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 hate having my picture taken!

One of my friends commented on my picture with the blog.  Yes, it's me, but from about 2000.  I'll be honest.  I really hadn't noticed until my 'friend' was kind enough to point out that my hair is grayer, thinner, and . . . well as he put it . . . my  cheesy, porno mustache . . . is now much whiter.  I have very few pictures of myself, that one was cropped from a family photo.  I really hate having my picture taken, but that one has gotten a bit dated. 

I guess I might have to have one taken.  I refuse to do a 'selfie', I consider those to be way too narcissistic and anyone who knows me, I have little to be a narcissistic about :-)  So just be warned that the image accompanying this blog is from 2000, not too long after I retired and well before a granddaughter or my wife's small business . . . . which could account for the gray and thinning hair . . . going to have to think about that one.

I guess we can count this post as a disclaimer!  Maybe I should just Photoshop the hair and 'stache . . . naw, too much work.  Besides the only thing worse than a selfie is one that was Photoshopped as well!  (You know who you are!)

Cheers!