has more rights to an opinion?


Gerhard Adam | 11/05/09 | 16:37 PM
Hank's picture
I pontificate all of the time and I can't speak Ex Cathedra - doesn't stop me.    I think discrimination is discrimination.   Some are obvious; an evolutionary biologist who refused to work at a project because he was a creationist had a tough case, for example, because the job required working on evolution so his religion was not much of a defense.    But being dismissed if, as was alleged, it was over global warming belief, than he should have a defense.

Global warming a religion?  To some it is.




Hank Campbell | 11/05/09 | 19:33 PM
Perhaps the way we should be moving is not giving any special protection to belief at all.

If you hold a belief and it prevents you from performing your job or providing service to all clients, then you should be grown up enough to move on to another job.

If you push your belief in the workplace so that it negatively impacts others, then you may well need to be removed from the workplace.

Just because a belief is sincerely held, does not mean that non-beleivers to it have to give it any respect just because it's a belief or tradition.

nina (not verified) | 11/06/09 | 19:12 PM
Gerhard Adam's picture
That's true IF the job is being impacted.  The allegation being made is that he was terminated because of his beliefs, and not failure to perform his job.

Clearly an individual's belief cannot take precedence if it is direct conflict with the job.  I don't think anyone truly expects that to be protected.  However, an individual should not have their livelihood threatened simply because someone within an organization disagrees with their personal beliefs (assuming that job performance is not being negatively impacted).

Gerhard Adam | 11/06/09 | 19:23 PM

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.