What Happens When You Keep Repeating The Same Lie Over And Over Again?

I don't know about you, but as the saying goes, no matter how much mayonnaise you use, you cannot turn chicken sh** into chicken salad.  Little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer, one of the Discovery Institute (DI) talking heads, seems to think if you repeat the same lie enough times, it magically turns into truth.  I disagree, as you can plainly see.

He's been bleating about the David Coppedge trial for a few weeks now, only this time he's tried to enlist Martin Luther King.  (On Martin Luther King Day, Consider This About Intelligent Design) At least this time he hasn't tried to turn Dr. King into an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent.  I am sure that's on the agenda eventually, after all Dr. King meets the only apparent criteria -- he's deceased.  What klingy is doing is bad enough, he's trying to claim that Evolution is a civil rights issue rather than a scientific issue.  In a word, No, it's not.

First off, where were Coppedge's civil rights violated?  He was hired by people who were well aware of his religious beliefs.  He was employed there for years without any adverse actions based on his beliefs, he was even given an additional administrative responsibility based on his seniority --regardless of his beliefs.  What changed wasn't CalTech/JPL policy, but Coppedge's behavior.

Coppedge seems to believe that his beliefs would permit him to harass other employees multiple times.  That his beliefs would protect his position and his job regardless of any complaints or reports of poor performance, and that his employers would take no action even though he allowed his skill set to lag behind the needs of the job.  And  . . . here is the best part . . . when he discovered that none of that was true, he sued for religious viewpoint discrimination.  So, other than in his mind -- in the minds of his lawyers -- and in the DI's public relations department, where in all this were his civil rights being violated?

He was not let go because of his religious beliefs!  He was not let go, as klingy would have you believe, for sharing his religious beliefs in a non-intimidating manner.  He was let go primarily because of his lack of needed skills!  So, one more time, klingy, where was his civil rights violated?

I will tell you whose civil rights were violated, the people whom Coppedge harassed over Creationism/Intelligent Design, CA Prop 8 (Gay Marriage) and the Holiday Party.  Also the managers who tried to counsel an obviously belligerent employee.  And if they had kept Coppedge and fired a more qualified employee, that employee's rights would have been violated for real instead of this imaginary violation against Coppedge.  But no, according to klingy:

"Coppedge's right to dissent from Darwinian orthodoxy was crushed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and the judge in the case accepted NASA's slickly constructed defense, rubber-stamped it, denying him the justice of what should have been total vindication."

According to the trial transcripts and the decision rendered by the judge, Coppedge was not 'crushed' by Darwinian orthodoxy, but by his own unprofessional and harassing behavior and his lack of skills. He was given the precise justice he deserved.  Coppedge, and the DI, are trying to use his religious beliefs as a shield to protect him from his own folly!  Coppedge continues to enjoy the right to dissent from evolution. He ran, and I believe still runs, a creationist blog -- which he was running while he was employed by CalTech/JPL. As you can see by klingy's recent posts, Coppedge is free to grant interviews and make speeches. He has the same freedom of expression of every US citizen, including those less-than-stalwart fellows at the Discovery Institute.

What he does not have is the freedom to harass his co-workers. He does not have the right keep a job amidst validated customer and co-worker complaints. He does not have the right to retain a job when his skill set failed to match the requirements of the job.  You cannot expect an employer to retain an employee like Coppedge?

In the post, klingy mentions "Cecil Phillips".  Cecil's issue was a few years back and didn't impact his employment, just his membership in a private organization.  Little klingy says this:

"For every Cecil Phillips, for every David Coppedge, there are countless other people who share their scientific doubts about Darwin, their openness to seeing evidence of design in nature, but who keep their views to themselves in a strategy of self-defense. They are teachers, professors, students, and other thoughtful open-minded citizens, who can't exercise their right to advocate a particular scientific view. They reasonably fear censorship and bullying."

First of all, like Coppedge, Cecil did not lose any of his civil rights.  What Cecil lost was membership to a private organization after advocating the opposite of the goals of the organization. Tell me, klingy, just how many senior fellows over there at the DI's Center for Science and Culture are proponents of evolution and not Intelligent Design?  Gee, I wonder why that is?  Why is that different for the Americans for the Separate of Church and State?  Why should they be forced to retain a member who opposed their goals?  Especially a private organization?  Cecil didn't just advocate a dissent from evolutionary theory, he pushed for a religious-based alternative, your version of ID.  Gee, he was surprised when they not only told him he wasn't welcome, but they refunded his fee!

What I do find interesting, in both cases, klingy can't seem to stick to the facts of the case.  Klingy says Coppedge was fired for sharing his ID videos. . . he also says Phillips was kicked out for raising doubts about Darwin and Evolution.  Yet the fact show Coppedge did a great deal more than just share his videos and did so in a harassing manner.  Phillips didn't just doubt Darwin, he pushed for DI, a religious alternative to science.  Gee, having trouble with the truth much, kilngy?

As for the rest of the folks klingy mentioned, they can certainly exercise their right to advocate a particular viewpoint, although I cannot call ID a scientific viewpoint with a straight face.  What these 'countless' (yea, sure!) teachers, professors, and students cannot do is offer ID as a valid and viable answer to biological questions in a public school setting.  After all, it's a religious viewpoint, as determined by Federal Court about 11 years ago, and re-affirmed every time the DI rushes to the defense of people like Coppedge and Phillips claiming some sort of religious viewpoint discrimination.  Sure, ID's not religious, yet you rush to the aid of such religious arguments all the time.  Plus you never seem to get the facts straight, it always boils down the religion with you.  Check out those other 'heroes' of the DI Movement (Sternberg, Crocker, Gonzalez, Abrahams, and Davis), in each instance the facts of the case differ greatly from the DI's portrayal.

Bottom line is that according to the court transcript and the final decision, the employment decision to terminate Coppedge was not based on his religious beliefs at all.  Every time klingy posts about Coppedge he's simply lying, as we have pointed out before, and here, and here.  He, and the rest of the DI, just seems to think that if you repeat the same lie often enough, some people will accept it as true.

Religious Beliefs vs. Personal and Professional Responsibilities

This has been a recurring theme in this blog, and in many other places.  In a recent post (Let's Rename the Discovery Institute to the 'Re-writing History Institute'), I tried to make this clear, at least my own position, but I decided to really lay out my thinking on the subject.  In that post I said:

"In my opinion, religious beliefs do not trump personal and professional responsibilities."

Let's expand upon that for a while.  When I use the phrase 'personal and professional responsibilities', what I mean is that as one goes through life, one assumes various responsibilities, for example:

• By accepting a job, you accept the requirement to perform specified duties.  
• By signing up for a college course, you accept the requirement to perform assignments and participate in the activities of the class.  
• When you get married you accept a number of responsibilities, too many to list in this short paragraph.  
• When you enter into a personal relationship with someone, there is a certain amount of give-and-take as the two of you define many of those responsibilities.  
• Becoming a parent, by deliberate choice or not, you have an even longer list of responsibilities, all revolving around the care and development of a new life.

You assume these responsibilities through specific actions of your own, YOU decided to attend school, YOU decided to accept a job offer, YOU decided to enter into a relationship, YOU decided to have children . . . while I know some folks who didn't make that particular conscious decision, they still took the actions that resulted in childbirth.  Whatever the reasons, you made these decisions, and many more, and each and ever one of them came with a set of personal and/or professional responsibilities.  Sometimes those responsibilities conflict and overlap, and part of your life is always spent dealing with them.

Now why do I separate Religious Beliefs from personal and professional responsibilities?  While many would lump them into 'personal', and I am sure you can make an argument for that -- I want to focus on them in a different light because religious beliefs can, and do impact many other decisions because for many people it's part of their decision-making criteria.

For example selecting a college, many people elect to attend a non-secular school because the school aligns with their religious beliefs.  Personal relationship criteria is often based on religion, as in not dating or marrying someone who didn't share the same religious faith.  While it is only one of the possible sets of criteria, it is one of them commonly used.  I worked with someone years ago who was single . . . and enjoying it to the fullest, including the late 1970's Sexual Revolution.  However for all the women he was involved with, he would not consider marrying a single one of them unless they were Jewish!  That was an absolute hard-line for him.  He dated, had sex, had three children that I knew of . . . yet refused to consider marrying any of the mothers of his children because they didn't share his belief set.  I'm not trying to pass judgment on his behavior, simply offering it as an example of how religious beliefs are often used as a decision criteria.

My issue revolves around what do you do when your religious beliefs conflict with already accepted personal or professional responsibilities.  My position is simply, your personal religious beliefs should in no way come before your personal and professional responsibilities!

So let's look at a few examples, like college.  If you do not want to learn subjects that conflict with your religious beliefs, then go to a school that is also based on those beliefs.  If you go to a public school, you do not have the right to force the school to comply with your beliefs.  That's what I am talking about with this conflict between personal responsibilities and religious beliefs.  Imagine a Catholic student in a Muslim school demanding the school support their belief set!  I know, I know, the immediate question is why would a Catholic go to a Muslim school in the first place . . . but you can ask the same question about why an Evangelical Christian would attend a public school and then demand the school let them opt out of classes that disagree with their religion?  Yet that seems to happen all the time.

Personal relationships are like that as well.  People of different religious beliefs, and even the same religious beliefs can come into conflict over those beliefs.  Yet people manage to overcome those difficulties regularly.  Those that cannot, end those relationships in one manner or another.  They say breaking-up is hard to do, but hopefully you learn the lessons and carry them into your next relationship.

Having children is a huge set of responsibilities, and the news has frequently cited examples of where parents caused actual harm, and even death, to their children in the cause of complying with their religious beliefs.  Children haven't yet had the option of accepting any set of religious beliefs, so forcing their compliance on the parents belief set seems more than a bit unfair, and in many cases deadly for the children.  I've stated many times that children shouldn't be even exposed to religion until they are over 18.  After all, they can't vote, drink alcohol, or join the military, so they should get to examine the options and elect once they know what those options are.

When it comes to professional responsibilities, when you accept a position, you also have to accept the responsibilities that come along with it . . . all of them!  If there are responsibilities that you cannot accept due to your religious beliefs . . then do not take the position!  If the responsibilities change while you are in the position and the new ones conflict with your religious beliefs . . . then you have a choice to either suck-it-up and do the job or resign your position and go find something else to do.

Now I mentioned this recently to someone when that Kentucky Clerk decided to put her religion ahead of her responsibilities and they immediately brought up an example of what if your responsibilities involved killing.  My response was that now you are talking beyond religion and into legalities.  Being a policeman or a member of the military may well involve the taking of a life, those acts, when done in accordance with the law, are not illegal.  Any other form of killing is illegal and needs to be be dealt with.  Legal issues aside, what I am talking about  specific examples where people allowed their belief set interfere with their responsibilities, like:

• Kim Davis from Kentucky
• Nathan Abrahams and Woods-Hole Oceanographic Institute
• Catherine Crocker and George Mason University
• Richard Sternberg and Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
• David Coppege and Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL)

Each and every one of them put their religious beliefs ahead of their professional responsibilities, and they aren't the only ones.  In these cases, they made their stand and were held accountable to one degree or another.  The Discovery Institute (DI) and others like to hold these names up as example of some sort of religious persecution, but the reality is their religious views weren't the ones being violated, they were trying to use their religious views to violated the rights of others and then using their religion as a shield to allow them to discriminate against others.

That's why I consider religion to be one of the most dangerous forces on Earth.  It is incredibly divisive.  While some religions pay lip service to religious freedom, their acceptance of most other religions is one of tolerance rather than acceptance.  Most think the idea of religious freedom is one that protects them while they use their religion as a license to discriminate against those who do not share their beliefs.  I wholeheartedly disagree!  

Bottom line, is that religious beliefs are personal beliefs.  No one has the right to force those beliefs on anyone else, adult or child.  If personal or professional responsibilities conflict with  religious beliefs, then either take care of those responsibilities in spite of the beliefs or get out of the situation.  Resign from a professional position, get out of a personal relationship, even if it means giving a child up for adoption . . . which in my mind is certainly better than refusing them needed medical treatment because of religious beliefs . . . the child doesn't end up dead and the parent doesn't end up in jail.

While people like to say things like God, Country, Family . . . the exact order needs to be a bit more fluid.  But of the three, I would place religious responsibilities far in the back, well behind personal and professional responsibilities.  I know there are many who will disagree!  Personally I cannot imagine any deity worth following having a problem with someone accepting and handing their responsibilities.  There are so many different belief sets, that to try and follow them all would be insane.  Yet every time a theists asks for a religious exemption, that's exactly what they are trying to do, build a system that not only supports their belief set, but allows them the ability to force their belief set onto others.

I look at things a little more . . . well  . . . black and white.  When you accept personal and professional responsibilities, you make a commitment.  You made the choice, now you should live up to them.  If your religious beliefs will not allow you to carry out those responsibilities . . . then do not accept them.  Don't take the job, don't enter the relationship, and above all else, do not have a child.  But once you accept those responsibilities, then accept them fully and carry them out!  If you cannot, or will not, carry them out, then what you are is a liar and using your religious beliefs as an excuse for lying is contemptible.  Clear enough for you?

Let's Rename the Discovery Institute to the 'Re-writing History Institute'

I have to wonder what passes for a scholarship at the Discovery Institute (DI).  One of their most common, and typically disreputable, tactics involves a fanciful re-telling of events from the past. Their collective 'recollection' of the Dover Trial is something I've commented on regularly, their re-baptizing historical figures -- such as Thomas Jefferson and Alfred E. Wallace -- as Intelligent Design proponents is another example.  When you look at all the effort they keep spending trying to vilify Charles Darwin as the sole person responsible for Hitler and the Holocaust and you really do get the idea that there is absolutely no one at the DI who bothers with actual history or even what they might remember from grade-school history classes.

I don't know if you are familiar with alt-history, it's a genre of fictional literature where a historical event's outcome is changed and the story that follows chronicles those changes and subsequent events.  For example What if Germany had won World War II, or if the South had won the Civil War.  Amazon Prime Video has an alt-history series called "The Man In The High Castle" about Germany and Japan splitting the United States following a very different WWII.  Alt-history is usually big events with widespread changes and it can make some interesting reading.

The DI's version of alt-history isn't for entertainment, well not intentionally.  Rather than make it clear that it is an alternate version of past events, they present their version as if it actually happened that way.  A good example is their latest from the 'Anti-Historical Society' of the DI.  we have them placing NASA in the middle of a lawsuit that wasn't against NASA to begin with.  They are again trying to market alt-history by re-writing the David Coppedge lawsuit.  Here's their post, "NASA on Trial: David Coppedge Fell Victim to Anti-ID Zeal at America's Space Agency", by one of their regular mouthpieces, davey 'klingy' klinghoffer.

When I say the lawsuit didn't involve NASA, what I mean is Coppedge was an employee of Caltech, not NASA.  NASA was the customer of the CalTech who runs Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL).  Now anyone who knows about government contracts, the government doesn't have much say in hiring and firing.  If the people assigned by CalTech can do, and are doing, the job, the government will say very little.  I know, I spent 20 years as a contractor working on over 12 different projects.  The government-side of that relationship can actually get themselves in trouble if they interfere with the decisions of the contractor, as long as the job is getting done.  The lawsuit itself didn't even name NASA as a plaintiff:

 Do you see NASA listed?  I don't, but since when does the DI allow facts interfere with their re-writing of history.

Before getting into their post, you might think back for a few about David Coppedge.  He was a JPL system administrator who worked there for 12 years (hired in 1996 as a contractor and later directly for CalTech/JPL) before his religious zeal started getting him in trouble.  He was considered senior because of the length of employment and was given an additional responsibility as a Team Lead, which was an unpaid administrative position.  Apparently he wasn't performing it well and there were multiple reports of harassment over California Proposition 8 (gay marriage) and Intelligent Design.  It was the harassment that caused his problems, not his religious beliefs.  If you read the decision you will find that his religious beliefs were well known and weren't a bar to being hired as a contractor and then eventually hired directly with JPL.  If you are familiar with the contracting world, a contractor that gets hired by a client usually shows superior performance and reliability, but you have to keep your skills current and handle your responsibilities.  When you don't, well you find yourself looking for work, just like Coppedge!

Things seemed to start Coppedge's downhill slide when he was first removed from an unpaid additional duty because he wasn't doing it well.  He sued for that, claiming religious discrimination.  Later he was let go as part of downsizing at JPL and he added all that to his suit.  In a nutshell, he became a poor employee, who had a habit of harassing other employees over his religious and homophobic beliefs, did not get a long well with customers, and didn't keep his skill set current -- so when his current project was downsized -- he was let go.  There was no evidence of religious discrimination, other than in the mind of Coppedge and his lawyers . . . Oh, and apparently the Discovery Institute.  If you want more, you can search this blog, there are too many posts to list.  Or, better, you might read the decision in his lawsuit.  It reveals a great deal about Coppedge and why he was removed from a position and eventually let go.  From reading the DI's latest, apparently they haven't bothered reading the decision.

Klingy has forgotten to mention a few things, like the harassment of his co-workers, the customer complaints about Coppedge's work, the conflicts with management, and  . . . best of all . . . Coppedge's own acknowledgement that the people who weren't downsized were superior to him in their skills.  No, the only thing klingy is interested in is painting the man as a martyr for the cause, the Intelligent Design (ID) cause.  it's pretty evident when klingy says things like:

"He had taken a shine to Illustra Media's series of documentaries laying out the evidence for ID in biology and cosmology."

That's a rather tepid view of his interest.  He was an Creationist/ID supporter well before his job at CalTech, it was a known quantity and didn't stop them from hiring him.  But does klingy mention that the trouble with Coppedge's employment started after he was doing more than just offering his opinions, that he was pressuring people to the point of harassment and even had a list of people showing that he needed to approach them again . . . Again?  That his harassing behavior was further exposed when he complained about the Holiday Party not being called a Christmas Party multiple times, or that his opposition to California Proposition 8 caused him to accuse one of his managers that 'he must hate children!'.  No, none of that matters to klingy, just that after years of employment, klingy thinks is ended because of his 'shine' to a set of DVDs about ID.

This isn't the first time klingy has tried to re-write history about Coppedge, the last time was just this

past May, "Time to Re-Write History . . . Again". The last time klingy said that:

"Coppedge's claims that his advocacy of Intelligent Design (ID) was always done in 'the most respectful, appropriate manner' and 'If anyone expressed disinterest, he says, he immediately backed down'"

Yet the testimony from his co-workers found that the opposite was true, he not only was persistent, but had a list of people to approach again . . . approaching someone again isn't something I would consider 'respectful and appropriate'.  The decision specifically stated:

" . . . the evidence reflects that Coppedge was less skilled than those retained, regarding the skills needed on Cassini going forward; Coppedge himself testified that the other SAs [System Administrators] were more expert in these areas."

Yes, so this time around the DI is changing the tune a bit, claiming that:

"Coppedge made the mistake of misjudging one coworker's attitude. Soon she was complaining about him to their supervisor, and before you knew it, the HR department was conducting a full-scale witch-hunt. A mild-mannered individual for whom advancing NASA's mission was a long-held dream come to true, David Coppedge was the witch."

First of all, klingy, it wasn't just one complaint, but multiple, and mild-mannered individuals do not behave as Coppedge did, to the point of having to apologize to at least one manager.  HR also didn't get immediately involved until the managers saw a pattern of behavior.  Once the pattern was established, JPL needed to take action.  Coppedge's religious beliefs might be his rationalization for his behavior, but it was that unprofessional and harassing behavior that got him disciplined and it was his less than stellar skill set that got him downsized.  But klingy and the DI will never admit it.

I do have to laugh at this line:

"Coppedge tells his own story for the first time. "

That's not particularly true either.  Coppedge told his story over and over again to anyone who would listen, he also told his story in court.  The problem is his story didn't match the facts, but --  once again -- when do facts seem to matter to the DI?

In my opinion, religious beliefs do not trump personal and professional responsibilities.  Coppedge, among the other pseudo-martyrs the Di likes to parade, allowed their belief set to drive their behavior until they crossed personal and professional boundaries.  Too often they believe that their religious beliefs will protect them from repercussions, much like the pedophile priests once believed.  Politicians might be afraid of losing votes by holding religious nut-jobs accountable, but businesses can't really afford to keep such people on the payroll.  Coppedge is a bully, and as such was held accountable and removed from a position of administrative responsibility.  His firing was primarily related to his lack of the needed skillset, by his own admission.

Imagine the lawsuits if JPL failed to take action against Coppedge's bullying?  Do you think his harassment wouldn't have escalated over time?  Does it ever not escalate once the harasser believes they will not be held accountable?  What would the impact to CalTech and JPL if they kept poor performers on the books?  Government organizations hire other organizations for their expertise, not for poor performance.

In this case, CalTech did the right thing, the court made the right ruling, and the DI just can't accept it so they do what they always do . . . spin!

I really hate to do this (Well not really)

I would like to remind you of a post from little casey luskin on his 13 July 2010 -- about the Christine Comer case (Federal Appeals Court Rejects Chris Comer’s Lawsuit Alleging Discrimination Against Evolution):

"The moral of this story is this: Whether the case ultimately wins or loses in court, don’t speak out publicly on a case until you know the facts."

Today, the little mouthpiece whimpered a post about David Coppedge getting fired by JPL. You might remember Coppedge, he is suing JPL because he was demoted -- for reasons he claims have to do with his pushing of Intelligent Design at work. Now one last reminder, JPL has been silent on the whole issue -- so we do not have the facts of the case. I have posted about this before in Casey Duecy.

Now according the DI toady in "NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab Fires Cassini Mission Senior Computer Admin Who Filed Discrimination Lawsuit" In violation of his own July post, he just has to publicly speak out about this case -- a case for which we still do not have all the facts -- let me repeat that -- a case for which we still do not have all the facts. He says: [my comments after each]

• JPL just dumped a lot of fuel on the fire of David Coppedge's discrimination lawsuit by firing him [Did they really? Don't you think JPL lawyers might realize this? But then casey is a lawyer who likes to pretend to be a biologist, so maybe he's out of practice playing lawyer]
• This could potentially expose JPL to a claim of wrongful termination and increase the merits of Coppedge's claim [This is a possibility, but then Coppedge settling out of court, or losing the entire case is also a possibility. But does casey mention any other possible outcome? He's already convicted JPL -- what a surprise.]
• . . . but Coppedge is the most senior member of the team that oversees the computers on NASA and JPL's Cassini Mission to Saturn. Coppedge doesn't seem at all like the first person who would normally be forced to leave in such a situation, but. Obviously, JPL has other considerations. [emphasis added. Does casey have more information about this than he might be letting on? No! Actually casey, JPL going through downsizing makes me think that a demoted former team lead is the perfect candidate for the chopping block.]
  
• Those other considerations began in 2009 when the administration found out that Coppedge had occasionally had friendly discussions about ID with fellow employees [So how does casey know they were 'friendly' conversations or even 'occasional'? The truth is that is how he wants them portrayed. I think the word 'harassment' might come up during the trial. But that is my opinion. You see casey, it is possible to offer opinion without trying to have it appear as factual. ]
  
• if a colleague wasn't interested, Coppedge dropped the matter [I find it hard to believe that David Coppedge, founder Creation Safaris Ministry really just let the matter drop. Don't you?]
  
• Coppedge was then demoted and threatened with losing his job if he persisted in purportedly "unwelcome" and "disruptive" discussions of ID [I also doubt that his demotion paperwork mentioned his support of ID any more than it probably mentions an unwelcome and disruptive work environment. In my opinion, if he did create a disruptive and unwelcome work environment, he deserves to be demoted.]
  

Does this sound like someone who actually has the facts of a case? Did little casey take his own advice and wait for the court case, which begins in June of this year? No! All we have is Coppedge and his lawyer's words. So, of course, since Coppedge is an ID proponent, it must be OK to talk about it, right casey? Did casey even try and discover if maybe there really were other considerations in the decision to fire Coppedge? I mean programs end all the time. How many companies have been downsizing in the past couple of years. Don't you think JPL realizes that they better have their i's dotted and t's crossed in firing someone who is currently engaged in litigation?

I think 30 seconds of thought might have saved little casey and the DI some embarrassment later this year. But then I guess even 30 seconds of thought must be well beyond Di mouthpieces.