Flatulence or Creationism — Which Is Worse?

The lack of news compels us to create some for you. Our long-time readers still remember the David Coppedge litigation. One of our last posts about it was six years ago: The David Coppedge Case: It’s Over.

Coppedge claimed he was wrongfully demoted and later fired by his employer, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, because he was promoting Intelligent Design on the job. The Wikipedia write-up on Jet Propulsion Laboratory has a brief section on it — see Coppedge v Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

What brought that to mind was another court case involving allegedly obnoxious behavior in the workplace. There’s an article about it at the Fox News website: Flatulence in the workplace is not a form of bullying, Australian appeals court rules. We don’t need to tell you what happened in that case, because we know you’re going to read that story.

Now we have two workplace cases to think about. That doesn’t make us experts, but it gives us something to blog about. Coppedge got fired for creationist activities on the job — and for other reasons too, but creationism was a big part of it. The alleged misbehavior of the Australian, however, even if it happened multiple times a day as was claimed, wasn’t bullying or harassing the employee who complained about it.

So there you are. The Coppedge case teaches us that promoting creationism on the job can get you fired. Aggressive flatulence, on the other hand (so to speak), is no big deal — at least in Australia. We are pleased to bring you this information so that you know how to conduct yourselves.

Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

6 responses to “Flatulence or Creationism — Which Is Worse?

  1. Flatulence has to be seen in context, always. There can be an imbalance of power between the flatulator and the flatulatee, and that must be stamped out, both in the workplace, and elsewhere.

    There is also the question of subjectivity. Creationist flatulence will be objectionable to everyone but a creationist. For example, Georgia Purdom’s flatulence is on the nose to the rest of us, but to Ken Ham it smells like the most heavenly perfume from the Garden of Eden.

  2. Steve Gerrard

    How is it that the flatulence case didn’t occur at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory? Is there no karmic justice left in the universe?

  3. Eddie Janssen

    @Steve Gerrard: 🙂

  4. Answer. Creationism is vulnerable to logic. Flatulence isn’t. Coppedge’s association with jet propulsion does lend a certain similarity to the two cases.
    Nonetheless, since creationism is, in a sense , mental process flatulence I find it difficult to say it isn’t the worst of the two. I mean, just as one can be smart enough NOT to eat a package of Lipton’s Onion Soup dry, knowing it will result in serious gaseous activity that will drive away your girlfriend, one can also be ethical, smart and honest enough not to be a creationist , knowing that it will drive everyone away from you except for a collection of loons, religious kooks, schizophrenics and con men who will provide endless entertainment but will also mean you’re an unethical sleaze bag,
    And thats way worse than Liptons Onion Soup jet rocket fuel chasing off that brunette and causing an explosion in your tent.

  5. Like ChrisS, my first question regarding flatulence is more of matter of whose flatulence? As to Creationsim, it always stinks no matter the source.

  6. @och will
    When dining out, don’t ever order Primordial soup. I took a hot date to a vegan restaurant once. We both tried it. PEW-EEEEEHH!! We tried to make out later on, up on Lovers’ Lookout, but, what with all the sparks generated by our passionate, frantic coupling amid the noxious fumes, the car was in danger of bursting into a fireball.

    Needless to say, we never rang each other again, after that.