An Excellent No-Win Situation

A Jet Propulsion Laboratory worker who distributed religious DVDs on the job is suing the JPL for discrimination after he was demoted.

David Coppedge’s lawsuit filed last week in Los Angeles County says he was demoted last April for sharing his views in the workplace. He wants a court order allowing him to discuss his beliefs.

Though from the headline this may seem like just another tedious attempt by a member of the religious right to be allowed to perpetuate the myth that Intelligent Design is indeed a matter of scientific debate, a closer examination finds a juicier tale. Even if this man succeeds in his suit, he could do some very real damage to the cause of ID in general.

The foundation of religious liberty in this country is predicated upon the notion that the government cannot interfere with the practice of your religion unduly, nor can it single out one religion for better or worse treatment than others. I can’t imagine what tack this man is going to take, as proselytizing has never been found to be one of the inalienable religious rights that cannot be infringed upon. Perhaps he’s just banking on a friendly Supreme Court, but I really can’t imagine any court giving people free reign to inflict their beliefs on their coworkers, whether they work at a government-funded institution or not.

So long as JPL does not allow other people to distribute religious materials, he’s unlikely to win on the merits. However, if by some chance he does (or possibly even in the event of a loss), it could establish an interesting precedent: Intelligent Design as religious belief. Proponents of ID have worked tirelessly to frame the debate as merely a scientific one; you believe one way (facts, science that can be reproduced in laboratory conditions),and they merely have a competing theory (God did it). But a court judgment that includes defining ID as a religious belief could go a long way toward eliminating the ridiculous idea that ID should be taught ij biology classes.

As always, there’s no guarantee future judges will follow set precedent or even that they’ll be aware such a decision was handed down when they prepare to argue future cases. Still, it’s nice to imagine.

25 April