Slashdot Mirror


JPL Employee's Firing Wasn't Due To Intelligent Design Advocacy, Says Judge

SternisheFan 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."

29 of 477 comments (clear)

  1. Imagine that.... by wkcole · · Score: 4, Funny

    An advocate of Intelligent Design who wasn't competent to work in a scientific organization? I'm SHOCKED!

    Not really....

    1. Re:Imagine that.... by sribe · · 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.)

    2. Re:Imagine that.... by damienl451 · · Score: 4, 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.

    3. Re:Imagine that.... by Jessified · · Score: 4, 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?

    4. Re:Imagine that.... by khasim · · Score: 4, 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.

    5. Re:Imagine that.... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  2. you can't act however you want at work by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  3. That's what happens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you don't adapt......

    1. Re:That's what happens... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Witch hunts are great fun. We should all get on-board and burn this guy.

      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?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  4. Re:First by ranton · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are still people out there who believe Einstein was religious?

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  5. Re:First by Oroka · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But Einstein was not a fanatic trying to force his believes on others. Religion is fine if kept polite. The bible states 'neither cast ye your pearls before swine'. Dont waste your time on those not willing to listen. Freedom of religion is fine, freedom of speech is great. You dont walk into the center of the opposing opinion and start shoving your ideas down their throats and expect open arms and high fives. Bible thumpers can be a bit nuts, but atheists can be equally nuts. JPL justly fired a nut.

  6. Einstein on Religion by SternisheFan · · Score: 5, Informative
    Einstien's view on religion (Wikipedia): d Beliefs Albert Einstein, 1921. Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied due to his sometimes apparently ambiguous statements and writings on the subject. He said he believed in the god of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also reportedly called himself an agnostic, and criticized atheism, preferring he said "an attitude of humility." [1]

    "In a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, 17 December 1952 Einstein stated, "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve." [8] Eric Gutkind sent a copy of his book "Choose Life: The Biblical Call To Revolt" [9] to Einstein in 1954. Einstein sent Gutkind a letter in response and wrote, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text."

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein#section_2

  7. Put the shoe on the other foot by sideslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    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.

    1. Re:Put the shoe on the other foot by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:Put the shoe on the other foot by realityimpaired · · 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.

    3. Re:Put the shoe on the other foot by erroneus · · Score: 4, 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.

    4. Re:Put the shoe on the other foot by erroneus · · Score: 4, 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.

  8. Pattern of poor choices by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let's assume that he is even right for a moment on all his issues. He is in an environment of people who really don't like any of these positions; yet he keeps bringing them up and pushing them in others' faces. Can you imagine what this tool was like to work with on normal issues?

    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.

  9. Re:Einstein on Atheism by SternisheFan · · Score: 5, Informative
    Einstein rejected the label atheist, which he associated with certainty regarding God's nonexistence. Einstein stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." [1]

    According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." [16]

    Einstein had previously explored the belief that man could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he believed in God, explained: Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things. [17]

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein#section_2

  10. Sharia law by fermion · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is interested that practicing and promoting Christian sharia law while accepting taxpayer handouts is acceptable, even mandatory, by the wing nut right, and considered protected speech, but any other religious law is considered illegal activity. Case in point. We have holiday parties because some don't want taxpayer money to be used to indoctrinate their kids into the some Christian ideal that physical gifts, not love or the acceptance of the savior is the critical parts of Christmas. We see this in the fact that many Christians want Christmas sales, not holiday sales, to cement the connection between manufactured secular good and a very important, at least to some, Christian festival. This promotion is to such a point that many have called such separation between religion and the money changes a 'war on Christmas.' It seems simple enough to say we don't like sharia law, and it is cause for termination to promote it, but obviously if one is Christian wasting taxpayer money to annoy your workers is a god given and constitutional right.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:Sharia law by Black+Parrot · · 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.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  11. Re:First by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Im still not really clear why anyone should care about the religious beliefs of Newton or Einstein.

  12. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  13. Re:First by kilodelta · · Score: 4, Informative

    Without a doubt. I lost one job because my boss was a Catholic nut job. He decided once he found out I was gay that I wasn't needed anymore. Of course couched in terms of performance.

  14. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · 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...

  15. Re:First by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Alchemy and occultism in Newton's sense meant "I'm a scientist but I don't know what science is." He wanted to understand the world, even though the methods for doing so weren't worked out very well yet. In an era when we didn't have any clue how causality actually worked, sometimes that meant entertaining bizarre notions which we know only in hindsight were superstitious.

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  16. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's just cuz God unfriended him after Einstein stopped showing up for his Farm.

  17. Re:Einstein on Atheism by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, 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.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  18. Re:First by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, 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.