JPL finally wins wrongful termination lawsuit

| 52 Comments

According to an article in the Pasadena Star-News, Jet Propulsion Laboratory has finally won the wrongful termination lawsuit filed by David Coppedge. NCSE has posted the judge’s decision here. You may see an interpretation of the case here.

Briefly, Coppedge was laid off in 2011 because he did not adequately learn a new system that JPL was adopting, but he argued in court that his dismissal was the result of religious discrimination. The Star-News quotes his lawyer as saying

David was the victim of religious discrimination because a handful of malicious co-workers hated his Christian views, as well as his interest in intelligent design, which they ignorantly [sic] perceived to be a religious concept. He was demoted and fired for simply being a Christian and someone who believes that nature can be scientifically explained by reference to designs found within it.

According to an article in the La Cañada Valley Sun, however, JPL

argued Coppedge had a history of work-related complaints against him and that he was laid off for legitimate reasons at a time when the agency was shedding some 200 administrative jobs.

The judge ruled against Coppedge on every claim and also ruled against every objection filed by his attorneys, according to the Sun.

52 Comments

Cool. Who pays the legal bills? Damn shame if JPL is stuck with it. Anyone who can still sat ID is not a religious concept deserves to take a large share of the legal fees.

Was he ever featured in the film “expelled” ?

No doubt they’ll still cry “foul

I guess we’ll need an Expelled 2…coming to theaters near you!

Amusing fact: Since the judge sided with JPL in all particulars, Coppedge’s lawyer is making noise about how that means the judge didn’t even consider Coppedge’s eminently valid arguments, which, in turn, means that they’ve got an excellent shot at an appeal. So… the more wrong you are in court, the better your odds of a successful appeal?

Who pays the legal bills?

This crowd were looking for donations:

http://logosresearchassociates.org/[…]id-coppedge/

To help defray the enormous cost of taking the David Coppedge case to trial, please donate as generously as you can to his legal fund. Remember, it is not only his own right to freedom from discrimination this suit seeks to defend, but yours as well!

Of course. The conspiracy is near-total, because… Uh, what was the “because”? Oh yeah, pretty much Satan, Big Science, Atheist Courts, well, you can no doubt add many to the list.

Never did really figure out any reason for the anti-Creation conspiracy, other than that somehow science works, creationism doesn’t even bring up meaningful questions, let alone answers.

Naturally, Cornelius Hunter is whining about the judgment at UD with the usual evidence-free, well, eminently falsifiable and falsified statements. Same old with the IDiots, then, milk anything for money, learn absolutely nothing, indeed, shut yourself off from any openness to learning.

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmg[…]X_Zhn8#57cad said:

Of course. The conspiracy is near-total, because… Uh, what was the “because”? Oh yeah, pretty much Satan, Big Science, Atheist Courts, well, you can no doubt add many to the list.

Never did really figure out any reason for the anti-Creation conspiracy, other than that somehow science works, creationism doesn’t even bring up meaningful questions, let alone answers.

Naturally, Cornelius Hunter is whining about the judgment at UD with the usual evidence-free, well, eminently falsifiable and falsified statements. Same old with the IDiots, then, milk anything for money, learn absolutely nothing, indeed, shut yourself off from any openness to learning.

Glen Davidson

Dr Hunter appears to have started from the premise that JPL has gone out of its way to sack Coppedge because of his ID opinions. Now it’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that Coppedge believes that this is so - the documentary evidence supports this conclusion. It’s also clear that Coppedge’s position is divorced from reality, and this “disconnect” is a part of the problem. Coppedge is clearly not able to step back and consider his behaviour as it would appear to someone else.

Hunter’s position raises the question as to whether he is working from his expectation as to how a “Christian” organisation would behave in an analogous situation.

Glen Davidson said:

Of course. The conspiracy is near-total, because… Uh, what was the “because”? Oh yeah, pretty much Satan, Big Science, Atheist Courts, well, you can no doubt add many to the list.

Never did really figure out any reason for the anti-Creation conspiracy, other than that somehow science works, creationism doesn’t even bring up meaningful questions, let alone answers.

I’ve always wondered whom the conspiracy theorists among the Creationists blame for the Creationists’ profound, and total inability to want to do science.

Certainly, these people don’t listen to those cognizant Creationists who blame themselves for this inability.

Ian Derthal said:

Who pays the legal bills?

This crowd were looking for donations:

http://logosresearchassociates.org/[…]id-coppedge/

To help defray the enormous cost of taking the David Coppedge case to trial, please donate as generously as you can to his legal fund. Remember, it is not only his own right to freedom from discrimination this suit seeks to defend, but yours as well!

That is a straight up Chritian YEC web site. Superficial analysis hints that Coppedge himself may have something to do with it, but I can’t be sure.

It’s of great interest that Coppedge’s lawyer bothered to lie that “ID isn’t religious”.

For readers who may not be fully aware of the history of ID, the term was introduced in the aftermath of the SCOTUS decision that “creation science” in public schools violates the first amendment of the US constitution, as an (ultimately failed) attempt to “court proof” taxpayer funded teaching of narrow sectarian dogma in public schools. For a good treatment go to Wikipedia and search “cdesign proponentists” (I’m having trouble getting the link to work).

But of course, Coppedge has a complete right to be as privately religious and creationist as he wants, and neither side was questioning that.

Technically, Coppedge’s suit would have been better served by admitting that his love of ID is religious in nature.

The whole point of his suit was essentially that even though there seem to be valid reasons to lay him off, the “real” reason was religious discrimination.

In effect, Coppedge was arguing that, unlike about 200 other people laid off at the same time, he would still be working at JPL, except that there was discrimination against his religious beliefs.

That claim was found to be false, but to claim religious discrimination while simultaneously claiming that some of one’s religious ideas aren’t religious is most incoherent and/or unethical.

The claim that ID “isn’t religious” was tested in court in Dover, in 2005, and found to be false. However, apparently, Coppedge and his lawyer felt compelled to rigidly conform to that particular failed ruse, even when it was at odds with their own overall claim.

Kevin B said:

Hunter’s position raises the question as to whether he is working from his expectation as to how a “Christian” organisation would behave in an analogous situation.

That said “Christian” organization would automatically sack any employee who did not automatically kowtow to the company dogma?

apokryltaros said:

Kevin B said:

Hunter’s position raises the question as to whether he is working from his expectation as to how a “Christian” organisation would behave in an analogous situation.

That said “Christian” organization would automatically sack any employee who did not automatically kowtow to the company dogma?

Realistically, this is exactly how many authoritarian Christian organizations behave. In fact, Liberty University and similar institutions require that faculty sign statements of “faith” confirming that they won’t question dogma, and Dembski himself was disciplined by his current employer for seeming to cast doubt on the “literal truth” of Noah’s flood. Even the Salvation Army has these tendencies.

I’m sure not all Christians do this, and I’m equally sure that this isn’t restricted to Christians.

As I’ve often stated, the conflict between accurate science and science denial is associated with the general conflict between authoritarians and science. Not all politically active science denialists are Christian, but almost all turn out to have strong authoritarian tendencies. By definition, denying objective evidence because it interferes with the claims of the dogma one wishes to see imposed on others is authoritarian.

harold said: For a good treatment go to Wikipedia and search “cdesign proponentists” (I’m having trouble getting the link to work).

That’s because it’s “cdesign proponentsists”, not “cdesign proponentists” - see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesig[…]oponentsists and http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/c[…]oponentsists - and for the delusional view, see http://www.conservapedia.com/Cdesig[…]oponentsists for chuckles.

For those new to the fray, here’s some background:

David Coppedge was then (and possibly still is) on the Board of Directors of “Illustra Media” (producers of the anti-science videos Coppedge was pimping for at work on company time). Illustra Media is a wholly-owned subsidiary of “Discovery Media,” which used to be known as the “Moody Institute of Science,” a well-known producer of fundamentalist Christian media and which is in turn the propaganda arm of the infamous “Moody Bible Institute” - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moody_[…]le_Institute. For more on this, see the NCSE’s 2003 article at http://ncse.com/creationism/analysi[…]lustra-media

Discovery Media’s official mission statement reads, “We believe that God reveals Himself, today, through His creation and the Biblical record. Our mission is to utilize every form of available media to present the reality of His existence through compelling scientific evidence and academic research.”

It’s interesting but not surprising that Becker would lie so boldly in saying this:

David was the victim of religious discrimination because a handful of malicious co-workers hated his Christian views, as well as his interest in intelligent design, which they ignorantly [sic] perceived to be a religious concept. He was demoted and fired for simply being a Christian and someone who believes that nature can be scientifically explained by reference to designs found within it.

when he was unable to prove any of it in court. Quite the contrary, Coppedge’s “Christian views,” whatever they were, were never raised so far as I could tell. There was no evidence that anyone at JPL went out of their way to pester Coppedge whereas there was ample evidence of the opposite. Coppedge bugged people about renaming the annual Holiday/Christmas party to the point that complaints were escalated to management. Coppedge bugged people about Prop 8. Coppedge was combative with his customer base such that one supervisor refused to deal with him at all. None of this has anything to do with ID, his views on ID or his religious beliefs, whatever they were.

Furthermore, Coppedge wasn’t fired, he was laid off. There’s a real difference between those terms. Quit, resigned, retired, fired, laid off have their own distinct attributes and consequences. Coppedge wasn’t demoted, either. He didn’t suffer a loss in grade nor pay.

Alas, Becker’s lie will lay the foundation for Coppedge’s Persecution Tour coming to a church basement near you.

Paul Burnett said:

harold said: For a good treatment go to Wikipedia and search “cdesign proponentists” (I’m having trouble getting the link to work).

That’s because it’s “cdesign proponentsists”, not “cdesign proponentists” - see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesig[…]oponentsists and http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/c[…]oponentsists - and for the delusional view, see http://www.conservapedia.com/Cdesig[…]oponentsists for chuckles.

Thank you for correcting my typo.

If fact, though, I was trying to link to the correct Wikipedia section. It was a problem embedding the link, not a problem finding the link (sometimes I have problems embedding long links here; probably there’s a solution but I didn’t bother to look very hard). Anyway, I recommend that everyone who isn’t familiar with the term check out the links you have provided.

Paul Burnett said:

harold said: For a good treatment go to Wikipedia and search “cdesign proponentists” (I’m having trouble getting the link to work).

That’s because it’s “cdesign proponentsists”, not “cdesign proponentists” - see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesig[…]oponentsists and http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/c[…]oponentsists - and for the delusional view, see http://www.conservapedia.com/Cdesig[…]oponentsists for chuckles.

In Wikipedia, it is a section of the article “On Pandas and People”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pan[…]e#Pandas_and_.22cdesign_proponentsists.22

Let’s get that formatted a little better, for posterity:

That’s because it’s “cdesign proponentsists”, not “cdesign proponentists” – see here and here – and for the delusional view, see here for chuckles.

And, while I am at it:

In Wikipedia, it is a section of the article On Pandas and People.

apokryltaros said:

Kevin B said:

Hunter’s position raises the question as to whether he is working from his expectation as to how a “Christian” organisation would behave in an analogous situation.

That said “Christian” organization would automatically sack any employee who did not automatically kowtow to the company dogma?

This would fit very nicely with what Hunter wrote.

“Crocoduck” Hunter wrote:

Coppedge was an excellent employee who enjoyed his job, but when he openly questioned Darwin’s theory all that changed. The evolutionists at JPL manipulated his reviews, creating a false paper trail which they would later use against him.

He appears to be implying that JPL hadn’t noticed Coppedge’s ID tendencies for a whole decade, and started persecuting him once he’d appeared on the radar.

Becker:

David was the victim of religious social discrimination because a handful of malicious co-workers pretty much everybody hated got totally tired of him constantly pestering them about his Christian views, his interest in intelligent design, which they ignorantly [sic] perceived to be a religious concept and didn’t belong at work.

He was demoted and fired for simply being a Christian and someone who believes that nature can be scientifically explained by reference to designs found within it part of a large group who were being laid off when their project ended. And nobody fought for him becuse everybody thought he was the kind of giant pain in the ass who would sue them someday.

There. Fixed it.

harold said:

apokryltaros said:

Kevin B said:

Hunter’s position raises the question as to whether he is working from his expectation as to how a “Christian” organisation would behave in an analogous situation.

That said “Christian” organization would automatically sack any employee who did not automatically kowtow to the company dogma?

Realistically, this is exactly how many authoritarian Christian organizations behave. In fact, Liberty University and similar institutions require that faculty sign statements of “faith” confirming that they won’t question dogma, and Dembski himself was disciplined by his current employer for seeming to cast doubt on the “literal truth” of Noah’s flood. Even the Salvation Army has these tendencies.

I’m sure not all Christians do this, and I’m equally sure that this isn’t restricted to Christians.

As I’ve often stated, the conflict between accurate science and science denial is associated with the general conflict between authoritarians and science. Not all politically active science denialists are Christian, but almost all turn out to have strong authoritarian tendencies. By definition, denying objective evidence because it interferes with the claims of the dogma one wishes to see imposed on others is authoritarian.

This is where the so-called “faith-based initiatives” program as well as religious freedom initiatives and laws allowed religious groups to openly discriminate against, and fire if they so choose, those who do not hold the beliefs of the organization. It is particulaly true as pointed out at Liberty U. and other fundamentalist organizations, even at “soup kitchens” sponsored by these groups. You’ll also find it at Christian schools, many of which choose not to teach science but only creationism. GW Bush was a sponsor and supporter of this sort of nonsense, but Obama has done nothing to change the situation.

Matt Young said:

Let’s get that formatted a little better, for posterity:

I would if I could remember how to, but I have to look it up every time, because Panda’s blogging software doesn’t do it automatically. Do you hand-carve your HTML every time, or are you using some special software?

And as long as I’m grumping about Panda’s blogging software, could somebody reset it so I don’t have to re-sign-in every 24 hours?

Matt Young said:

Let’s get that formatted a little better, for posterity:

This site seems not to allow color in link titles, so I’ll just use bold and italics where I’d normally use blue and red to show the two combined words: cdesign proponentsists

Paul Burnett said: And as long as I’m grumping about Panda’s blogging software, could somebody reset it so I don’t have to re-sign-in every 24 hours?

I second the motion.

Except that I don’t think it is as frequent as every 24 hours. Actually, it would be more bearable if it were that frequent (or if there were some kind of prior warning that I am not signed in), because I would then remember to sign in before writing my response.

TomS said:

…I don’t think it is as frequent as every 24 hours.

It is for me - see below

Actually, it would be more bearable if it were that frequent (or if there were some kind of prior warning that I am not signed in), because I would then remember to sign in before writing my response.

If it’s been more than a day, when I reply, it says “Thanks for signing in, Paul” and lets me craft my reply - and then when I hit “Submit” (or “Preview”) it says I have to sign in.

Paul Burnett said: If it’s been more than a day, when I reply, it says “Thanks for signing in, Paul” and lets me craft my reply - and then when I hit “Submit” (or “Preview”) it says I have to sign in.

The same thing happens to me, except that I haven’t noticed it happening at 24 hours - or any other fixed time interval. It is random enough, just infrequent enough, that I get complacent about it and trust “Thanks for signing in”.

Paul Burnett said:

Matt Young said:

Let’s get that formatted a little better, for posterity:

I would if I could remember how to, but I have to look it up every time, because Panda’s blogging software doesn’t do it automatically. Do you hand-carve your HTML every time, or are you using some special software?

And as long as I’m grumping about Panda’s blogging software, could somebody reset it so I don’t have to re-sign-in every 24 hours?

I used to do hand-carving but have found using MSWord much easier. Just paste the URL to a page, click hyperlink - edit, edit the text box and copy the result to where you want it. Haven’t tested it here although it works where I have tried it.

He appears to be implying that JPL hadn’t noticed Coppedge’s ID tendencies for a whole decade, and started persecuting him once he’d appeared on the radar.

Cappedge doesn’t just have ID tendancies Kevin, he’s an out and out young Earth creationist. How you can square this belief while working for N.A.S.A. is beyond me.

Still, I suppose Sneliing managed to do it and actually had peer reviewed articles published in mainstream science journals, though he forgot to mention he believed the Earth was only 6,000 years old.

Ian Derthal said:

He appears to be implying that JPL hadn’t noticed Coppedge’s ID tendencies for a whole decade, and started persecuting him once he’d appeared on the radar.

Cappedge doesn’t just have ID tendancies Kevin, he’s an out and out young Earth creationist. How you can square this belief while working for N.A.S.A. is beyond me.

Still, I suppose Sneliing managed to do it and actually had peer reviewed articles published in mainstream science journals, though he forgot to mention he believed the Earth was only 6,000 years old.

That’s clearly true, but part of the point here is that it is completely irrelevant what Coppedge’s private beliefs are.

I’m not aware of anyone who is suggesting that NASA should administer religious tests to employees, nor that mainstream journals should go beyond reviewing the content of submitted articles to investigating the private beliefs of named authors. Let’s leave that type of thing to Liberty University.

Coppedge’s false claim is that he was persecuted for his private beliefs, but he was not.

Coppedge had a rather extensive record of disrupting work and making life unpleasant for other employees, which was actually dealt with extremely, almost excessively patiently, by his supervisor. However, he was not fired for that, either, even though one could argue that perhaps he should have been.

(Coppedge pestered people because, among other things, he was in favor of the now-overturned homophobic Proposition 8. Needless to say, my views are the opposite of Coppedge’s. However, if Coppedge had been trying to do his work, respectfully and diligently without bothering others, and someone with my views kept disrupting him, that would also have been wrong.)

Coppedge was laid off. Many other highly qualified people were laid off at the same time. Coppedge might have evaded lay-off by being a model employee and keeping his skills up to date, but probably not.

It is absolutely critical to note that the point here is not that Christian organizations should persecute atheists and secular organizations should persecute Christians. I for one vehemently oppose the idea of employers prying into the private lives and beliefs of employees.

The point is that Coppedge’s claims of persecution were found, in a court of law, to be groundless.

Ian Derthal said: Cappedge doesn’t just have ID tendancies Kevin, he’s an out and out young Earth creationist. How you can square this belief while working for N.A.S.A. is beyond me.

Render unto Caesar and all that. In most professional workplaces, nobody cares what you personally believe. It doesn’t matter. Just do your job. Most theists understand that perfectly well and are just as good at keeping their home and work lives separate as anyone else.

Coppedge, however, was not. His job was to run the computer systems, but he fought with and harangued the scientists who use those systems while he did so. He fought with his boss, even while his boss was trying to help him. And he couldn’t run newer systems because he refused to learn how to do so. So, very simply - he didn’t do his job well.

Still, I suppose Sneliing managed to do it and actually had peer reviewed articles published in mainstream science journals, though he forgot to mention he believed the Earth was only 6,000 years old.

Well, I think science is a lot like the professional work place I mentioned above. Nobody cares about your “extra-curricular activities” if you just do your job right. If, on the weekends, you want to gather together with like-minded believers and perform ritual standing, sitting, chanting, hand-shaking, food-sharing, etc, then go for it. I don’t really care. Just don’t distract us from our work and scare the clients with your endless, obsessive talk about football. :)

eric said:

Ian Derthal said: Cappedge doesn’t just have ID tendancies Kevin, he’s an out and out young Earth creationist. How you can square this belief while working for N.A.S.A. is beyond me.

Render unto Caesar and all that. In most professional workplaces, nobody cares what you personally believe. It doesn’t matter. Just do your job. Most theists understand that perfectly well and are just as good at keeping their home and work lives separate as anyone else.

Coppedge, however, was not. His job was to run the computer systems, but he fought with and harangued the scientists who use those systems while he did so. He fought with his boss, even while his boss was trying to help him. And he couldn’t run newer systems because he refused to learn how to do so. So, very simply - he didn’t do his job well.

Still, I suppose Sneliing managed to do it and actually had peer reviewed articles published in mainstream science journals, though he forgot to mention he believed the Earth was only 6,000 years old.

Well, I think science is a lot like the professional work place I mentioned above. Nobody cares about your “extra-curricular activities” if you just do your job right. If, on the weekends, you want to gather together with like-minded believers and perform ritual standing, sitting, chanting, hand-shaking, food-sharing, etc, then go for it. I don’t really care. Just don’t distract us from our work and scare the clients with your endless, obsessive talk about football. :)

Would agree with this. Coppedge’s beliefs ought not to affect his capabilities as a sysadmin. His problem was not the belief in ID, but that he insisted in trying to sell the DVD; a) he should have considered that there could be issues in doing so “on the firm’s time” and b) he should have been aware that people might object to repeated attempts to sell. The nature of the product is largely immaterial; much the same considerations would apply if Coppedge were trying to sell Girl Scout cookies, Tupperware, encyclopedias or Victoria’s Secret lingerie.

Nor should his beliefs have got in the way of his work; what he was doing had no direct connection with the nature of the mission. The only part of the “nature of the mission” that is relevant is that it attracts lots of “government” money.

In terms of impact on his beliefs, Coppedge would have had much more trouble if he believed that the Sun was pushed across the sky by a dung-beetle, since (from the court documents) it appears that JPL has a significant investment in Sun Microsystems kit.

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Hunter’s position raises the question as to whether he is working from his expectation as to how a “Christian” organisation would behave in an analogous situation.

Not much of a question.

Xians have a long history of burning people alive on stacks of firewood.

“According to an article in the Pasadena Star-News, Jet Propulsion Laboratory has finally won the wrongful termination lawsuit filed by David Coppedge.”

The decision by the Darwinian judge was never in doubt.

raven said:

Hunter’s position raises the question as to whether he is working from his expectation as to how a “Christian” organisation would behave in an analogous situation.

Not much of a question.

Xians have a long history of burning people alive on stacks of firewood.

When these events occurred the persons doing the burning were not following Christ; rather, they were denying Christ, like all Atheists do.

Ray Martinez said:

When these events occurred the persons doing the burning were not following Christ; rather, they were denying Christ, like all Atheists do.

Was that ambiguous statement meant to imply that those people, who identified themselves as ‘Christians’, were in fact atheists?

Could it be that you classify anyone – no matter what religion he affiliates with or professes, who does not follow your theology closely – as an “atheist”?

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Ray Martinez said:

“According to an article in the Pasadena Star-News, Jet Propulsion Laboratory has finally won the wrongful termination lawsuit filed by David Coppedge.”

The decision by the Darwinian judge was never in doubt.

Hmmm… I remember when your fellow travelers said that about Judge Jones…before he handed down his decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover.

If you truly believe what you assert above, then anyone involved in case in which a religious opinion might be expressed, should ask any judge who has religious convictions–or convictions with regard to any scientific theory–of *any* sort to recuse himself for bias. Yeah.…like that’s going to work. You might want to take a look at the results of the efforts to reverse Judge Wagner’s decision in the Federal case against Prop. 8 because he happens to be gay.

In a reality based world, JPL won because the law and evidence were on their side, and the judge decided based on law and evidence. That’s why the appeal isn’t likely to get anywhere, either.

Mr Heydt, please remember that Ray Martinez is an annoying troll who pretends to be a Creationist bigot who allegedly labors under the delusion that he is the world’s only True Christian Creationist and thinks it’s fun to rub in our faces his stupid delusion that all other Creationists, if not all other Christians are really evil atheist subversives.

W. H. Heydt said:

Ray Martinez said:

“According to an article in the Pasadena Star-News, Jet Propulsion Laboratory has finally won the wrongful termination lawsuit filed by David Coppedge.”

The decision by the Darwinian judge was never in doubt.

Hmmm… I remember when your fellow travelers said that about Judge Jones…before he handed down his decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover.

If you truly believe what you assert above, then anyone involved in case in which a religious opinion might be expressed, should ask any judge who has religious convictions–or convictions with regard to any scientific theory–of *any* sort to recuse himself for bias. Yeah.…like that’s going to work. You might want to take a look at the results of the efforts to reverse Judge Wagner’s decision in the Federal case against Prop. 8 because he happens to be gay.

In a reality based world, JPL won because the law and evidence were on their side, and the judge decided based on law and evidence. That’s why the appeal isn’t likely to get anywhere, either.

No one could expect those who agree with the “decision” to admit the predetermined result.

But honest, intelligent and objective persons know and understand that the Darwinian judge ruled as expected against the Creationist. The judge, of course, has to be an Evolutionist or anti-IDist. His decision therefore was predetermined. He could not let the Atheists over at JPL down.

Just Bob said:

Ray Martinez said:

When these events occurred the persons doing the burning were not following Christ; rather, they were denying Christ, like all Atheists do.

Was that ambiguous statement meant to imply that those people, who identified themselves as ‘Christians’, were in fact atheists?

Could it be that you classify anyone – no matter what religion he affiliates with or professes, who does not follow your theology closely – as an “atheist”?

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

What does anything you’ve said have to do with the fact that the people doing the burning were not following Christ, like any given Atheist?

“The judge ruled against Coppedge on every claim and also ruled against every objection filed by his attorneys, according to the Sun.”

For everyone who is not naive: the pro-Atheist Darwinian judge ruled, every step of the way, as expected, against the Creationist.

Actually, Ray, if you actually read the evidence submitted to the court and which is freely available (sorry, troll, do your own search) you will read that Coppedge, himself, admitted that he was a pest, that he had bad relationships with his customers, that he instigated all the problems that befell him and that he was ripe for termination.

Furthermore, not that you care, but Coppedge’s lawyer failed to present any evidence, not a shred, not a single document or witness to the contrary.

Thus, from a strictly impartial standpoint, Coppedge had no case and that was obvious in court. What should the judge have done, Ray? Coppedge presented no positive case for his dismissal other than his opinion. JPL had undisputed evidence that was not rebutted to the contrary. One of the witnesses against Coppedge is an ordained minister! You’re flapping in the wind as usual, Ray. Idiot.

Ray Martinez said:

For everyone who is not naive: the pro-Atheist Darwinian judge ruled, every step of the way, as expected, against the Creationist.

You’re a loony, Ray Martinez. Why don’t you ramble on over to The Bathroom Wall? Your fellow loonies need your help!

That’s right Ray. Anyone who doesn’t agree with you is just hopelessly biased. Anyone who doesn’t share your religious views cannot be a real christian. Anyone who doesn’t agree with you can’t be a real creationist. You are the only one who is ever right about anything. It’s all one big conspiracy and everyone is against you. Maybe you should find another planet where you can be king and force everyone to agree with you. Until then, just go to the bathroom wall where your crazy brand of bullshit might be tolerated. You have worn out you welcome in decent society.

Doc Bill said:

Actually, Ray, if you actually read the evidence submitted to the court and which is freely available (sorry, troll, do your own search) you will read that Coppedge, himself, admitted that he was a pest, that he had bad relationships with his customers, that he instigated all the problems that befell him and that he was ripe for termination.

Furthermore, not that you care, but Coppedge’s lawyer failed to present any evidence, not a shred, not a single document or witness to the contrary.…

The comments say: I see no way to defeat your main points so I’ll claim the Creationist admitted that his JPL opponent was right all along.

If true, why was a trial even held?

Ray Martinez said:

Doc Bill said:

Actually, Ray, if you actually read the evidence submitted to the court and which is freely available (sorry, troll, do your own search) you will read that Coppedge, himself, admitted that he was a pest, that he had bad relationships with his customers, that he instigated all the problems that befell him and that he was ripe for termination.

Furthermore, not that you care, but Coppedge’s lawyer failed to present any evidence, not a shred, not a single document or witness to the contrary.…

The comments say: I see no way to defeat your main points so I’ll claim the Creationist admitted that his JPL opponent was right all along.

If true, why was a trial even held?

The trial was held so that all us Atheists and Evolutionists could laugh at you, Ray Martinez!

Why did you think?

Well, obviously.

Me, I’m fascinated by the close link, not simply to irreligion and atheism, but to conspiracy theory.

Ray said:

The judge, of course, has to be an Evolutionist or anti-IDist.

Has to be? Shall we explore this a little more?

It would appear that Ray’s spook-laced mind sees a sort of overplan in operation. The judge in this case, or maybe all judges, are selected on the basis that they are “Evolutionists” or “anti-IDists”, which, remember, means exactly the same as “atheists” to Ray.

How could this be? Does Ray think that appointments to the bench, or the allocation of this judge to this case, are made by some sort of vetting committee that asks whether the judge accept Darwin’s theory or not? This would have to be a very covert process indeed, since such a criterion is not published or referred to anywhere, and would be repugnant if it were. It would, in fact, have to be a conspiracy, carried on by (of course!) shadowy and malign powers-that-be, for evil and nefarious purposes.

Well, yes, of course he thinks that.

Er… think? Ray? Think?

This English, this is not how she is talked, no?

Ray, are there ANY other living people who are true Christians and true creationists (of course the two must go together)? Could you name one, or better–a group–that agree with your theology and version of “science” so that they are indeed all true Christians and true creationists (redundant, of course)?

Ray Martinez said:

Doc Bill said:

Actually, Ray, if you actually read the evidence submitted to the court and which is freely available (sorry, troll, do your own search) you will read that Coppedge, himself, admitted that he was a pest, that he had bad relationships with his customers, that he instigated all the problems that befell him and that he was ripe for termination.

Furthermore, not that you care, but Coppedge’s lawyer failed to present any evidence, not a shred, not a single document or witness to the contrary.…

The comments say: I see no way to defeat your main points so I’ll claim the Creationist admitted that his JPL opponent was right all along.

If true, why was a trial even held?

No Ray, the replies say that you haven’t made a valid point, you haven’t presented any evidence. All you have is wild accusations and unsubstantiated allegations spun out by your paranoid and delusional mind. You literally haven’t presented anything that requires refutation, as usual. And of course you hypocritically refuse to answer any questions put to you or to explain yourself in any comprehensible way. You are worthless Ray. Coppedge got what he deserved, so will you.

Well, we are dealing with someone that thought the SCOTUS had a “judge” instead of multiple justices (click link here).

But if Ray thinks judges/justices are so pro-atheist and pro-“Darwinian” then why did two SCOTUS justices dissent from the majority opinion in Edwards v. Aguillard and instead support the anti-evolutionist side? This includes Justice Scalia who still serves on the SCOTUS today, Scalia was joined in dissent by the late William Rehnquist. Scalia has not exactly made secret his strong - and conservative - religious beliefs.

Many anti-evolutionists like Bill Dembski have openly bragged and taunted that they now “own” the SCOTUS and thus eagerly look forward to having a new anti-evolution case reach the SCOTUS. There may be some grounds for their optimism considering conservative SCOTUS justices like Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, etc.

Yep, sounds like a bunch of atheistic justices.

Oh, it’s fascinating how Ray continues to use antiquated/obsolete terms like Darwinism/Darwinian, this merely shows that his scientific mindset is stuck in the 1860s.

Further comments by the Martinez troll will be sent to the Bathroom Wall. Please do not feed it on this thread.

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said:

Ray Martinez said:

Doc Bill said:

Actually, Ray, if you actually read the evidence submitted to the court and which is freely available (sorry, troll, do your own search) you will read that Coppedge, himself, admitted that he was a pest, that he had bad relationships with his customers, that he instigated all the problems that befell him and that he was ripe for termination.

Furthermore, not that you care, but Coppedge’s lawyer failed to present any evidence, not a shred, not a single document or witness to the contrary.…

The comments say: I see no way to defeat your main points so I’ll claim the Creationist admitted that his JPL opponent was right all along.

If true, why was a trial even held?

No Ray, the replies say that you haven’t made a valid point, you haven’t presented any evidence. All you have is wild accusations and unsubstantiated allegations spun out by your paranoid and delusional mind. You literally haven’t presented anything that requires refutation, as usual. And of course you hypocritically refuse to answer any questions put to you or to explain yourself in any comprehensible way. You are worthless Ray. Coppedge got what he deserved, so will you.

Are you suggesting the judge is NOT an Evolutionist?

Like all judges, he matriculated through higher education controlled by Darwinists (Note: The term “Darwinist” and other variations is used by EVERY evo scholar in the world liberally in all of their publications.) So the vast majority of judges MUST be Evolutionists. Therefore it is impossible for these to rule in favor of a Creationist.

Are you suggesting that a judge, someone sworn to uphold the law, someone who took an oath, would let his own personal beliefs influence his decision in regards to the law? I’m surprised Ray. Why, is that what you would do?

If all judges are “darwinists” I guess you are screwed Ray. You can’t win no matter what. No matter how much evidence you present. Is that why you don’t even try?

Do you want to disqualify all judges who are well educated? Do you want to have only ignorant judges? What am I saying, of course you do. Good luck with that Ray. I hope it works out for you.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Matt Young published on January 18, 2013 4:23 PM.

Hoyt stromatolites was the previous entry in this blog.

Bryan College dropping Center for Origins Research is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.38

Site Meter