Talk Elections

Again, I can't say I didn't see this coming.  What was an anti-Christian zealot doing heading a religious studies department to begin with? 

This guy could have had an excellent class that went in-depth to one of Kansas' most persistent social issues, but instead, he blatantly insults Christian fundamentalism -- never a smart idea; is revealed to be anti-Catholic and anti-Christian, gets his ass whupped on a country road and has to step down from being the chair of an entire department.  All in all, not a good week for him.

 Anti-creationism prof quits department chair (http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12/08/creationism.professor.ap/index.html)
Associated Press
12-8-05

TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) -- A University of Kansas professor who drew criticism for e-mails he wrote deriding Christian fundamentalists over creationism has resigned as chairman of the Department of Religious Studies.

Paul Mirecki stepped aside on the recommendation of his colleagues, according to Barbara Romzek, interim dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

"This allows the department to focus on what's most important -- teaching, research and service -- and to minimize the distractions of the last couple of weeks," Romzek said in a statement Wednesday after receiving Mirecki's resignation.

Contacted by The Associated Press, Mirecki declined to comment about his decision, only saying he was still a member of the university faculty and planned to continue teaching.

Mirecki had planned to teach a course in the spring that examined creationism and intelligent design after the State Board of Education adopted science standards treating evolution as a flawed theory.

Originally called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies," the course was canceled last week at Mirecki's request.

A recent e-mail from Mirecki to members of a student organization referred to religious conservatives as "fundies" and said a course describing intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face." Mirecki apologized for those comments.

Later, other e-mails written by Mirecki that surfaced were deemed "repugnant and vile" by Chancellor Robert Hemenway for their views toward Catholics and other Christians.

On Monday, Mirecki was treated at a Lawrence hospital for head injuries after he said he was beaten by two men on a country road. He said the men referred to the creationism course. Law enforcement officials were investigating.

Mirecki, who joined the university in 1989, is an expert in ancient Mediterranean cultures, languages and religions.

If some university had a course entitled "Lets make fun of all the silly things in Islam" - the media would give it more coverage than WW II.

Making fun of Christianity is ok however.

These religious Right folks do scare me a bit, but in terms of being under attack by the political Left simply for what they believe... they actually do have a point.

Which I find kinda scary too....

Another victim of the conservative thought police.

Notice how nobody's allowed to have thoughts that disagree with conservatives anymore.

ID/Creationist vigilantes BEAT UP the guy like we're in friggin Pakistan or something. Knowing how much Americans love their guns I'm suprised they didn't shoot him.

This is a dangerous time to be a liberal in this country. Conservatives never have to worry about be violently attacked (heckling Ann Coulter doesn't count as violent).

What made me so proud of this guy was his private email. Those are the kind of words that we Theory of Evolution types think but are to afraid to say b/c of the potential repercussions. We shouldn't take abuse like this from the religious activists anymore.

You conservatives keep telling yourself that 1 college professor was a huge threat to your ideology. Meanwhile, Dr. Mirecki will still be recovering in a hospital.

It is tragic news for the students that this professor has resigned.  Presumabely they will now be tought solely by cultists.  J-Mann, your tacit support of this brutalization is offensive.  Why shouldn't the man deride fundamentalists?  It was just speech, you fascist.

As for you Vorlon, why would anyone bother to make fun of the nasty cult of Islam?  It is very weak and very far away.  The US is already ruled by the nasty cult of christianity, so I would say that is a bigger priority to resist.

Why do you say that he is an anti-Christian zealot? Just because he doesn't like fundies doesn't make him anti-Christian (a lot of Christians don't like fundies either).

If the conservative thought police had its way, the Bay of Fundy would have to have its name changed.

It's not tacit support -- I wish he would have gotten to teach the class instead of backing down.  My derision of him is because of his total disregard for any tact or delicacy in this.  Liberals are more than welcome to speak out as far as I'm concerned, but they've got to realize that when a large part of the population disagrees with them and doesn't respect their free speech, they need to exercise a little bit of discretion in the way they go about things.

I explained this to you in greater detail with specific reference to your own experiences in this thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=32785.15), but I don't know if you saw it because I got no response.  Wouldn't you agree that discretion in the advocacy of change in the face of great opposition is a wise course of action?  See that thread, and don't call me fascist again.


Some other of his e-mails came to light shortly after the first, and there was quite a few anti-Christian and anti-Catholic remarks in them, enough so that the Chancellor of the university condemned him and his e-mails as "vile and repugnant."

Oh yes, I did witness a horrible injustice, and I did nothing.  But the forces of social control doing the injustice were (as is normally the case) the Police!  Obviously I wouldn't do anything against them - not only would it be foolish, it would have no effect whatsoever.  That situation was not at all analogous to this professor's situation.  A more apt analogy might be the angry emails I sent to friends back home, or the embittered conversations I had with girls effected or expat friends here about it.  If I had been beaten up by the State's goons for such criticism, that would have been analogous to this professor's plight.

I think it's very analogous.  The actors are different but the play is the same.  You didn't take on the police in any way because of a fear of retribution.  But what would have happened if you had yelled at the police or challenged them verbally?  Likely a beating...just for speaking. Instead, you fought (and are fighting) them by going "underground," so to speak, through private recountings of the incident.

The professor should honestly have known better than to so forcefully attack fundamentalist Christianity, which is a powerful force throughout the country and especially in Kansas.  His actions -- in this case, his speech -- were akin to if you would have gone after the police throwing punches.  He knew that his private e-mails had gotten out to others in the past; why in the world would he bring more trouble on himself by sending another one that targeted fundamentalism, not in an objective way (as his class was supposedly going to do), but in an outright hostile way?

It's too bad he got beat up for his speech and his beliefs, and equally regrettable that a class that could have presented a serious look at a growing social divide in my state was cancelled, but it's not surprising in the very least.

And that, my friend, is my whole point.  Nothing about his approach and the reaction he got surprises me.

Actually Thai police would be unlikely to beat a foreigner, particularly one as innocuous as I.  Nor did the professor do anything analogous to 'yelling'.  In fact, he sent emails, which is exactly what I did.


No, J-Mann, speech is never the equivalent of throwing punches!  Nor are the Fundamentalists quite the same as the State, yet.  Though I fear they soon will be, and you seem disturbingly accepting of that idea.  How would you like it if the gays slaughtered your Pat Robertson?


How could anyones email be 'objective'?  Naturally the man, being an educated, humane person, will despise fundamentalist christianity - so why should he have to hide this for fear of his life?  Anyway as you said these were his private emails. 


Obviously your state is a lost cause, J-Mann.  It is Mississippi in the sixties (sorry, I just re-watched Mississippi Burning.. I know Mississippi hasn't changed).


But the reaction should outrage you!  The fact that it doesn't, and the fact that you blame the victim is what inspires me to call you a fascist.

It's pointless to continue the debate; we just disagree.  But I will ask you this:

If you were in Kansas, would you be the "freedom fighter" that you want him to be?  Would you so vigorously confront the religious right, tell them that their views are idiotic and that you despise them (to their faces, not via an anonymous forum)?  Would you risk that retaliation, in person?  Would you put yourself in harm's way?  I wouldn't -- I have "fought" fundamentalism through op-eds written for newspapers and finding support through like-minded people in the state, not by walking into a Baptist convention and telling them they're delusional.  I know better than that, and if I did confront them head-on, I know I'd be risking retaliation.

Fighting causes you oppose via the Internet from thousands of miles away is one thing, Opebo.  I don't know if you've got the grapes to personally carry out what you claim to want.  If you do, I invite you back to the States to show us all how it's done.

Yup, the professor was all talk, no action. 

ACTA NON VERBA dude.

So I guess this means Kansas will have to teach real scientific theory alongside fairytales after all.  Unless somebody else with more tact and subtlety comes along and tries it again.

If I was forced to teach that at KSU, I would begin my first class as follows; "Good morning.  Some people believe God created the universe in six days.  Now, on to evolution....."

Unlikely.  The standards voted in by the state school board do not take effect until 2007; those conservatives that forced the standards in are likely to be booted out of their seats in next year's elections.[/quote]


KSU is a university and is not effected by the standards set by the school board; neither is KU or any other public (or private) university in the state. No professor at a university is going to teach something they don't want to (though this example shows that they can be scared away from teaching something). The debate over what was to be taught at KU had nothing to do with science; it was a religion class that upset conservative. The standards set by the school board only apply to secondary education.

Absolutely nailed it, Vorlon. 8)


You are such a f****** bigot, you know that? I see you haven't changed one whit from before.

Yet you don't say a word about John Ford threatening to kill Russ Feingold in the other thread. I assume you have no problem with that because Ford is a Republican?

And yet not a word about the violence by these angry conservatives. I assume you're OK with that as well. Hell, you probably encourage it.

If any liberals beat a conservative professor, the story would be on Fox News 24/7. Yet this one is kept quiet and Fox News will never mention it.

*yawn*

im glad to see that this guy is willing to stand up and say that he wont work for those that want to invade freedoms and ruin the educational process. I dont blame him one bit, in factm i applaude him.

Of course not, John Ford is a GOD.



;)



Haven't read that thread, so N/A. I doubt Ford is being serious... :P


No, I don't agree with that, either. I'm not surprised by it - go into the middle of Berkeley and talk about how much you love George W, and see what happens :P - but I don't think it should've happened. By the way...if a neo-Nazi had made hateful emails about minorities and was later beaten up by two angry minority males because of it, would you still be so outraged?

And I will not comment on the media bit because I know very damn well all the media is biased, to one side or another, and ALL of it is sensationalist, ergo reporting will vary a lot.

Just the response I was expecting. IOKIYAR (It's OK if You're a Republican) is the motto of this board.

If I had said anything close to what Ford said, you'd be going crazy right now.


I love these types of rationalizations.

Then go join a Democrat extremist board. Obviously, since some people have that attitude, all people must have it!!!!1

Certainly the majority have that attitude.

I think you have trouble reading. WMS said he doubts Ford is being serious, not that "it's okay if you're a Republican." And, actually, Ford did not threaten to kill Feingold even as a joke.

He just hopes he gets killed by someone else.

I'm going to say that I want a certain Republican killed sometime in the next month, just so I can see the uproar it will cause on this board.  It will be quite funny to see the difference in the reaction between Ford's statement and my own.

Hell, people get mad when I say anything bad about a Republican.

You're a hack anyway. Whatever criticism you would get, you had coming to you.

And you're annoying. I don't see why you're concerned.

So are you.

Perhaps you'll like me better if I call for the death of certain elected Democrats.

I'm a Democrat, so I don't know what you're ranting about.

Go take a nap.

I've never heard you say a positive thing about a Democrat ever.

And I go out of my way to ignore you, so I don' t know why you continue to stalk me. Leave it alone.

Scoonie, you're embarrassing yourself again.

Of course, any Democrat who stands up to Republican crap on this board is "embarrassing themself". There are always two sets of standards.

No, standing up to various bullsh**t is fine.  You're just doing it in a stupid way that makes you look bad.

Ok kids, knock it off.  Here's a box.  Please place your partisanship insecurities inside.  Now, let's get back to the topic at hand.

::) Misread the comment, hoss. I did manage to find the thread a minute ago and it seems to me that John Ford had a Jake moment. ;)

Nah, I'd probably just ignore it like I do most of the other comments and get some popcorn for the mini-flame wars that pop up (Al vs. Jfern is a particular favorite of mine). ;D


I'm drawing a parallel to erase any side's claim that only their opponents are capable of such acts. A rather anti-PC libertarian history professor who taught at UNM (before the lefties and righties united in an unholy alliance to drive him out ::) ) got physical threats against him from all sorts of leftists at the university, so I know very well your side is as capable of this as the right. That is part of the point I was making: that all sides are capable of this.

The other part of the point is that if you stick your hand into a beehive, you are much more likely to get stung, regardless of the morality of it all.


Why, thank you, Philip. That's what I meant.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out that all these libertarians on here are really Republicans, Joe Republican.

Um, what?  He started off with WMS, who is not a libertarian.

Man, when Phillip is correcting you . . .

:D

ing violent bigots get their way.

LINO

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!11!!!!!11!1!

Hasn't this story gotten media attention?


Given that the guy got beaten up for what he did, apparently it isn't.

No, WMS is obviously a Republican, Joe Republican.

Well gents, this thread sort of got off track, eh?  Opebo, Joe Republic, MODU -- last real responses were on page one ;)

With the approval of these cowardly bigots on here!

This is apalling news. Prepare for sane thinkers being 'beaten up' by fundamentalist scum all around America. I hope genuine Christians support this man.

A follow up article on this incident. It even comes with a photo of the "beaten" Mirecki.

I'm starting to think that this "beating" is itself a hoax.

Let's consider the motivation for a hoax: Not only was Mirecki a Grade-A jerk for (1) creating a course designed to defame, in his own words, "a conservative minority", (2) he had the tactlessness to admit as much over an Email, because we all know how secure emails are...

When the chancellor of KU called Mirecki's words "repugnant and vile", and the administration forced his resignation, Mirecki had only one last option up his sleeve: The victim card.

What better to regain support than to say he was attacked by two Kansas rednecks on an abandoned highway just before the breakfast hour?

Only problems with his story are (1) the suspiciously uncorroborable nature of his attack (2) the nature of the wounds themselves. Now, I've seen some real shiners -- horrible, weeping things that cause broken blood vessels in the eye, if the eye can even be opened, in addition to black-and-blue bruising -- and his don't look anywhere close to those that would be inflicted by two grown men. Hell, the whites of his eyes are clearer than mine!

When all the information of this spectacle is finally revealed, I will be sure that this is the Kansas equivalent of NYC's Tawana Brawley hoax.

The article: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/10/professor_blasts_ku_sheriffs_investigation/?ku_news (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/10/professor_blasts_ku_sheriffs_investigation/?ku_news)

Just in the same manner we condemn the KKK for all the recent black church burnings in the South.

Oh, wait...

Alluding to me being a bigot makes no sense, Opebo, especially a cowardly one.  I've done much more than you have to fight fundamentalism in Kansas, and I've taken the heat for it, too.  Op-Eds that criticize fundamentalism in small-town newspapers don't exactly win you friends, but I at least made people think.  Op-Eds in college newspapers start all-out debates. 

I've written both types, but unlike this professor, I went about it logically, not abrasively.  I was both thanked and criticized to my face, but never threatened because my op-eds weren't aimed at being offensive like this professor's class was.

So again, I ask you, besides posting anonymously on an internet message board from thousands of miles away, how can you say that you're the freedom fighter on this issue and I'm the fascist?  Until you can claim you've done as much work as I have to combat fundamentalism in Kansas (and the US), you have no business calling me a "cowardly bigot."  I invite you again to come back to the States (if you think your delicate constitution can stomach it) and show us how it's done.

That statement was not directed exclusively at you, J-Mann, but at the many pro-thug posters in this thread.


Your actions are commendable, but being abrasive should not be an excuse for physical violence.


I really don't see what can be done to 'combat' this infestation, J-Mann.  No reasonable person would be a fundamentalist or be sympathetic to them, but alas the majority of people in America do not rise to the standard of reasonable person.

You are right about that, especially concerning an issue that should be debateable on an academic level.  However, what has happened to him (especially in regards to getting assaulted) is not surprising at all; the assualt was a natural (however base) reaction to his abrasiveness. 

When I was in Kansas, I lived in a small town of 500 people.  One night, in walks a California city-dweller into one of our bars, yelling about how small town people and small town life sucks.  A few people tried to reason with him, calm him down, tell him that such abrasiveness was not a good idea since he was facing around 100 vehemently pro-small town people.  He wouldn't listen.  He kept up the assault.  His little First Amendment exercise eventually got him an entire 6-pack of beer bottles across the face.  He lost an eye, his pride and his desire to be such an asshole.

Was it regrettable that violence had to happen simply because someone was speaking?  Absolutely.  However, the result was unsurprising.  If he hated small towns so much, why be there in the first place?  I admire the professor for his attempt to spark debate about intelligent design in Kansas (and contrary to popular belief, there is probably a 50/50 divide of support within the state), but attacking fundamentalism as opposed to debating its merits just wasn't smart.  Free speech can always be exercised (as I have proven with my opposition to fundamentalism), but it must always be done cautiously when facing great odds.


We do face great opposition, but small, measured approaches are having an effect.  Next year's elections are likely to toss out the conservatives on the school board and throw control to the moderates.  Staunch, persistent yet reasonable opposition to the conservative fundamentalists has largely swung favor away from them in Kansas.

Oh, and thanks for recognizing that I'm not "pro-thug" -- I don't like it that they guy got beat up.

Pretty much sums up my reaction to this kinda thing, I'm not a totally comfortable with the Religious Right, to say the least, but if anything the folks on the far "way-out" left who seem to taken delight in provoking Christians and other people of faith are even worse :(

The perpetrators should be jailed for life, J-Mann.


Hopefully not!  

No one 'provokes' them, Ben, this is their violent, intolerant nature comeing through.  Would you say that the right-wingers are 'provoking' we leftists by calling us 'loony'?  Would you say that gives us the excuse to resort to violence?  No, of course not.  Then why this special dispensation for the insane cultists?

That's pathetic. If someone from Kansas came here and yelled about how much cities suck, I doubt they'd be in any physical danger.

Good question, although I highly doubt you'll get an answer.

Well, on one hand I agree with you that it isn't very smart to provoke a large group of people who can show tendency towards violence...

...but, on the other hand, I don't agree that that justifies in any way beating someone up for speech.  Violence didn't "have to happen"; it happened because a bunch of people decided to make it happen.  If someone walks up to me and starts yelling about how liberals suck, I'm not going to beat the guy up.  I'm not going to particularly like him, but I'm not going to get violent.  I don't think anything can possibly justify violence in retaliation for simple words.  The mere fact that it was likely to happen doesn't make it okay that it did happen.  I personally think that the people who got violent are more to blame for the violence than the speaker, given that no violence would have happened without their conscious decision (although the speaker is obviously not blameless).

That depends.  Whether you agree or understand it or not, that was roughly the equivalent of someone walking into Harlem and loudly announcing that black people suck.  If someone did that, they'd be inviting any and all consequences on themselves.

It's not just a city/small town thing -- it's an intelligence thing.  If you're stupid enough to verbally provoke a large group of people who think the exact opposite of you, expect consequences.  That's something that is apolitical -- it's just plain reality.


I'm certainly not saying the mob mentality isn't to blame (although it was one person who eventually shut him up, not the group) along with the speaker.  But his actions were like stirring up a hornets' nest; you can't expect to not get stung.  Again...that's reality, and common sense.

My point, which I think you will concede, is that people with religous views are routinely very often presented less than favorably in the media.

Here is an intelectual honesty question for you..

How often is the Christian Conservative presented as some dim-witted, inbred hick with bad teeth in popular culture...?

I trust if you think about it, you will have the agree that the "PC Police" are often utterly blind to the stereotyping they claim to be against when it is directed agaist folks they disagree with.

It's easy to stand up for free speech when you agree with the speaker. - less so when you don't.

Nah, it's more the equivelent of walking into a crowded backstreet bar in Harlem and shouting out loudly:

"BOY! I'LL TAKE A SHOE-SHINE!"

No, not really.  The media does report when they say they hate gays, or when they beat professors, or when they blow up abortion clinics. 


No more often than liberals are portayed as bleeding hearts, or elitists, or snobbish.  Of course in reality both of these stereotypes are largely true.


It isn't about disagreement, Vorlon.  The religious are advocating, and enacting violence.  They privately beat professors and blow up abortion clinics, and politically they advocate robbing people of their freedoms.  People don't hate them because they're dumb or because of some minor disagreement.  They fear them because they are a terrible threat.

Oh for christ sake calm down........"from before" what?

I had a good weekend so I'm calmer now. I'll reply to this and everything else later Monday or Tuesday (I've been very busy).

EDIT: OK, this could be quite some time...*VERY* busy, with a lot of different things to deal with...

Why would genuine Christians support a man who has spewed the most hateful things about them in his writing?

What did he say about them Bonno?  That they would beat those who disagree with them?  Turns out he was right!

I did say I'd get back to this, so, the first part...


;D Although he was actually supporting me, not correcting me. :P


*snickers* From the perspective of the left wing, perhaps. From the perspective of people who live in the real world, no. ;)


This was not commented on. Was this a hoax, after all?


I'm with Ben on this one...as usual. :)

Pym old boy, you seem to have a bug up your a$$ involving Christians. For the purposes of well, brevity, I'll just list stuff since your Dec 9 post. ;)


::)


I was here, and he was one of the most hateful anti-Christian posters to ever spawn from the secular left, even giving Opebo a run for his money. And you're just like him, by your own words. ::) ::)


I pretty much agree with WalterMitty on this one. I don't particularly agree with them, but they have every right to participate in politics, regardless of what some leftist yuppy from Connecticut thinks. You're being rather hypocritical here, Pym. ::) ::) ::)


You actually think Narnia is bad for kids to read? WTF?! How far out in left field are you, anyway? God forbid any literature ever have Christian themes to it - whoops, I mentioned 'God'. I guess I'm a horrible 'religious' then. :P ::) ::) ::) ::)  And you haven't even read them?! Clearly, you must hate them just because there are Christian themes in them, regardless of the books' merits as literature in their own rights. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) Anyone who doesn't like C.S. Lewis is just whacked. :P

Left Behind series: no comment. Haven't read them, don't intend to.

You don't like fantasy? Fie upon thee, blasphemer!!!!! >:(

And to clear this up, I have nothing against BBM. I might even see it at some point, just to see what all the fuss is about.


Leaving aside all the other stuff which reminds me why I am not a left-liberal :P I wasn't aware Thomas Jefferson was the sole authority on American law and morality. I will now inconvenience you by pointing out that most of the rest of the Founding Fathers would likely disagree with Jefferson - Patrick Henry certainly did. And did not Jefferson himself admire Judeo-Christian morality so much that he created his own version of the Bible, with the theology left out (he was a Deist after all) but the morality left in? :P ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Dude, when you're bashing Christians you're acting just like Pat Robertson*. Think about that - bigotry is bigotry, regardless of its source, regardless of its target. Forcing your own secular values on them is just as bad as they forcing their religous values on you. They, admittedly, don't usually try to get the courts to institutionalize their points of view. :P But that is another long, long, debate...

-Citizen WMS, who doesn't care that you're a secularist as long as you stop attacking everyone who isn't!

*I would have said "like Fred Phelps", but Opebo has that analogy sewn up. ;D