JPL Employee's Firing Wasn't Due To Intelligent Design Advocacy, Says Judge 477
A reader writes with an update to a story from earlier this year about a lawsuit in which David Coppedge alleged he was fired from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory for his advocacy of Intelligent Design. Now, a judge has ruled that Coppedge was legitimately dismissed for performance reasons. From the article:
"n 2009, he apparently got a bit aggressive about promoting these ideas at work, leading one employee to complain. The resulting investigation found that he had also aggressively promoted his opinion on California's gay marriage ban, and had attempted to get JPL's holiday party renamed to 'Christmas party.' ... Coppedge was warned about his behavior at work, but he felt it was an infringement of his religious freedom, so he sued. Shortly after, as part of a set of cutbacks on the Cassini staff, he was fired. In court, Coppedge and his lawyer portrayed him as being targeted for promoting an idea that is, to put it mildly, not popular with scientists. But JPL's legal team introduced evidence that his aggressive promotion of it at work was part of a pattern of bad interactions with his fellow employees that dated back at least five years earlier."
Imagine that.... (Score:4, Funny)
An advocate of Intelligent Design who wasn't competent to work in a scientific organization? I'm SHOCKED!
Not really....
Re:Imagine that.... (Score:5, Insightful)
An advocate of Intelligent Design who wasn't competent to work in a scientific organization? I'm SHOCKED!
OK, your sarcasm is on point, but... I wonder... Think about this: is it possible that the level of aggressive misbehavior exhibited by this person was fueled by cognitive dissonance? Was he trying to convince his coworkers or himself?
(Either way, firing him was the right thing to do and he deserves whatever mockery and sarcasm we can dish out.)
Re:Imagine that.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, could a religious organization not fire someone who is promoting ideas contrary to the church? Why should a secular organization have to tolerate religious fanaticism if a religious organization does not have to tolerate other views?
Re: (Score:2)
The private religious university I attended has a strict rule about accepting public funds because above some threshold, determined by law, you are subject to a lot of federal non-discrimination laws that would preclude things like firing a professor for his religious views.
Re: (Score:2)
Government agency, supported by government funds - non-discrimination rules are legion, and if a government agency implements a rule that basically amounts to, "you can't talk about your religious beliefs," there is a first amendment concern there. It would have to be shown that it wasn't the "religious beliefs, per se" that caused the firing, but a pattern of disruptive behavior and poor performance. It looks like JPL has shown this, but if they weren't able to provide documentation of the issue, the cas
Re: (Score:3)
I would have thought that discrimination laws would transcend the private/public barrier. For example, can a private institution not hire black people (you know, for being black)?
In Canada (it varies from province to province), discrimination is discrimination. While there are different rules for different areas (i.e. tenancy vs employment) I do not believe that in the area of employment that private institutions have a different set of rules when it comes to discrimination.
The only exception is if it's an
Re: (Score:3)
Religious organizations can fire their employees for almost any purpose. It used to be that it was limited to people who directly teach or perform religious duties however if you give a 10 minute morning chapel or direct a class in prayer you are now considered a religious employee according to a recent supreme court ruling.
So even if you're teaching chemistry at a church affiliated school they can fire you for talking about carbon dating if they also require you to start your class with a prayer. In the
Re:Imagine that.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Was he trying to convince his coworkers or himself?
Himself. Exactly the same as everyone else who "believes" in Intelligent Design.
Re:Imagine that.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's a lot more likely that he was simply a aggressive, socially awkward guy who simply didn't know when to shut the fuck up about the things he was really "into". Not that much of a departure from fairly typical geek behavior, he just happened to be into a "hobby" that rubbed a lot of his fellow geeks the wrong way and they were less patient with.
I have no sympathy for the guy, but I work with people like this who get nutty over their pet issues and drive me up the wall too - every one of you reading this probably know someone like this as well - and if you don't, you're probably the one everybody else in your workplace thinks of.
Re:Imagine that.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Never doubt the ability that people have to compartmentalize their thinking. You can actually have a lot of technical skills, and even a lot of science knowledge, yet hold fairly bizarre views that are directly contradicted by the evidence that you know. It's kinda hard to do if you actually have to use the principles that directly contradict your beliefs (i.e., you usually won't find young-earth creationists doing research in evolutionary biology), but most scientific fields are broad enough that you can easily specialize in something that won't threaten your bizarre beliefs.
Re:Imagine that.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I see it is that someone with a personal belief will try to get a measure of authority by earning a degree in a related field of science.
Remember that getting a degree does NOT mean that you agree with the material. Only that you have mastered the material.
Then they write books about their beliefs and make sure that their degree(s) are included in their author bio.
Maybe they'll find a job with some real research firm or something. But that is a bit difficult after their first book is published and anyone looks up their name on Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that getting a degree does NOT mean that you agree with the material. Only that you have mastered the material.
Unless you get it from Liberty University.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you encountered many 18-year-olds with such a cunning plan? I'm afraid that you're ascribing sinister designs to people just because they happen to disagree with you. It sounds a bit like the fundamentalists who think that they have to make students sign an über-detailed statement of faith, because we all know that atheists have nothing better to do than pretend to be Christians to ruin a seminary.
Perhaps some people come up with such schemes. But, then, once they get their PhD (assuming they were
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Back in the mid-90s I worked with a hella great, hella smart guy. One of the best software engineers I've ever run across. He also believed every conspiracy out there. The hot one at the time was the face on Mars. He had every book on it, followed all the Usenet groups, and, given the chance, would talk your ear off about it. Not to mention the Kennedy assassination and every other whacko theory you can think of.
But he wasn't a jerk about it. If you didn't ask he didn't bring it up.
Wonder what ever ha
Re:Imagine that.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's try to keep facts straight. The articles that I have read did not bring his professional competence into question. His professional competence would only be an issue if he was unable to perform his duties (due to his religious beliefs or otherwise).
The issue was that his conduct in the workplace was interfering with the function of that workplace. If he said that he believed in intelligent design and left it at that, there probably wouldn't have been an issue. Yet he upped the ante by being aggressive about promoting those beliefs. Since the promotion of individual beliefs is outside the scope of most workplaces, it is outside the realm of religious freedoms.
Re: (Score:2)
The articles I read did bring his competence into question which is why he was let go.
Re:Imagine that.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Where does it say he was incompetent? It says he was fired because he kept bothering other employees with his ideas.
I know it violates /. tradition and may even be deemed "cheating," but there's at least one link in every /. post leading to a direct source article, which YOU CAN ACTUALLY READ ALL BY YOURSELF! In this case the referenced article links to another more detailed and specific AP article that details the bozo's workplace failure.
It is worth noting that for support staff (in this case a "computer specialist" on the Cassini project) not being a nuisance to co-workers is a critical and fundamental job skill. So is maintaining the respect & trust of the people doing the core work of the organization. JPL was correct in providing evidence of Coppedge's bad attitude and workplace evangelism as part of the argument that he was cut for perfectly sound reasons. Working well with others is a perfectly legitimate job requirement and failing to do so is a competence issue in many jobs.
you can't act however you want at work (Score:5, Informative)
In other words, he had been acting like an asshole at work for years, and when cuts came around, they decided to get rid of an asshole. Guess what? If you act like an asshole at work, you MIGHT GET FIRED.
That's what happens... (Score:5, Funny)
If you don't adapt......
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this what you would have told gay and lesbian co-workers 20 years ago?
Defending the rights of those you disagree with is the hallmark of true freedom loving people. Its pretty clear "bad interactions" as the reason for firing him was based on the fact a lot of folks disliked him because of his personal religious beliefs - we call this sort of behavior discrimination.
Having beliefs, opinions, a personal life is one thing. Getting harassed for those beliefs is discrimination and should be avoided.
Harassing your co-workers with your beliefs is also to be avoided. This fellow was fired for a pattern of harassing his co-workers, a pattern he was asked to avoid, which he refused to do. The firing was justified.
It doesn't matter what those beliefs were, it is the harassment that was the reason for the firing.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:That's what happens... (Score:4, Insightful)
It wasn't his personal religious beliefs, it was the fact he wouldn't keep them personal. No employee, not even a government employee has an absolute right to proselytize at work. You are requires to maintain standards of decorum and behaviour, and if there are repeated complaints by coworkers and warnings from management you will likely end up being fired.
Re:That's what happens... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes I actually believe he was fired for being a dick and that some religious groups, just like you, are dishonestly trying to make it look like persecution.
Re: (Score:3)
None can love freedom heartily, but good men... the rest love not freedom, but license.
--John Milton
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's what happens... (Score:5, Interesting)
I couldn't find any comments supporting "burning" Mr Coppedge, so I don't know what you're talking about.
And the article you linked to is on a religious, pro-Intelligent Design website. Mr Coppedge got his day in court, and after an extensive hearing, it was determined that he was not fired because of his beliefs. He was basically selling Amway on company property and during business hours. You can't do that at workplaces, even if it's during your "lunch break". Most workplaces have rules about that stuff.
Our justice system is not biased for or against Intelligent Design, but the article you link to is absolutely biased in favor of Intelligent Design. As a society, should we believe you or our own eyes?
Put the shoe on the other foot (Score:4, Insightful)
As a religious person who works professionally with a diverse bunch of colleagues, I have experienced offensive pushing of personal beliefs from atheists much more often than from religious colleagues. And frankly, it's my habit to just smile and get along. I don't think my colleagues should be fired for promoting atheism, gay marriage, abortion, or what have you.
Of course you do. (Score:4, Informative)
That makes sense because you already share the same beliefs as your "religious colleagues". So why would the "personal beliefs" be "offensive" to you?
Since you do not share the same beliefs as the "atheists" then their beliefs are more "offensive" to you when they interject them.
Are they being an asshole about it? Because those don't seem like work-related subjects.
You don't seem to be understanding the situation.
It isn't the nature of the beliefs.
It is the asshole pushing them in an asshole'ish fashion and INSISTING that his "freedom" is more important than anyone else's freedom to NOT have his religious beliefs inflicted upon them AT WORK.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're a religious person, would religious colleagues push their opinions on you?
Agreed with you on the other point, but one caveat: you're at work to work, not to preach. At some point, common courtesy indicates that a subject be dropped. Otherwise it's disruptive to everyone.
Re:Put the shoe on the other foot (Score:4, Insightful)
It's called confirmation bias. You don't experience other religious people pushing their personal beliefs because when another religious persons says something like "god guided me to a solution," you think, "yes, god is good." But when a non-religious person says, "there is no god, we have to do this on our own," you think, "wow, pushy!"
And yes, if a coworker spends a lot of time promoting religous or political issues at work, I want them to stop, even if I agree with them. I'm there to work, not to debate philosophy or current events. And if this goes on for years, with management asking them to stop, then they should be on the short list. Even if I agree 100% with what they say.
I may not agree with you, and I will defend your right to speak your mind, but in an appropriate forum. Not in department meetings, not in team meetings, not when I'm trying to focus on my job.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a religious person who works professionally with a diverse bunch of colleagues, I have experienced offensive pushing of personal beliefs from atheists much more often than from religious colleagues.
insert pic of 'help, help, we're being repressed!' here.
you folks have been the VERY vocal majority since, well, the beginning of your religion. don't you think its fair that others get to try to balance the scales just a wee bit?
right, its an attack on christianity. knew you'd be thinking that, if not sayi
Re:Put the shoe on the other foot (Score:5, Informative)
Let's suppose that somebody at JPL was promoting atheism, complained that the Christmas party should be renamed to the Holiday party, and suggested that California allow gay marriage. Would that be offensive as well? Be careful about piling on with "serves him right" when somebody is fired for what amounts to political incorrectness in the workplace. Without more detail I am skeptical of the accusations that he was "too aggressive" with this stuff or that it was a serious dereliction of his job. In my experience, many atheists are offended even by any public display of personal religious belief and practice, or any religious people engaging in discussion with others about it. They think religious people should be forced to maintain an appearance of secular belief when in public places, which is actually absurd and offensive in its own way.
Promoting atheism is just as offensive as promoting theism. Religion has no place in the workplace, unless your workplace happens to be devoted to religious study of some sort. As long as you're not hurting anybody, I don't give a flying fuck what you choose to believe. It's not my concern, as long as you recognize that I have a right to believe differently.
That being said, renaming the Christmas party to the Holiday party is about inclusion... all 3 of the Abrahamic religions have holy festivals around that time of year, not to mention a large number of other festivals associated with the solstice. Almost every religion in the world does something that time of year, and calling it the "Holiday" party instead of the "Christmas" party acknowledges that those other religions have value. It also acknolwedges and includes people who don't follow any specific religion. (though the word "holiday" itself is a bastardization of "holy day", which kind of excludes the atheists)
Allowing gay marriage, similarly, is about inclusion. I can't believe I even have to make the argument here, but the only consequence of allowing gay marriage is that gay people will get married. The world will not blow up, cats will not start having sex with dogs, it will not suddenly start raining fish, the sun will not turn purple, and you will not hear 7 trumpet blasts. It's about extending the same rights to gay people that heterosexual people enjoy, pure and simple. And if your religion doesn't endorse gay marriage, then don't fucking perform it. Gay people can just as easily have a civil ceremony before a justice of the peace, or go to one of the churches that *does* support gay unions. It is *not* about people with an agenda trying to force their beliefs on others, it's about people wanting to have the same rights as everybody else. Of course, opposition to extending these rights to the queer community is about people forcing their beliefs on others....
Now... if you'd bothered to read the articles linked, it would be quite clear that this guy was a douche. He had a reputation for being pig-headed, and refusing to negotiate on anything... it always had to be his way that things got done. He had been spoken to as early as 5 years before he was dismissed about his unprofessional behaviour, and even admitted during his own testimony that they had been asking him for years to smarten up. There are plenty of religious people working for JPL who don't have any problems at all, and his religion had nothing to do with his having been laid off. And yes, it was a lay-off... they let 200 people go at the same time as him, because there was a funding cut. This is a complete non-story, and the only reason it's getting any press at all is because a number of zealots are trying to incorrectly paint this as an attack on religion.
Re:Put the shoe on the other foot (Score:4, Interesting)
Secondly, this whole thing is a tactic that the Christian right of getting into scientific or academic positions, being loudmouthed about their beliefs, and finally getting themselves canned for other reasons and shout that they are fired for being Christian. They do this to try and promote the idea that Christians are being persecuted, and that they need more recognition. It's a scummy tactic that these evangelical groups are trying to use to gain power. No, evangelicals, you are not being persecuted in this country; just because someone tells you to be quiet in a place you aren't supposed to be mouthing off about anything doesn't make it an oppression of your religion; no, because something is offensive to your beliefs does not make it an attack on your beliefs, you have no right to be not offended.
Re:Put the shoe on the other foot (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe you're in a different part of the country. I'm in Ohio, we get people trying to shove religion down our throat every day. I can't imagine having to live somewhere in the actual Bible belt....
I'm not going to trounce on anyone's beliefs but when you get up in front of the entire office (around 120 people) and ask people to pray for you because a home inspector is coming to your house this afternoon representing the potential buyers... well, you can just shut the fuck up. I'm sure as hell not going to waste any prayers on a greedy asshat like that.
But I digress... if the office is going to remain a professional environment, politics and religion really should stay out of it.
Re:Put the shoe on the other foot (Score:5, Interesting)
I want Christmas to remain Christmas. I'm an atheist. I don't care for the name "saturnalia" or whatever else it may be called. There is history behind it and its practices and people respond to it with happiness and that's why I like it too. Don't change Christmas. But also, don't change Halloween. Don't change Easter. I liked the way things were. There's a lot of human heritage there.
Most "religious people" aren't really religious. I find that comforting and reassuring. Even people that claim to be devout just really aren't... they are merely selective about which rules they follow. I find that reassuring as well... knowing this keeps me comfortable in the face of even the most rabit of "religious" situations. But those situations bring out a kind of snarky pity from me... "I forgive you" is my attitude to those... it's what Jesus would do.
Re: (Score:3)
Turns out Americans go the church about as much as the "godless" Europeans - except Europeans don't lie about it nearly as much. [npr.org]
Re:Put the shoe on the other foot (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm saying those things just don't have any serious meaning. They did up until they basically polluted their religious practices with pagan practices.
I'm just not threatened by these light-hearted holidays. Now if someone were to force me to attend church services? Yeah, I'd object. I'd break out into violence eventually.
It's not harmful. It's even healthy at times. I have concerns about the over commercialization of the holidays... because you know, it's "the holidays" now and they all begin the very second Halloween is over. You wanna talk about what's bad? Let's talk about that. Let's talk about commerce as a cultural basis and what it's doing to people.
Once again, "not religious" "am atheist" "not spiritual" or whatever. But I see a larger human spirit that is being crushed; Crushed by religion and politics and commerce and all that.
I say keep the good, let go of the bad. Fanaticism is yet another -ism.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's suppose that somebody at JPL was promoting atheism, complained that the Christmas party should be renamed to the Holiday party, and suggested that California allow gay marriage. Would that be offensive as well?
Offensive? No, not to me at least. But in a workplace like NASA, at a time where many people are getting laid off. I would expect that if the atheist in question was evangelical enough and annoying enough -- he would be one of the first ones to be let go. And I say this as an atheist myself. In times of lay offs, you let go of the troublemakers (even the ones that are of the same group and the same religion as you are).
But the reverse is also true, in periods of growth, when there is nobody else to hire
Re: (Score:2)
But that's exactly why we let courts handle such matters. It's impossible to have standards that deal with every possible situation and draw a clear line in the sand between innocuous lunch time conversation (so, what do you think about proposition whatever) and inappropriate behaviors. So, if someone thinks that their dismissal was unfair, they're free to challenge it. Then an unbiased third-party can decide if their conduct warranted dismissal or not.
The key here is that, while it's true that employees ha
Re:Put the shoe on the other foot (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Let's suppose that somebody at JPL was promoting atheism, complained that the Christmas party should be renamed to the Holiday party, and suggested that California allow gay marriage. Would that be offensive as well? Be careful about piling on with "serves him right" when somebody is fired for what amounts to political incorrectness in the workplace. Without more detail I am skeptical of the accusations that he was "too aggressive" with this stuff or that it was a serious dereliction of his job.
With your self-avowed lack of knowledge of the details, maybe you should assume the judge knows what he's talking about.
In my experience, many atheists are offended even by any public display of personal religious belief and practice, or any religious people engaging in discussion with others about it. They think religious people should be forced to maintain an appearance of secular belief when in public places, which is actually absurd and offensive in its own way.
So how would you feel if one of your coworkers constantly tried to proselytize you to homosexuality?
As a religious person who works professionally with a diverse bunch of colleagues, I have experienced offensive pushing of personal beliefs from atheists much more often than from religious colleagues.
My experience is quite the opposite. I do have one coworker who puts in an irreligion jibe in a meeting about every two years. Compare that to a former coworker who couldn't let a conversation go by without trying to recruit you to his religion, whose religious decorations on his office wa
Re: (Score:3)
There was more detail - he got a trial to air his side of the story. And he lost. And I am glad there are such trials, and approve of paying taxes to support them, because I agree there is a big potential for unfair bias in employment.
Although I think it usually cuts the other way. For example, there is a de-facto Christianity test for the Presidency of t
Re: (Score:3)
Coppedge said. "Imagine if employees were told, stop pushing your gay agenda or stop pushing your feminist agenda, your civil rights agenda,
OK - and my imagination said they would be fired as well if they were being assholes about it.
Re: (Score:2)
You're just another theist trying to carve out special privileges for your beliefs
And complaining that he's being discriminated against when he isn't allowed to.
Pattern of poor choices (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect he was fired for not being able to read others and play well with others. In an engineering/science world this would be quite an accomplishment to stand out by having poor social skills.
I know a parent at a private school who was equally religious about her health-food lifestyle and was always pushing it down people's throats. The other parents suddenly had important texts to send when she showed up. Where she crossed the line was when she began to try an enforce her view on the other kids arguing it was unfair to her kids to have to see them eating junk food like milk, wheat based bread, and cheese. The school asked her not to enroll the next year.
There are people who don't understand boundaries and they can create a poisonous atmosphere.
It is like fat people being angry when skinny people eat donuts. Fat people aren't the problem, donuts aren't the problem, it is the fat people imposing on the skinny that is the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh... I know... but every time I differentiate myself from the crowd by refusing or bowing out, I feel it... you know what I'm talking about.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh... I know... but every time I differentiate myself from the crowd by refusing or bowing out, I feel it... you know what I'm talking about.
Good grief. I've spent my whole life refusing and bowing out of everything under the sun, and people just don't give a damn.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seriously claiming that people are offended when you pass on dessert?[*]
[*]Except Grandma, or course.
Re: (Score:2)
No. They are offended when everyone else is eating cupcakes, they say "OMG! These are great! Have one!!!" and I go like "I want one... I really REALLY do... please stop tempting me... "
People want to share. I try to refuse. That refusal is... well? You get the idea.
Seriously... (Score:2)
Why the fuck is this case still in court and not already dismissed?
Sharia law (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
the 'war on christmas' is, strangely enough, only a concept held within the minds of those who were brought up from childhood in a usually isolated christian-majority town.
how can you grow up in a modern world and still think that the country you live in owes YOUR religion something special above and beyond the others?
the lack of ability to put yourself into others' shoes is pretty sad. you can't even imagine how a non-xtian would feel if being bombarded continually during this season, on things that they
Re:Sharia law (Score:5, Insightful)
The "War on Christmas" is actually a war on inclusive society. It exists only in the minds of people who feel persecuted if they aren't allowed force their ways on everyone else.
Also, I would be willing to wager that the people screaming loudest about the (imagined) incorporation of Sharia into US law are the same people who are demanding loudest to have US law to force *their* religious scruples on the rest of us.
Extrem -isms are bad? Really? Who'da thought? (Score:2)
Extreme -isms are things that prevent even the most similar groups of people to become separated. This causes division and discomfort.... isolation and ostracism.
In this case, the guy was preaching to the wrong crowd even if they tried to tolerate him for at least 5 long years. But then again, their tolerance was probably viewed as acceptance... that what he was doing was okay somehow. I see guilt on both sides.
Expect to see more of this sort of thing. (Score:3)
Expect to see more of this sort of thing. Here is the thing. In my estimation/opinion, Christianity is 'done'. There is no good reason for anyone to follow this religion anymore. The reason for that is that it has been scientifically disproved. So what you are seeing now is, people whose entire lives have been raised on this belief system we now have concrete evidence to debunk, attempting to use the legal system like a bludgeon to cover up the evidence.
What we are in right now with situations like the ID movement is denial. There are people out there who Christianity has been all they've known there entire lives. They will go through all manner of mental gymnastics to try and fit this bronze age myth into the scientific world as much as possible. Here's the problem. It's going to kill us if we don't stop this.
For one thing, we have severe environmental issues that are getting worse by the day, and we have diseases that are getting more difficult to treat. People who believe in Christianity, are also to some extent rejecting modern medical science. There was a US Congressman who advocated not vaccinating females against a kind of cervical cancer because the Bible said so.. Many children die in the US due to things like faith healing.
Are you entitled to your religion? Sure. But you are not allowed to ban science you don't like because it goes against your religion. The supernatural claims of the Bible just patently false. There is no Holy spirit, there is no salvation by Jesus, or any other such insanity. You can think that if you want too, but you are not allowed to tell other people what they can do, and create and invent. You aren't allowed to impose your religion on other people.
Re: (Score:2)
What we are in right now with situations like the ID movement is denial.
I suspect that for the leaders of the movement it is just a cynical scam to keep hoi polloi opiated and obedient.
Not everyone asks "who guards the guards?".
Noah's freakin' Arc (Score:4, Interesting)
After a few moments we started talking about his dog, who I agree is probably one of the most awesome dogs around...
So I do think he's pretty loony for believing in a literal interpretation of Noah's Arc. I thought he had a greater capacity for critical thinking but oh well that's my opinion and my belief. What matters is that was the moment he found out what I believe and I found out what he believes. From that point forward we both dropped it, we haven't talked about religion again. That is how you handle situations like this. If the non work-related conversation causes conflict at work, that conversation better not happen again. Why can't more people do this?
This reminds me of the day 30 years ago ... (Score:2)
That's Nice (Score:3)
Re:First (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Non-religious people are fucking stupid, non-delusional idiots anyway.
Seriously, if there is nothing to religion, why do people fight so hard against it? Why not allow it to be called a Christmas party? Why can't he voice his opinions on gay marriage? Everybody for gay marriage is allowed to share their opinions.
Of course he shouldn't have been combative. That's just stupid too. But God forbid anybody but a Muslim become combative. (Then we all have to apologize to them).
Welcome to the beginning of Fare
Re: (Score:3)
Random non-sequiter.
The first post is combative and not really insightful (even though modded as such). Some religouus people are fucking idiots. Most are not. I wasn't even commenting on the article, I was commenting to the OP. Barely read TFS.
Comments on the summary. This guy is an ass. Always has been, always will be. He would be an ass if he was gay, muslim, evolutionist, or even a AGW believer, and he deseerved to be fired. He needs to just realize that Christians are and will always be second
Re:First (Score:5, Informative)
There are still people out there who believe Einstein was religious?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Einstein on Atheism (Score:4, Insightful)
What I think what religious people don't get is that the non-religious people don't care what Einstein's views on religious were, because they don't need constant confirmation of their beliefs. Not running into god(s) every single day of their lives is enough.
Re: (Score:3)
That said, as an atheist it seems that placing faith in a demonstrably false belief system (i.e., most religions) isn't the best way to find truth.
I always find the fetishism many atheists have towards rationality amusing, since atheism isn't a particularly rational belief (that would be agnosticism). It's very hard for a belief system to be "demonstrably false" when that system includes as a basic premise a conscious entity that can transcend the physical laws of the universe. Unprovable, yes, but not provably false. That's a distinction that many self-described paragons of rationality don't seem to be able to grasp.
I did not say that belief in "god" was demonstrably false. My apologies. I should have been more clear -- saying something like this: most religions incorporate false belief systems (e.g., the world was created six thousand years ago in seven days, or that Brahma split himself in two to create man and woman, etc., etc., etc.).
If we look to science and rationality, we know these creation myths to be just that -- myths. We don't have a clear (at least not clear enough for my taste) picture of what happened
Re:Einstein on Atheism (Score:5, Insightful)
Einstein rejected the label atheist, which he associated with certainty regarding God's nonexistence.
even so 'short' a time ago as this, people were threatened (death threats and other, uhm, career-limiting things) if they did not go along with the mainstream religion.
you cannot go by what someone says, if they felt fear for what might happen if they were honest.
only very brave folks would dare admit that they were athiest.
and back then, it was extremely uncommon to 'fess up' about your true feelings on this subject.
Re:Einstein on Religion (Score:4, Funny)
Re:First (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, Christians post his picture and a quote about knowing God on facebook all the time.
Made-up quote you mean.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Fairly certain Einstein never said he knew God on Facebook.
Re:First (Score:4, Funny)
That's just cuz God unfriended him after Einstein stopped showing up for his Farm.
Re:First (Score:4, Informative)
Einstein wasn't religious. In fact he did not believe in a god. Religious people like to pull select quotes from him to make him appear to be religious, to use as an argument from authority against atheists, but there is a detailed letter that he wrote in which he categorically denied believing in god.
Re:First (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This, ever so much.
I personally do not believe in a god.
My workplace however is full of religious people, primarily christian I believe.
My boss, whom is self-adamantly religious, is one of the nicest, kind and generous people I've had the pleasure of meeting. My boss is also the founder and one of three owners of the company.
Other than as side effects, the fact he is religious has never once come up. The fact that I am not has never once come up.
He has mentioned in conversation details that indicate he is
Re:First (Score:5, Funny)
Religion is like a penis. It's okay to have one, play with it, show it to people if they wanna see it, but you just can't whip it out in public and start cramming it down peoples' throats...
Re: (Score:3)
But Christianity in the US and Europe is not "polite": its adherents and officials constantly insult non-members, and, worse, churches misuse taxes paid by non-members to finance their operations and recruit.
Re: (Score:3)
The silent majority of Christians voted for Prop 8, is intolerant towards atheists, and accepts government funding to promote its religion. And even if you don't hold those beliefs, remaining a church member and remaining silent in the presence of intolerance and injustice by your church makes you responsible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Einstein wasn't religious.
Newton was, but I think most people would be comfortable labeling him delusional :P
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but that alchemy thing >_>
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
Im still not really clear why anyone should care about the religious beliefs of Newton or Einstein.
Re:First (Score:4, Insightful)
When religious people try to back up their (bogus) scientific arguments, they like to cite religious scientists as if it the existence of scientists who are religious makes the arguments more compelling. "Famous scientist X was religious, so shouldn't you accept my religiously-motivated supposedly scientific arguments too?" It's basically an argument by authority.
It's irrelevant, of course.
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes you think a "present-day scientist" in any less superstitious than any other human? What makes you think the conclusions being reached today are not in fact stupid and wrong?
The scientific method.
Einstein was not religious. (Score:2)
Including Einstein, I presume?
Einstein was not religious. A bunch of morons are trying to rewrite history, complete with made-up quotes. Look it up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:First (Score:4, Interesting)
Einstein wasn't religious at all. He did believe in God, but his notion of the deity was pretty abstract.
Aside from that detail, I agree with your post. I'd even go one step further: many atheists like to label themselves "skeptics", a label which once described critical examination of fringe science, but which now is simply an excuse for bigoted, ad hominem attacks on anybody or anything that doesn't align with the prejudices of said "skeptic." Basically a fancy word for trolling.
I should add that I myself am an atheist, but one that respects the beliefs of the religious. I can name many religious people who are intelligent, tolerant, and open-minded.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not bad behavior if you're doing the lord's work... right? right? And of course, nothing can harm me because God's got my back... right?? And if you reject me? It's the devil. No one is responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not bad behavior if you're doing the lord's work... right? right? And of course, nothing can harm me because God's got my back... right??
Best to find out if God's got your back in court before you start harassing your coworkers.
Re: (Score:2)
Heavy use if fragrances is as much a disturbance as pushing your religion on coworkers. There are jus some people who seem to refuse to understand that there are boundaries that one should live within in any social group.
Re: (Score:2)
If he was fired simply for his personal belief in ID, that would be discrimination. But he wasn't, he was fired for repeatedly harassing staff. Again, you do not have a right to proselytize at your place of work.
Re: (Score:2)
I also believe that belief is spelled with an f. But you're poor grammar...
This is something I've learned from years and years on the Internet and on Usenet. Never, ever post about spelling and grammar (unless it's particularly bad). You are virtually guaranteed to make your own mistake while posting such a comment. It's a law of the universe or something.
Anyway, on your original post, I have to say that these things can go either way. People do have human interactions at work, so, to the degree that non-work related interaction is acceptable, religious discourse would seem to be
Re:Why wasn't he fired 5 years earlier? (Score:4, Insightful)
They tolerate Behe at Lehigh University. He does his job, and does not misuse his academic position to further his private aims within the confines of the University. Firing him because of his belief in ID would be wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
That's really the whole point of it, when religitards are saying "religious freedom".
Right. Notice that his position in the lawsuit was that he was being persecuted.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You polled all of them? It's possible, you know, that people who oppose abortion do so because religious leaders have told them if they don't they'll go to Hell. It's possible they oppose abortion because their patriarchal viewpoint disdains women having sex without their father's approval. It's possible that they oppose abortion because they don't want women to have any control of her own body.
You can say why you oppose abortion, LordLimecat, but
Re: (Score:2)
There is classes for re-training behavior issues of what is/isn't acceptable
Yeah, I've seen A Clockwork Orange too.