Kansas professor quits department chair

[Storebought]

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

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

Oh, wait...

[J-Mann]

ing violent bigots get their way.

With the approval of these cowardly bigots on here!

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.

[opebo]

ing violent bigots get their way.

With the approval of these cowardly bigots on here!

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

[J-Mann]

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

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.

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.

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.

[Ben.]

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....

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

[opebo]

His little First Amendment exercise eventually got him an entire 6-pack of beer bottles across the face.  He lost an eye,

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

...his pride and his desire to be such an asshole.

Hopefully not!  

[opebo]

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

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?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

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.

[TheresNoMoney]

No one 'provokes' them, Ben, this is their violent, intolerant nature coming 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?

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

[Gabu]

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.

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).

[J-Mann]

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

[The Vorlon]

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.

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

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.

[Sibboleth]

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.

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!"

[opebo]

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.

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. 

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

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.

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 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.

[Cubby]

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....

Absolutely nailed it, Vorlon.

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.

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

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

[WMS]

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....

Absolutely nailed it, Vorlon.

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.

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

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...

[frenger]

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

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

[opebo]

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

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!

[WMS]

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

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.

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

Man, when Phillip is correcting you . . .

Although he was actually supporting me, not correcting me.

Scoonie, you're embarrassing yourself again.

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.

No, WMS is obviously a Republican, Joe Republican.

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

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

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

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....

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

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

[WMS]

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...

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 celebrate Christmas. I suppose that makes me a hypocrite since I bash American Christianity the other 364 days of the year, but there are some presents I'm too cheap to buy.

I wasn't on the forum when CT-Guy was here but I read some of his posts and he sounds like my long lost brother, although his people skills left much to be desired.

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.

freedom fighters.

dont get me wrong, i disagree with most every position they have.

but they do have the right to be active in public affairs.  kudos to them for organizing and fighting for what they believe in.

No they shouldn't have any rights, they're a political organization that gets tax breaks they don't deserve.

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.

Dazzleman I'm sorry you feel that way. I wish people would stop acting as if BBM has an agenda like its the Passion or Narnia, (2 propaganda movies). Its just a western made for modern audiences, its status as a film milestone is secondary. Don't deliberately deny yourself the chance to see a great movie.

The fact that you called Narnia propaganda makes me laugh. Don't you work in a library?

Yes I do, it sucks that all the kids are reading Narnia these days. I never read it (I don't like fantasy stuff) and I've been known to refer to it as "The Passion of the Narnia."

But I figure its better to read Narnia which is only an allegory than filth like the Left Behind series. Thats a group of books about millions of people being killed that Christians find awe-inspiring fun :p

I don't mean to sound so negative, I guess I should like all books, but thats not the case. If I come across any good books I spread the word.

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.   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.

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.

It certainly doesn't help the Democrats Carl, but Civil Rights should never be put up for a popularity contest.

And the Judges are doing their job in striking down outdated marriage laws. American law has no place for Judeo-Christian morality, just ask Thomas Jefferson. If the legislative branches at the state level weren't so ineffectual on this issue, then they could take care of it before the courts have to.

Leaving aside all the other stuff which reminds me why I am not a left-liberal 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?

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. 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.