Ex NASA expert attacks bosses in religious row

Mar 19, 2012

A former expert at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) claimed Monday he was falsely accused of harassing co-workers about religion, as he took the stand at an unfair dismissal trial.

Computer administrator David Coppedge, who describes himself as an evangelical Christian, was fired last year after expressing support for intelligent design to fellow employees.

His trial started last week, and on Monday testified that his supervisor Gregory Chin had wrongly accused him, threatened his freedom of and created a potentially hostile working environment.

"You are pushing your religion in this office and harassing people with this religion," Chin said, according to Coppedge, who added: "He was angry and he got angrier."

Coppedge said he asked Chin why he considered intelligent design anything but science. "Dave, is religion," Chin replied, according to Coppedge.

Chin warned him against discussing religion or politics with colleagues, he said.

"I felt threatened .. I said: 'Greg, this gets into issues of free speech and freedom of religion ... this could be construed as creating a hostile work environment'," he added.

Coppedge filed a religious discrimination lawsuit in April 2010, and claims he was dismissed nine months later in retaliation for taking the legal action -- but JPL said he was laid off as part of a staff reduction.

Coppedge, who had joined JPL in 1996, was an information technology specialist and system administrator -- and team leader -- on the project's Cassini mission to Saturn.

He lost his team leader role in 2009, and left the company last year after 15 years.

In a sworn declaration last week, he denied he was aggressive in voicing views about religion, including by sending emails criticizing the change in name of the 2003 Cassini Christmas party to a "holiday party."

"I was not pushy, scolding or demanding in these emails," he said. "In fact, my purpose was to convince them to not be so politically correct. It wouldn't have made any sense for me to have been pushy," he said.

In a statement issued as the trial opened, JPL dismissed the charges, saying: "The suit is completely without merit and we intend to vigorously fight the allegations raised by Mr Coppedge."

JPL is a division of the California Institute of Technology, which operates under a contract with .

Explore further: Obama salutes 45th anniversary of US astronauts' Moon landing

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Suit alleges dismissal for intelligent design

Mar 11, 2012

(AP) -- NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory has landed robotic explorers on the surface of Mars, sent probes to outer planets and operates a worldwide network of antennas that communicates with interplanetary spacecraft.

Courts endangering religious freedom, academic claims

Jan 26, 2012

Studying recent cases in the UK, USA, Canada and mainland Europe, Oxford University philosopher Professor Roger Trigg has identified a trend towards curtailing religious freedom in favour of other social priorities ...

Science and religion do mix

Sep 21, 2011

Throughout history, science and religion have appeared as being in perpetual conflict, but a new study by Rice University suggests that only a minority of scientists at major research universities see religion and science ...

Recommended for you

New launch date set for ISS delivery vessel

15 hours ago

A robot ship will be launched from Kourou, French Guiana, after a five-day delay on July 29 to deliver provisions to the International Space Station, space transport firm Arianespace said Tuesday.

The heart of an astronaut, five years on

16 hours ago

The heart of an astronaut is a much-studied thing. Scientists have analyzed its blood flow, rhythms, atrophy and, through journal studies, even matters of the heart. But for the first time, researchers are ...

Image: Kaleidoscopic view of Mars

22 hours ago

Astrophotographer Leo Aerts from Belgium took advantage of the recent opposition of Mars and captured the Red Planet both "coming and going" in this montage of images taken from October 2013 to June of 2014. ...

User comments : 128

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kochevnik
2.5 / 5 (21) Mar 19, 2012
Oh the christian nationalist is at it again. He should search for something more congruent to his belief structure, like assisting Kony in Uganda, or peeling off his clothes and masturbating in front of children in San Diego.
mvg
1.3 / 5 (27) Mar 19, 2012
Religion takes many forms,Darwinism is one of them also.
axemaster
5 / 5 (18) Mar 19, 2012
Coppedge said he asked Chin why he considered intelligent design anything but science. "Dave, intelligent design is religion," Chin replied, according to Coppedge.

And Chin is 100% correct. Intelligent design is creationism dressed up to look scientific to the masses, and scientists recognize that right away.

The more I hear about this guy, the more annoying he sounds...
flippertie _
5 / 5 (22) Mar 19, 2012
@mvg
Religion takes many forms,Darwinism is one of them also.


Yeah right. Just like bald is a hair colour.
Tseihta
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 20, 2012
@mvg
Religion takes many forms,Darwinism is one of them also.


Yeah right. Just like bald is a hair colour.


...and abstinence is a sex position ;)
Au-Pu
2.5 / 5 (16) Mar 20, 2012
Why would such a fruit cake want to work in a place like JPL?
I would believe JPL when they say he was pushy in promoting his religious views.
The fact that he has sen fit to sue over his dismissal is clear evidence that he views science as hostile toward him and his views.
I once joined a company that I had thought was a normal company only to find someone bring their lunch into the office and to start praying. When I questioned this I was told in no uncertain terms that THIS IS A CHRISTIAN COMPANY. So being the profligate sinner I enjoyably am I resigned on the spot, I told them in which part of their anatomy to put their job and walked out.
Must have sent them into a tizzy of praying.
alfie_null
4.8 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2012
... he denied he was aggressive in voicing views about religion, including by sending emails criticizing the change in name of the 2003 Cassini Christmas party to a "holiday party."
... "In fact, my purpose was to convince them to not be so politically correct. It wouldn't have made any sense for me to have been pushy," he said.

It's hard to accept that as his honest reason. After his having worked at JPL for years, it's unlikely he would be unaware of the environment of what he calls "political correctness", or how unlikely it is that complaining (in email, no less!) would have any chance of changing things towards his preferences.
Kinedryl
1.4 / 5 (16) Mar 20, 2012
"I felt threatened .. I said: 'Greg, this gets into issues of free speech and freedom of religion ... this could be construed as creating a hostile work environment'," he added.
No boss has right to dictate the content of private discussion of his subordinates, providing it doesn't affect the job performance of company and these subordinates have no problem with it. For example, I can talk about horses, football or whatever else with my colleagues in my job and my boss has no right to restrict me in it. IMO David Coppedge is correct with his case.
Kinedryl
1.4 / 5 (22) Mar 20, 2012
Religion takes many forms,Darwinism is one of them also.

Of course. The belief in Big bang, string theory or gravitational waves are another ones. You people simply cannot recognize it, just because you're believing in it. But nobody restricts anybody to talk about gravitational waves - so what makes the difference for David Coppedge?
Amy_Steri
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 20, 2012
Religion takes many forms,Darwinism is one of them also.

Of course. The belief in Big bang, string theory or gravitational waves are another ones. You people simply cannot recognize it, just because you're believing in it. But nobody restricts anybody to talk about gravitational waves - so what makes the difference for David Coppedge?


You can't equate rational ideas like those with irrational ideas like his. Once you allow "god did it", you must allow ANY other completely unsupported bullshit. Do you even understand what the scientific method is?
Also, proponents of string theory aren't telling me I can't get married, or can't get an abortion, or trying to elect a moron like Santorum.
Kinedryl
1.4 / 5 (19) Mar 20, 2012
Once you allow "god did it", you must allow ANY other completely unsupported bullshit.
Why? For example, Holy Church accepted Big Bang (BTW mistakenly in the same way, like the mainstream physics). It's completely up to you, in what you will believe or not.
proponents of string theory aren't telling me I can't get married
LOL, they just telling you to give them your money for further research...;-) BTW I do believe neither in God neither in most ad hoced concepts of contemporary science from good reasons.
Limmic
4.9 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2012
The difference between religion and science is that religion generally speaks on moral boundaries and is defined in supernatural terms like "God" and "miracles", where as science generally takes no moral position and is defined in quantifiable figures and testable theories.

Religion generally cannot be tested and remains static in it's structure and doctrines, that is why "faith" is a necessary element. Science can, and is, tested; and due to this is ever changing.
Limmic
4.8 / 5 (10) Mar 20, 2012
@Kinedryl - Polarizing topics such as religion and politics have no place being discussed in a work environment. These sorts of topics destroy efficiency and team cohesion, doing nothing but causing rifts between employees. Any intelligent boss would stifle this sort of thing to the benefit of everyone that works under them.

Of course, people don't seem to see the logic in this, that's due to the fact that we live in a nation of entitlement. That's where this nonsensical "War on Religion" came from. The majority are suffering an injustice not being able to force their beliefs down everyone else's throats.
Amy_Steri
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 20, 2012
Youd do well to notice how easily children can be reasoned out of their belief in Santa Claus. The all enter school as devout believers, and they all exit as perfect sceptics. How is this dialectical miracle accomplished? Quite simply: there is no cultural support for a belief in Santa past a certain age, and no one likes to be laughed at. Do we replace Santa Claus with anything? No. We just oblige people to grow up. -Sam Harris

What we need is MORE public ridicule of religious ideas not less.
Sinister1811
2.3 / 5 (22) Mar 20, 2012
Religion takes many forms,Darwinism is one of them also.


At least there's factual evidence behind Darwin's work (an extensive, historical fossil record). With religion, nothing is a proven fact, just a series of beliefs.
Limmic
4.9 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2012
@Amy Steri - You're absolutely right, it's ingrained into people's heads when they are children, but generally this never changes like they do with things like Santa Claus. I've found that I usually know more about Catholicism than the Catholics I know, probably because I've taken the time to actually analyze what it was that I was supposed to be believing in. Many people don't like to "think", that is, they rather just accept things as is without questioning it.

This country, or just religion in general, has a level of shame attached to it for even questioning it. I was hesitant to label myself anything other than non-practicing when I was younger, due to the worry of what reaction I would get.
Amy_Steri
4.3 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2012
Fairy tale characters like Santa, the Easter bunny, and the tooth fairy are for children. Adults who believe in these things are properly ridiculed and/or medicated. Why do we make any exception for people who believe in any of the interventionist dieties? I say "interventionist" because having some kind of nebulous spirituality that doesn't make claims about the "real world" seems fairly benign to me.
Kinedryl
1.4 / 5 (16) Mar 20, 2012
Polarizing topics such as religion and politics have no place being discussed in a work environment
Unfortunately such a restriction may collide with freedom of speech and religion in general. Everything which is allowed with law must be allowed in job contract too - or your job contract is invalid. After all, where else you could talk about it, if not at work? Many people spend their time at work and at home only.

This is just a point which I discussed before some time: the people in USA are living at freedom of speech, but they're slaves at their work environment, so that their freedom of speech and religion is not as high, as they're believing.
Limmic
5 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2012
@Kinedryl - The Freedom of Speech and Religion become tricky situations when dealing with this sort of thing. The fact is that while you are free to speak your mind, it has it's limits, like for instance racist or sexist remarks would not be tolerated and would be grounds for termination in certain work environments.

I realize that talking about religion/politics are not the same as hateful or inappropriate sexual comments, but the result can be the same, a division among people within that work environment.

So where do you draw the line with what is acceptable or not? That's a hard question to answer...ideally people would use common sense and just refrain from those types of conversations out of respect for others, but unfortunately people usually can't be counted on to display that sort of empathy.
Kinedryl
1.2 / 5 (14) Mar 20, 2012
The fact is that while you are free to speak your mind, it has it's limits, like for instance racist or sexist remarks would not be tolerated
But if we extend this rule to the religion too, we could get the medieval level of freedom of speech very fast: you'll lose your existence, when you start to talk about your religion at public. BTW Whole the article name is biased, manipulative and misleading: it were just the bosses of David Coppedge, who attacked and fired him first, which is undeniable fact.
Calenur
4.8 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2012
I don't think you quite understand what freedom of religion is. You have the freedom to worship any god you wish, and the state will not interfere in that belief. You going to your workplace and proselytizing is not covered in that freedom. If any of my bosses came to me and tried to convince me their particular FSM was my only way to avoid an eternity in hell, I'd know for a fact that this topic mattered enough for them to bring it up. I'd also feel that if I didn't listen intently, no matter my objection, it could hurt my career as they would be personally insulted.

I don't think you're quite getting the very basic premise of this freedom. Your freedom of religion is also my freedom FROM religion. I don't want to hear it, and am not legally obligated to.
Kinedryl
1.2 / 5 (13) Mar 20, 2012
I don't want to hear it, and am not legally obligated to.
But David Coppedge didn't discuss his opinion with bosses, who fired them - he discussed it with his coworkers, who admitted nothing about it. This is a difference. His bosses interfered his private discussions, which would be otherwise perfectly legal. But if the American people like you want to live like Iranian fundamentalist, who even cannot draw the picture of Allah, nobody prohibits them. I'm just surprised, how willingly they do admit their slavery.
Limmic
4.7 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2012
I'm sorry but the slippery slope argument is not a very strong one. This is about issues at hand, not 10 years down the road (the machines will have risen up by then anyways...).

If I say A is an argument, you can't simply say "well A leads to B, which leads to C, etc (Z = the Dark Side?), without actually refuting A as a solid argument on its own.

You are right, in a way, we are slaves at the work place, but at the same time to a degree that's how it needs to be in order to maintain a tiered structure of management. Unbridled optimism that everyone can get along and do their fair share without a boss controlling your future doesn't really work. They need to have a certain amount of power over you, or else there would be no reason to listen to them. Unfortunately sometimes you get people who abuse this power and would try and do more than simply prevent infighting and nasty non-work related arguments, and thats when you really do have a problem with your rights being violated.
Kinedryl
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 20, 2012
Anyway, it's somehow symptomatic for puritan America, that the most religious country on the world, where 60% of people don't believe in evolution persecutes the people for talking about religion at work. The similar hypocrisy appears in relation to sexual freedom: this country is the largest producent of porn on the world, but it prohibits the people to take photos of their children (between others). It's sorta Freudian complex.
flippertie _
4.8 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2012
it were just the bosses of David Coppedge, who attacked and fired him first, which is undeniable fact.

Wrong!! Do you not understand the first thing about the case? The JPL were downsizing the Cassini mission team as the project became semi-dormant. Everyone associated with the project knew it was going to happen. Approximately 200 people lost their jobs and only one of them thinks he's being victimised.
Coppedge comes across as completely self centered and unaware anyone elses issues except his own. Perhaps not co-incidentally these are the same traits that his co-workers reported made him hard to work with.
Calenur
4.8 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2012
I don't want to hear it, and am not legally obligated to.
But he didn't discussed his opinion with bosses, who fired them - he discussed it with his coworkers, who admitted nothing about it. This is a difference.


I fail to see a difference, but regardless, you're incorrect. He was assigned as a team lead, and lost that position after his actions; He was later let go. He's a board member of the group who produced the DVDs promoting intelligent design, which leads one to believe he actively tried to convince people it was scientifically valid.

Something most people understand is politics and religion aren't topics to be discussed in the workplace. I'm not saying this guy is an asshole, but I am saying what he did was inappropriate.
Kinedryl
1.2 / 5 (13) Mar 20, 2012
Approximately 200 people lost their jobs and only one of them thinks he's being victimised.
Nope, he doesn't just thinks so - he has an evidence, because "Chin warned him against discussing religion or politics with colleagues". Chin - or whoever else - has no right to warn him against such discussions, because it's just attempt for censorship of speech, which would be otherwise perfectly legal. The animal sex is not legal, so I shouldn't talk about it even at work or wherever else - but talking about religion may be annoying for someone, but it still perfectly legal.
Calenur
4.7 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2012
I don't want to hear it, and am not legally obligated to.
But David Coppedge didn't discuss his opinion with bosses, who fired them - he discussed it with his coworkers, who admitted nothing about it. This is a difference. His bosses interfered his private discussions, which would be otherwise perfectly legal. But if the American people like you want to live like Iranian fundamentalist, who even cannot draw the picture of Allah, nobody prohibits them. I'm just surprised, how willingly they do admit their slavery.


Aaand here's where conservative christians immediately lose their shit. Look...the fact that I don't want ANY BOSS OR COWORKER to attempt to convert me while I'm at my place of employment, does not mean I want to live in Iran. I'm not sure how you can make such an amazingly drastic leap so quickly. Again, your freedom to worship and not be bugged about it is my freedom to not worship and not be bugged about it.
Limmic
5 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2012
Employers have to be able to expect employees (especially a team leader) to be respectful of others (in particular those who didn't share his religious beliefs) and act in a professional capacity while on the job.
Kinedryl
1.2 / 5 (14) Mar 20, 2012
Something most people understand is politics and religion aren't topics to be discussed in the workplace.
It's just your biased opinion. if the people can waste their time with talks about their families or other things, why not about their religion? It's their free will, until all members of discussions do agree with it. Instead of this, you've absolutely no right to hinder them in it.
Again, your freedom to worship and not be bugged about it is my freedom to not worship and not be bugged about it.
But nobody did bugged the bosses of David Coppedge, who censored and later fired him. Can you understand it?

In brief, I'm against every form of censorship.
Limmic
4.5 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2012
Conservative Discussion 101: When an argument runs out of steam, immediately change to a new counter argument that is the far extreme of your previous argument...
Calenur
4.5 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2012
..talking about religion may be annoying for someone, but it still perfectly legal.


I'm glad you admit you're annoying. I have every right to hinder them, as it causes an uncomfortable work environment FOR ME. We don't know how many, if any employers came forward, but it's highly irrelevant. Discussing religion causes tension in a team when all the members aren't of the same belief. This causes a problem for the bosses, which causes a problem for the project. I don't see how you're failing to understand this. Religion is a personal thing, keep it to your damn self. Most people don't want to outright tell someone to shut the hell up, they file complaints with their supervisor.

You keep hiding behind this freedom of religion bullshit, but you have absolutely no idea what it means. Why do you think a christian has more rights than an atheist in these matters? I fail to believe you'd be so sympathetic to a muslim or wiccan.
Kinedryl
1.2 / 5 (13) Mar 20, 2012
In essence, my stance in this discussion is similar to those of Voltaire's: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". The people should learn the tolerance. My opinion is, the people in the USA avoid racism or sexism or attacks against religion anxiously - but their tolerance is not better just because of it. Instead of it, it's way lower. For example, our country is atheistic a way more, than the USA ever did, but our most famous and respected popularizer of cosmology is religious as hell and nobody bothers with it - it's just a private business of his. This is, what the actual tolerance means - not the artificial hypocritical rules, which are leading to auto-censorship and which are hindering the people to express their opinion.
Calenur
4 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2012
Ok Voltaire. It's funny you'd pick him to be your inspiration, as he was critical of religion. I'm quite done with you. If we end up working together, I will be glad to tell you to shut your damn mouth, because I don't want to hear about your space fairy.
Kinedryl
1.1 / 5 (14) Mar 20, 2012
I will be glad to tell you to shut your damn mouth, because I don't want to hear about your space fairy.
If its legal, what could you do against it? After all, it's as relevant to terrestrial life, like your occasional twaddling at work - let say about the baseball. If you would shout at me in this way, it would be just you, who would be warned for violation of rules of occupational relationships.
as he was critical of religion. I'm quite done with you
Just because I'm so critical to religion, I'm sensitive to bias in distinguishing of Big Bang cosmology from any other forms of religion. Because the Big Bang theory is as fairy tale, as every creationists BS.
Amy_Steri
4 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2012
We've covered this already... The BB theory is only as prevalent as it is because it fits what we currently think we know about the universe. If someone offers proof that can be verified that the cosmic background radiation is not what we think it is, then theory will change to fit the new information. Religious dogma does not share this flexibility.

Any residual theological explanations that still persist today are based on nothing but cultural inertia. As objects in motion tend to stay in motion, so do culturally accepted ideas tend to stay in circulation. Most people don't believe that bad spirits cause sickness anymore. And so, not many practice bleeding as a cure. Germ theory has replaced superstition. Would you lump Germ Theory in with The Big Bang theory as being a "fairy tale?" Granted, much more evidence exists for Germ Theory, but both are supported by at least SOME evidence, unlike ANY religious theory.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (18) Mar 20, 2012
He would not have had any problem if he was Muslim.
Calenur
4 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2012
Rygg...take your conspiracy bullshit elsewhere, please.
TrinityComplex
5 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2012
it were just the bosses of David Coppedge, who attacked and fired him first, which is undeniable fact.

Less fact, more supposition. This sounds remarkably like a situation I had at a previous job where a co-worker 'found religion'. He started bringing up religion whenever he could. At first we would be polite and say that we weren't interested, then we walked away. When he started treating us like idiots because we weren't receptive we told him to drop it. These weren't offices, they were cubes, and he would not drop it. Finally, several of us asked to move, but our boss, seeing that it wouldn't fix the problem, asked him to stop or face reprimand. She was very clear that it wasn't about his religious views, it was the fact that he had been asked by everyone in his aisle to stop and he wouldn't. He filed for discrimination, a lawyer came in and asked for signed affidavits about the original grievance, and the guy was fired. I could easily see something similar happening here.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (19) Mar 20, 2012
Rygg...take your conspiracy bullshit elsewhere, please.

What conspiracy?
Who would dare fire anyone in the govt over any belief system other than Christianity or Judaism?
The govt now allows an Inidan tribe to kill bald eagles for religious reasons and is trying to force Catholics to buy birth control.
TrinityComplex
4 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2012
The govt now allows an Inidan tribe to kill bald eagles for religious reasons and is trying to force Catholics to buy birth control.

Actually they have to fight for that right to hunt a predetermined number to practice their religious views. There was a case in Wyoming that finally granted a tribe the right to hunt exactly two of the birds. It's the keeping of the feathers that law allows for people of sufficient Native American heritage. Nobody else is allowed to own the feathers.
Nobody is forcing Catholics to buy birth control, they are saying that they need to allow the employees who do not share their religious views (such as nurses in Catholic hospitals) the opportunity to have them covered the same as anybody else who has health insurance has it covered. As it is, such institutions create special plans with insurance companies restricting coverage of certain services rather than going with the standard plans.
Calenur
3.8 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2012
He didn't get fired because of his belief, you nitwit. I guarantee many of the others fired weren't christian or jewish, so your assertion is false from the start. The bald eagle isn't an endangered species, and yes, they are allowing tribes to kill them for religious purposes, after a permit has been granted. This will allow the government to track population. And finally, the government isn't forcing anyone to buy birth control. Not only is your premise completely without fact or merit, but you fail to realize birth control is used for more than just preventing pregnancy.

Please, just stay off this site. You don't agree with ANYTHING published, because you revert to conspiracy nonsense despite being presented with evidence. You take ANY article and immediately begin on how it's the socialist government imposing control. Not everything is related to the government conspiracy; some things are just science. Please go away, nutjob.
Kinedryl
1.2 / 5 (11) Mar 20, 2012
He would not have had any problem if he was Muslim...Rygg...take your conspiracy bullshit elsewhere, please.
:-) Muslims are officially allowed to have prayer break in many western companies, including USA. In prayers room the kiblat arrows are navigating them towards Mecca Sometimes even the closets are marked with these arrows, which prohibit the Muslims to pie toward Mecca by accident.
Kinedryl
1.2 / 5 (10) Mar 20, 2012
You shouldn't expect, you could win the trial against Muslim, being an employer. It can serve as a precedent for the NASA vs. David Coppedge case.
Calenur
4.8 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2012
Kinedryl, your comment is related, but irrelevant to this conversation. An employer allowing its employees time to pray is not the same as proselytizing.
Amy_Steri
3.5 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2012
Rygg, I suppose your assertion that unwanted Islamic proselytizing would have gone unpunished is based on the fact that Obama is a secret Muslim right?
Kinedryl
1.1 / 5 (11) Mar 20, 2012
An employer allowing its employees time to pray is not the same as proselytizing.
It undoubtedly isn't. And what?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (20) Mar 20, 2012
Nobody is forcing Catholics to buy birth control, they are saying that they need to allow the employees who do not share their religious views (such as nurses in Catholic hospitals) the opportunity to have them covered the same as anybody else who has health insurance has it covered.

So they are being FORCED to buy birth control. 'Covered' means 'to pay for'.
Rygg, I suppose your assertion that unwanted Islamic proselytizing would have gone unpunished is based on the fact that Obama is a secret Muslim right?

No. 'Progressives' are quite happy to attack Christians but seem reluctant to treat Muslims the same way. Maybe because Muslims would try and kill them?
BTW, according to Islamic law, Obama IS Muslim. Also, 'liberals' are also quite happy to support Sharia law over western laws.
Calenur
4 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2012
Rygg..you are quite simply another uninformed, fear-mongering American. You follow the mantra of generations of radicals before you; lie lie lie and lie some more in order to promote your views.

I am more than happy to attack christians, muslims, and any number of other irrational groups of individuals who believe in invisible space wizards. You're all lumped into the same group of crazy in my book. Don't go thinking you're in any way special or being victimized.

Additionally, I don't know which islamic law to which you're referring, but them labeling Obama a muslim doesn't make it so. I think he has the right to choose his own space wizard.

DoubleD
1.3 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2012
Kinedryl is correct.

ALL THEORIES are THEORIES until proven or disproven. That is the scientific method.

Also, in the USA, these are definitely Freedom of speech and freedom of religion issues. Freedom of speech and freedom of Religion shall not be abridged. Period. Its the law of the land.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (19) Mar 20, 2012
I don't know which islamic law to which you're referring,

There is only one. Just ask them.
Children of a Muslim father are Muslims. And once a Muslim, always a Muslim. There is no converting or renouncing.
That's their law, which the 'progressives' seem to support.
Calenur
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2012
Kinedryl is correct.

ALL THEORIES are THEORIES until proven or disproven. That is the scientific method.

Also, in the USA, these are definitely Freedom of speech and freedom of religion issues. Freedom of speech and freedom of Religion shall not be abridged. Period. Its the law of the land.


DoubleD, you labeled yourself lazy and uninformed in the very first sentence. A scientific theory is different than a layman's theory. Science doesn't PROVE, science searches for evidence. You're free to look up the definition of a scientific theory on your own time.

His freedom of religion was never in question, he was welcome to pray to any space wizard he chose. When he started to proselytize, he crossed the line as he was infringing on his fellow employee's freedom from religion; he was also creating a problem in the workplace. He got what he deserved, as he was no doubt warned against this type of behavior in the workplace.
Calenur
4.5 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2012
I don't know which islamic law to which you're referring,

There is only one. Just ask them.
Children of a Muslim father are Muslims. And once a Muslim, always a Muslim. There is no converting or renouncing.
That's their law, which the 'progressives' seem to support.


Funny, I thought in order to become a muslim, one had to make the declaration of faith. I guess those three years I spent in the middle east led me astray. Please, tell me what else qualifies him as a muslim.

You must realize this is absolute hogwash. So much for freedom of choice, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, or fuck, free will. You seem to think muslims are another species. Quite simply, you are simply towing the line of your party. You're racist, irrational, and uninformed in nearly all aspects of science, religion, and politics. Go pound sand.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (20) Mar 20, 2012
"A panel of judges from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals will eventually decide whether a lower court judge was correct in blocking a 2010 ballot initiative forbidding Oklahoma courts from considering Islamic laws in the their decisions."
But opponents of the measure say it stigmatizes Islam. In court briefs, lawyers for CAIR, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), write, The State of Oklahoma makes no attempt to defend the practice of singling out one religious faith for official condemnation and disability.
http://abcnews.go...ria-law/
Would the ALCU defend laws based upon the Ten Commandments banning adultery?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (20) Mar 20, 2012
My three years in Saudi Arabia taught be that the children of Muslim men are Muslim. Wives may be Muslim, Christian or Jewish.
The king of Saudi Arabia is the keeper of the two holy mosques and they are the experts on Islam. Just ask them.
The Saudi govt was quick to support the Taliban in the late 90s.
Calenur
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2012
I doubt you learned anything in Saudi Arabia. The time you spent there was viewed through racist colored goggles. Being muslim isn't an inherited gender specific disease, so please pull your head out of your ass. I have a hard time believing you're actually buying the crap you're selling.
Calenur
4.8 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2012
"A panel of judges from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals will eventually decide whether a lower court judge was correct in blocking a 2010 ballot initiative forbidding Oklahoma courts from considering Islamic laws in the their decisions."
But opponents of the measure say it stigmatizes Islam. In court briefs, lawyers for CAIR, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), write, The State of Oklahoma makes no attempt to defend the practice of singling out one religious faith for official condemnation and disability.
http://abcnews.go...ria-law/
Would the ALCU defend laws based upon the Ten Commandments banning adultery?


Are you serious? The United States takes christian beliefs into account ALL THE TIME. You're absolutely insane if you think christians don't guide policy through their religion. It's one of the MAJOR PROBLEMS with this country. The ACLU constantly defends christians...You're confused.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (20) Mar 20, 2012
I doubt you learned anything in Saudi Arabia. The time you spent there was viewed through racist colored goggles. Being muslim isn't an inherited gender specific disease, so please pull your head out of your ass. I have a hard time believing you're actually buying the crap you're selling.

I worked with Saudis and that is what they told me.
A Saudi is born a Muslim.
Calenur
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2012
I worked with Saudis and that is what they told me.
A Saudi is born a Muslim.


Your purely anecdotal evidence is worth less than dogshit. Evidence to refute your racism is readily available on the internet.
Callippo
1.3 / 5 (11) Mar 20, 2012
@Calenur: The Prophet Muhammad said: "No babe is born but upon Fitra (as a Muslim). It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist." (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6426). The Prophet also said, "Each child is born in a state of "Fitrah", then his parents make him a Jew, Christian or a Zoroastrian, the way an animal gives birth to a normal offspring." It's one of secrets of effective spreading of Muslim religion via natality in western countries.
Calenur
4.4 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2012
Callippo...are you really so daft as to believe being muslim is hereditary? It's not a physical ailment, and regardless of what a fake guy wrote in a book about another fake guy, it doesn't make it so. You even, though not in its entirety, included the end of that quote, which says the baby (even if born muslim) will not stay muslim, because of influences in his/her life.

Let me be quite simple. The koran isn't magic, and it can't magic Obama into being muslim. He gets to choose his religion, just as you get to choose yours. The quote to which you and rygg are referring is stating that all children are born pure (without sin), just as christians. It's their lives which lead them astray. I can't believe I'm arguing about space wizards. If you seriously believe what you're trying to say, then everyone is muslim.
rah
1.6 / 5 (11) Mar 20, 2012
It sounds as if Chin may have been a bit hypersensitive. I agree with everything I read about what Coppedge said, even though I am not Christian. It is beyond ridiculous to call a Christmas party a Holiday party. It's for people with no courage. The case for Intelligent Design presents itself and real scientists will evaluate it on its merits.
Callippo
1.1 / 5 (12) Mar 20, 2012
it can't magic Obama into being muslim.

There are additional sources, though;-)
Calenur
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2012
Keep your randite nonsense off this board, please. Additionally, WHAT WOULD IT FUCKING MATTER IF HE WERE MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN, BUDDHIST, OR ANY OTHER SPACE WIZARD WORSHIPER? What you all seem to think is 'freedom of religion' is 'freedom to be christian.' Bigoted and racist, the lot of you.
Callippo
1 / 5 (11) Mar 20, 2012
Keep your randite nonsense off this board, please
Just another Vendecar sock-puppet?
Calenur
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2012
No...there are quite a few of us here who find Rand to be a complete idiot.
Callippo
1 / 5 (11) Mar 20, 2012
You should admit, you're negatively fascinated with this girl in the same way, like the Hitler did with Jews, or Cato the Elder with Carthage...;-) Anyway, it's a very poor introductory point for whatever discussion with you, not to say here, where it's OT.
mvg
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 20, 2012
Religion takes many forms,Darwinism is one of them also.


Having been gone for some time since I wrote this, I am somewhat amused at the reactions this has received.

There are many "religions"

I recall that Toynbee used to say that "nationalism is 90% of the religion of 90% of the people"

Politics takes on a fanatic and "religious" character, also.

And certainly to be included in this list of divisive "devotion" are sports (football and soccer).

I am thus surprised that "Darwinism" With its post-modern mantra, "there is no god'--should not be recognised to itself contain an element of religiosity.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (21) Mar 20, 2012
He gets to choose his religion, just as you get to choose yours.

Depends upon where you are born.
Your purely anecdotal evidence is worth less than dogshit

They are the experts. Just ask them.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2012

"Children of a Muslim father are Muslims. And once a Muslim, always a Muslim." - RyggTard

Children of a Jewish mother are Jews. And once born a Jew, always a Jew.

RyggTard seems to have an unhealthy fixation on Muslims.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (20) Mar 20, 2012
"Under the law, children born to Muslim fathers are also Muslim, regardless of the country or the religious tradition in which they have been raised."
http://en.wikiped...rf2010-1
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2012
Are you kidding? We Darwinists have all evolved into Pastafarians.

"I am thus surprised that "Darwinism" With its post-modern mantra, "there is no god'" - mvTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2012
"Children of a Muslim father are Muslims. And once a Muslim, always a Muslim." - RyggTard

Children of a Jewish mother are Jews. And once born a Jew, always a Jew.

RyggTard seems to have an unhealthy fixation on Muslims.
Jonseer
2.7 / 5 (14) Mar 20, 2012
"Under the law, children born to Muslim fathers are also Muslim, regardless of the country or the religious tradition in which they have been raised."
http://en.wikiped...rf2010-1


EXCEPT in countries where THERE IS NO such law like the USA.

Of course conservatards will then repeat the lie he was born in another country conveniently denying all the evidence to the contrary, because it's all fake, while they accept outright lies as proof without ANY evidence. Imagine that!

And at that point I stop trying to prove any point, because I want them to continue.

I want them to shout at the top of their lungs all the idiotic nonsense that drives them, because the vast majority of Americans do not share their reasoning, and therefore when it comes time to vote, will vote against them.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.6 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2012
I don't really understand this fixation ConservaTards have with Obama being a Christian or not.

It is as if they are racists that don't believe in the separation of church and state or something.

flippertie _
4.8 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2012
"The Prophet Muhammad said: "No babe is born but upon Fitra (as a Muslim). It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist." (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6426). "

"And once a Muslim, always a Muslim." - RyggTard


Ergo (by the wonderful logic of hijacked internet threads) we are all Muslims. Including Ryggeson. Hating himself might go some way to explaining why he's so messed up.
Limmic
5 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2012
The idea of inheriting your religion is the most senseless crap I've heard in a while. It's as if they are playing a numbers game...like if they can say "Well 3/4 of America is Muslim, according to our rule we made up, therefore we win!".

Its just as silly as Mormons with their post-death baptisms, they are beyond stupid, and disrespectful to the people they make the claim about.
Shabs42
4 / 5 (4) Mar 21, 2012

They are the experts. Just ask them.


I guess that's why the entire Muslim world recognized "them" as the head of the Caliphate. Oh, wait...

Also, "Once a Muslim, always a Muslim" up until you pronounce belief in any other magical being and must be put to death. Just like the Bible says you should do to anyone who spreads belief in a false God.

Next, as has been said, who gives a shit if Obama was Muslim? I also find it hard to believe that Christians are actually feeling persecuted in this country to the advantage of Muslims, atheists, or any other religious group. The concept is so ridiculous that I can't even formulate a cogent response to it.
Shabs42
5 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2012

Freedom of speech and freedom of Religion shall not be abridged. Period. Its the law of the land.


Except for the laws that do limit it, as in the case of hate crimes, or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. You absolutely have the right to try and spread your religion at work, no argument there. I don't believe you should be arrested or fined for doing it. But your employer has the right to fire you if your speech is upsetting other employees and preventing them from doing their jobs properly.

If my coworkers are distracted and offended by my talk of football, then I will stop talking to them about football. Why would I even want to talk about football with people who are offended by it or don't like it? It would be about as much fun as arguing with fairy believers on internet forums...dammit.

Would you support grade school teachers trying to convert their students to Islam or Buddhism? How about kindergarten teachers telling their students there is no God?
Limmic
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2012
Religion is the one major topic that people feel entitled to be able to shove in anyone's face, despite what the other person may feel about it.

Poor me, I can't force others to pray to my god.
Poor me, I can't force you to stare at a giant slab featuring the doctrines of my faith....in a government building.
Poor me, others don't want my religion posted all over their money, and their pledge to their country, and their president's oath, etc.
Poor me, I can't force others to follow my religions laws.
Poor me, I can't force others to adopt my opinions.
Poor me, I can't force others to believe my rewriting of history.
Poor me, why can't they just understand I'm saving them from burning in hell for eternity, that my war mongering/hateful/genocidal/vengeful/self-indulgent/bipolar god loves them for who they are...so long as they hate themselves for it!
Excalibur
2.8 / 5 (22) Mar 21, 2012
The case for Intelligent Design presents itself and real scientists will evaluate it on its merits.

Already done, many times over.

ID is logically flawed by way of infinite descent. The argument is recursive, with each iteration giving rise to the need for an even more complex system.

Done. Deal with it.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (23) Mar 21, 2012
each iteration giving rise to the need for an even more complex system.

Sounds like particle physics.
Estevan57
1.8 / 5 (28) Mar 21, 2012
"Religion is the one major topic that people feel entitled to be able to shove in anyone's face, despite what the other person may feel about it."

Science also. Politics too.
Limmic
5 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2012
@Estevan57 - Well first off, my original statement put Politics in with Religion as a polarizing topic of conversation.

Want to know the big difference between science and politics/religion?
--Scientific discussions are generally conversations dictated by facts or theories intended to be studied and tested, usually based on some empirical evidence.
--Politics and Religion, on the other hand, are self-assertive subjects of discussion, completely based on one's personal belief in a god/candidate/party/etc of which the foundation is entirely made of opinions.

If a particular topic of science were to become a polarizing conversation when discussed with, let's say religious co-workers, then perhaps that should be added to the list of things a person should be kind enough to not discuss in a work environment.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (23) Mar 22, 2012
Scientific discussions are generally conversations dictated by facts or theories intended to be studied and tested, usually based on some empirical evidence.

Which still lead to heated debates.
Limmic
5 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2012
@ryggesogn2 - Try rereading the last paragraph in the comment you just replied to, I addressed that. Finish reading before you just head straight for the "Add your comment" box...
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 22, 2012
@ryggesogn2 - Try rereading the last paragraph in the comment you just replied to, I addressed that. Finish reading before you just head straight for the "Add your comment" box...

Not when the scientists having the debate work in the same lab, debating their work.
Limmic
4.8 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2012
@ryggesogn2 - If it's the scientists own work, in the lab for that work, then what is your point exactly?

If it is THEIR work, then debate (heated or not) is a part of the process, to have their work be challenged and scrutinized (by their peers especially) is exactly what is supposed to happen.

How the hell do you equate scientists debated their own scientific theories (among other scientific colleagues) to a guy trying to push religion (or politics) that is completely unrelated to their field of work?

You're going a bit far trying to find ways to poke holes in the defense of the NASA bosses here...and making no sense doing it.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 22, 2012
"In a sworn declaration last week, he denied he was aggressive in voicing views about religion, including by sending emails criticizing the change in name of the 2003 Cassini Christmas party to a "holiday party.""
"Chin warned him against discussing religion or politics with colleagues, he said. "

If what Chin said is true, what can people at work discuss, besides work? Can they talk about sports, music,...?

flippertie _
5 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2012
ryggesogn's comments are a good working example of confirmation bias at work. He knows, beyond the need to think or doubt, that Coppeddge is in the right (he's a Christian, so he must be). So anyone criticising Coppedge or supporting the JPL's stance is wrong and must be attacked. End of story.
Ryggeson's not trying to make a coherent argument that Coppedge's behaviour was acceptable, or anything else related to the case. He just needs to find *anything* he can label as 'bad' or 'wrong' to fuel his righteous indignation- because if he can sneer at something it must be wrong. Right?

Of course I too am subject to the same potential sources of bias - so i respectfully submit this comment for the review of my fellow commenters. :)
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 22, 2012
Until the trial and evidence is presented, why should either one be believed based upon this story?

Given recent attacks upon Christians by the federal govt, the govt needs to justify any violation of the FIRST Amendment protection of religious liberty.
flippertie _
5 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2012
Until the trial and evidence is presented, why should either one be believed based upon this story?

At last! Something we agree on. :) We should wait for a verdict and accept it when it comes. But in the mean time we can analyse and question:
-- both sides agree that there was conflict/tension within the team, and that it focused around Coppedge.
-- The Cassini team was shedding 30% (about 260 people) as the project wound down
Given equal competence who would you keep: the co-operative team players or the abrasive source of conflict?

Given recent attacks upon Christians by the federal govt, the govt needs to justify any violation of the FIRST Amendment protection of religious liberty.
1)*[citation needed] Give an example of such an attack. NB Enforcing Church/state separation is not attacking anyone.
2)There was no attempt to endorse any religion so no first amendment issue.
3) If ID is not religiously based - again no first amendment issue.
Limmic
5 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2012
@ryggesogn2 - First you present a coherent statement, to wait for the evidence before final judgement can be passed. But then you need to have your second statement...

Like flippertie said, what are these "attacks" on Christians that are being done by the federal government? I call foul on this "War on Christianity" that people like you are perpetuating, given there is no war.

Maintaining a separation of Church and State is fundamental to this country's foundations, and is not an attack on religion, but upholding a right that all individual's beliefs be equal in the state's view. A government cannot hold one religion above all others and then claim we have religious freedom, it's a contradiction; that's why colonists tried to escape European religious uniformity and form a country where religion was not state sponsored and people could believe whatever they want.

Problem in the USA, is that when the gov't doesn't sponsor Christianity, then suddenly they are being persecuted.
Excalibur
2.5 / 5 (16) Mar 23, 2012
Given recent attacks upon Christians by the federal govt, the govt needs to justify any violation of the FIRST Amendment protection of religious liberty.

Marjon, if you believe that, you are even dumber than I thought you to be; and, if you don't believe that, you are a liar.

Pick your poison.

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2012
Isn't it odd how many people have pegged Libertarian/Randite RyggTard as a liar?

I have never encountered a Libertarian/Randite who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.

Lying is part of their ideology.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2012
Tennessee Passes Bill That Allows "Teaching the Controversy" of Evolution. The people should learn about controversies of all theories, because their falsification is an intrinsic part of scientific method. Theory, which cannot be falsified cannot be considered scientific by Popper methodology.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 23, 2012
Given recent attacks upon Christians by the federal govt, the govt needs to justify any violation of the FIRST Amendment protection of religious liberty.

Marjon, if you believe that, you are even dumber than I thought you to be; and, if you don't believe that, you are a liar.

Pick your poison.


Religious freedom is the first freedom.
"First they came for the ...."
flippertie _
5 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2012
Religious freedom is the first freedom.
What you don't seem to get is that freedom of religion means only that you are free to believe in whatever deity you choose. It does not include the freedom to impose that belief on other people, or to infringe on other people's rights and freedoms.

If my religion required me to paint myself green and and dance naked round a bucket of fermenting mackerel I have the freedom to do that on my own time. Now imagine I choose to practice my ceremony in my workplace. Quite obviously my employer has the right to call my behaviour disruptive and to require me to desist. That is not a restriction of my freedom of religion. It is the employer maintaining an appropriate working environment.

In the same way Coppedge's proselytizing was deemed inappropriate for the workplace and JPL were within their rights to require him to stop - without in any way infringing on his right to practice his religion on his own time.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 23, 2012
the freedom to impose that belief on other people

Only a govt can attempt this.
An individual can only express his belief.
imagine I choose to practice my ceremony in my workplace.

Private and govt workplaces make special accommodations for certain religions, like Islam.

Christmas is an official US and state govt holiday (holy day).
A Christian should be offended when a US govt office discriminates against his religion by un-officially renaming Christ's Mass.
All those offended by Christ's Mass start legislation to officially change the name or eliminate the holy day altogether, and refuse to take the day off.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2012
And the first freedom lost to corporate behavioral guidelines.

"Religious freedom is the first freedom." - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 23, 2012
Only as a result of government decree, based on the work of the Government's Equal opportunities Commission.

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees because of their religion in hiring, firing or other workplace conditions.

"Private and govt workplaces make special accommodations for certain religions, like Islam." - RyggTard

Poor - perpetually ignorant - RyggTard.

In the last few years, Mr. Cordes said he's also been getting a steady stream of cases from Christians and Jews involving accommodations for their religious beliefs. In one such case last year, a born-again Christian woman in Fayette County sued her employer, the Aldi grocery store, because the store scheduled her to work on Sundays even though she told them that it was against her religious beliefs. The case is pending in federal court.

Most Libertarians hold that if you can't be a slave to your employer at the times your employer demands, you should b fired
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 23, 2012
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/03/21/177221/tennessee-passes-bill-that-allows-teaching-the-controversy-of-evolution, because their falsification is an intrinsic part of scientific method. Theory, which cannot be falsified cannot be considered scientific by Popper methodology.

'Progressives' insist the govt must fund schools. Therefore, the govt can dictate what will be taught.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2012
The alternative of course is wealthy schools for the wealthy and impoverished schools for the impoverished.

'Progressives' insist the govt must fund schools. - RyggTard

But that is exactly what Libertarians want.

"Therefore, the govt can dictate what will be taught." - RyggTard

Oh yes. Government set standards and testing for education are essential.

We don't want any more people graduating like Libertarian/Randite NumenTard who can't add or subtract to save his life.

flippertie _
5 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2012
@Ryggesogn2
A Christian should be offended when a US govt office discriminates against his religion by un-officially renaming Christ's Mass.
You just don't get what religious discrimination and separation of church and state are about do you?

The current legal position on first amendment of the US Constitution forbids the US Government or its agents to favour one religion over another. If the JPL hosts a party for its employees and calls it a "Christ's Mass Party" they are privileging one religion over all others. That is discriminating against non-christians.

As limmic said a few comments back "in the USA ... when the gov't doesn't sponsor Christianity, then suddenly they are being persecuted." Your comment is a perfect example of that mindset.

Remember :"Enforcing Church/state separation is not attacking anyone.".

Back to a question I asked earlier: Can you give one example of your claimed "recent attacks upon Christians by the federal govt" ?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 24, 2012
The current legal position on first amendment of the US Constitution forbids the US Government or its agents to favour one religion over another.

Then the federal govt MUST stop recognizing Christmas Day as a holiday.
Also, the govt recognized atheism is a religion and around the country, govts have been promoting atheism.
The current regime is forcing Catholics to purchase birth control.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."
Not prohibiting the free exercise thereof is NOT establishing any religion.
deepsand
2.1 / 5 (14) Mar 24, 2012
The Fed recognizes Christmas as a PUBLIC holiday, not a religious one, and close only non-essential federal government offices.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 24, 2012
The Fed recognizes Christmas as a PUBLIC holiday, not a religious one, and close only non-essential federal government offices.

What does the Holy Day celebrate? The birth of Christ.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2012
The Fed recognizes Christmas as a PUBLIC holiday, not a religious one, and close only non-essential federal government offices.
The FED is a private business. Try finding it in the government blue pages in Washington, DC. It's listed by Federal Express. The fact that you believe anything they say, between sessions rating down any untoward comment about your soon-to-fail empire, says everything about your credibility.
What does the Holy Day celebrate? The birth of Christ.
Christ was Julius Caesar's priest. Caesar was a god in Rome. The day is when the sun is at it's lowest point in the sky, under the Three Kings star formation.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 24, 2012
Federal and state governments in the USA all recognize and pay for the Holy Day that celebrates the birth of Christ.

And if you are suggesting the FED, the US Federal Reserve, is a private business, why is the chairman appointed by the President?
deepsand
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 24, 2012
You are an idiot and a charlatan, Marjon, who either cannot or will not make the distinction between the secular and the sectarian except when it serves your purposes.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 24, 2012
Using Conservative/Religionist arguments/logics against them: If Obama WAS a Muslim, then do you see that your push to bring religion into govt sphere will backfire if you are Christian and the govt is 'Other Religion'? And if Other employees were Jews or Muslim or Other, do you not see that trying to annoy them with YOUR religion is attacking THEIR freedom of religion? So Conservative and religious folk who cry 'foul' do not see the full ramifications of their 'crying wolf' once too often and perhaps getting what they wish for....some 'other religion' guy in charge of a govt they say should allow religion to run it. And the same religious conservative complainers could be sued by 'OTHER RELIGION' employees who claim that THEIR religious freedoms were infringed by the complainant's attempts to get them to change their religions. For god's sake! (humour and sarcasm) wake up. Your attempts to end the separation of religion and state can backfire BADLY. Your religious zeal won't save you.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 24, 2012
You are an idiot and a charlatan, Marjon, who either cannot or will not make the distinction between the secular and the sectarian except when it serves your purposes.

The ONLY purpose of the Christmas Holy Day is the celebrate the birth of Christ.
If that is not the purpose of the government holiday then either change the name or eliminate the holiday.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2012
Nothing is preventing you to from trying to sue the government from recognizing Christmas. Other than cowardice, what is preventing you?

"Then the federal govt MUST stop recognizing Christmas Day as a holiday." - RyggTard

"Also, the govt recognized atheism is a religion..." - RyggTard

Sorry Tard Boy, that is a lie.

In reality, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions.

What this means is that Athiest beliefs are to be afforded all of the same rights as religions.

You see Tard Boy, the people on the supreme court are vastly smarter than you and they know that by definition the absence of religion - athiesm - can not be arbitrarily defined as religion without self contradiction.

Vendicar_Decarian
Mar 24, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2012
That returns it's profits to the treasury.

"The Fed is required by law to turn over its profits to the Treasury each year" - NY Times

http://www.nytime...dex.html

"The FED is a private business." - kochavic
deepsand
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 24, 2012
You are an idiot and a charlatan, Marjon, who either cannot or will not make the distinction between the secular and the sectarian except when it serves your purposes.

The ONLY purpose of the Christmas Holy Day is the celebrate the birth of Christ.
If that is not the purpose of the government holiday then either change the name or eliminate the holiday.

No government named the day; and, no government celebrates the day.

It's a SECULAR holiday.

YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2012
And if you are suggesting the FED, the US Federal Reserve, is a private business, why is the chairman appointed by the President?
You asked me exactly the same question 18 months ago and I answered. Appointing chairmen is a board member decision. Anyone could do that if appointed, even Paris Hilton or Brittney Spears. Plus it's doubtful the president chooses. It seems quite apparent the choice is made for him and the insistence of Greenspan.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 24, 2012
"The seven members of the Board of Governors are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve 14-year terms of office. "
"The President designates, and the Senate confirms, two members of the Board to be Chairman and Vice Chairman, for four-year terms."
"the Federal Reserve System, which serves as the nation's central bank, was created by an act of Congress. "
http://www.federa...seri.htm
Note the '.gov' website.
Greenspan has not been chairman for several years.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 24, 2012
"2012 Federal Holidays"
"Tuesday, December 25 Christmas Day"
http://www.opm.go...2012.asp
deepsand
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 25, 2012
It's still a SECULAR holiday for governments, you IDIOT.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2012
"the Federal Reserve System, which serves as the nation's central bank, was created by an act of Congress. "
Specifically three congressmen in a secret, midnight session.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 25, 2012
It's still a SECULAR holiday for governments, you IDIOT.

But it's called Christ's Mass.
Bottom line, no politician would dare eliminate a Christian holiday in a nation of Christians.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 25, 2012
"the Federal Reserve System, which serves as the nation's central bank, was created by an act of Congress. "
Specifically three congressmen in a secret, midnight session.

The Federal Reserve is the govt controlled central bank of the USA regardless.
Callippo
1 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2012
OK, it seems reasonable for me. We should ban the creationism at schools, but the spending of Christmas and Easter holidays too. If nothing else, then at the case of David Coppedge's bosses.
flippertie _
5 / 5 (1) Mar 25, 2012
@callippo
We should ban the creationism at schools, but the spending of Christmas and Easter holidays too.
Why ban the holidays - everyone likes vacations! Instead we should rename them to something closer to their original meanings.

After all, nowhere in the bible is it written what day Jesus was born. The early church adopted Dec 25th so they could compete with the Pagans Midwinter solstice festival on Dec 21st, and the Roman Saturnalia.

The date of Easter is not in the bible either. The church adopted it to compete with the pagan spring Equinox and the Jewish Passover festivals. eg: Enc Brit, 11th edit., Vol. 8, p. 828: There is no indication of the observance of the Easter festival in the New Testament, or in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers".

The name Easter comes from Anglo-Saxon fertility rites of the goddess Eostre complete with hares and painted eggs!

Maybe you and I should start a campaign to rename them to Mid Winter and Spring Holidays! How about it?
kochevnik
1 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2012
That returns it's profits to the treasury.

"The Fed is required by law to turn over its profits to the Treasury each year" - NY Times

http://www.nytime...dex.html

"The FED is a private business." - kochavic

And what returns did the FED pay last year? 93 $billion? And how much does the FED reap from bonds and TBills? $15trillion national debt @ 4.5% works out to about $701,179,033,500 of money taxpayers and overseas investors are paying the Bank of England yearly.

Yet most of those overseas investors are investing because they hold too many bucks, required for all oil transactions. The petrodollar was created 39 years ago in an US agreement with the Saudis, in exchange for defense from all enemies like Israel, Iran, Iraq. However Iran will break the petrodollar by selling oil in ANY major currency beginning July, 2012. Hence all those TBills and bonds will be sold. The bond market will crash along with USA.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2012
Greenspan an ideological protege of Ayn Rand resigned as chairman of the FED several years ago after he caused a near depression by creating the housing bubble, and then ignoring for Libertarian/Randite ideological reasons.

"Greenspan has not been chairman for several years." - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2012
The current discount rate is 0.75 percent, not 4.5 percent.

Further the U.S. M2 (money supply) stands at roughly 10 trillion, not 15 trillion.

0.75% interest on 10,000 billion = 75 billion.

Fed: Net Income $77.38 Billion In 2011 Vs $81.74 Billion In 2010

http://www.nasdaq...20-01025

"$15trillion national debt @ 4.5% works out to about $701,179,033,500 of money taxpayers and overseas investors are paying the Bank of England yearly." - kochevnik
kochevnik
1 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2012
Further the U.S. M2 (money supply) stands at roughly 10 trillion, not 15 trillion.
The USA debt is much greater than the money supply. USA has taken on additional obligations of banks and corporations, driving it's liabiities to $15trillion: http://www.usdebtclock.org/
0.75% interest on 10,000 billion = 75 billion.
AFAIK that is for deposits. For bonds and Tbills banks borrow at 2% and can play that in foreign markets at 4.5% or higher. Moreover you ignored the multiplier effect, which means for every dollar the FED places in tier1 banks like BofA, $100 are available on the street via. fractional reserve banking. In reality there is no coherent accounting of the FED's reach other than what the private bankers reveal to themselves.