That’s What You Get For Standing Up to the Zealots
University of Kansas Religious Studies Professor Paul Mirecki dared to introduce a course dedicated to studying Intelligent Design as an example of modern mythology. He had to withdraw the course after being shouted down by conservative religious fundamentalists who complained they were being bashed and said his course offended their moral values.
Then Mirecki was sent to the hospital after being beaten on the side of the road by two men. As they assaulted him, they yelled slurs about his proposal to teach the course, making it clear what the violence was all about.
Where are the moral values? Who was offended? Who got bashed?
This is what you get for standing up to the fundamentalist zealots today.
Gopher,
I’m not sure that you are disagreeing with Ray on that point, strictly speaking. There IS a difference between ideals and reality. The founding of America did involve a set of lofty, inspiring ideals. I’ll be the first (although I don’t speak for Ray, of course) to agree that the history of the United States is a tragic case of reality failing to live up to ideals — although there have been periods during which the gap between ideals and reality narrowed.
By the way, please stop referring to a difference of opinion or emphasis as an “inaccuracy.”
Sure there is a difference between ideals and reality. However you say ‘the founding of America’, where
Ray merely refers to America’s history.
I’m not sure you can point to a lot of documentation surrounding the founding of America
that directly address the subjects of women’s suffrage and slavery either. If they did, we
obviously wouldn’t have had the need to form these movements many, many years later. The history
of America is just as checkered as any country’s in many areas. While I agree that the founding
of America was based in part on several lofty ideals, many were also skirted purposely in order
to achieve consensus. We often forget that.
I’m still plenty happy saying that your original post is inaccurate. If it makes you feel
better to have me say that your opinion is inaccurate, I’ll freely do that. As far as emphasis, I don’t
think I ever mentioned that. That’s Ray’s territory. Other than that, I will give your request my
appropriate level of consideration.
If you don’t think the elimination of slavery and women’s suffrage constitute glorious historical realizations of the lofty ideals of America (regardless of the other positive events that happened in Europe and Australia), so be it.
But what of the abject racism of America’s war on terror? (The bulk of post 49.) Once again, you avoid joining me in denouncing this hideous racism.
Perhaps, as you say, America has no glorious history of freedom and equalilty. Maybe it embodies no lofty ideals. Then maybe, after all, this horrific hypocritical racial double standard of justice for some and legal black holes, torture, white phosphorous urban seiges, etc. for others fits hand in glove with the essence of America.
I don’t believe it. I think the essence of America lies in the continuing struggle of Americans to overcome the worst in our history, and live up to the ideals that unite us. But maybe you’re right, maybe I’m just engaging in wishful thinking. Maybe my love for America is just my love for what I wish America were, or think America should be.
If you want to condemn America along with the racism of America’s war on terror, I will disagree with you but respect your opinion (I confess there is plenty of evidence on your side, we haven’t even addressed the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans).
But please, at least, join me in denouncing the racism inherent in America’s unequal treatment of violent religious extremists.
Ray,
I gladly denounce racism whenver and wherever I see and experience it.
You make an argument with a poor choice of examples, however.
In Post 49, you mention McVeigh and Nichols. These are your examples,
one must presume of ‘white A-S terrorists’.
Did McVeigh get off? Or did he end up as a large penny in a fuse box?
Do you remember or even know why he claimed he did what he did?
The US Federal government, ala Janet Reno & Co. killed in our own country
a bunch of non-Muslim, white religious people in Waco. Do you remember what
we did to the “Muslims” at Ruby Ridge?
I’ll agree that Muslims are getting the brunt of this ‘war on terrosts’. Of course that’s true,
it was so-called Muslim extremists who concocted Sept. 11. I am in the camp of
those who think that the invasion of Iraq could not be defended on that basis alone.
You are dreaming if you think Iraq is merely about persecuting Muslims. It’s about money,
and the interests of those with money.
I’m content from now on to just let you stew in your own juices. Your comment/arguments
keep digging your ‘logic’ into a deeper and deeper hole, and I’ve had ‘aplenty.
Peace!
Oh, I see. When it’s McVeigh we’re talking about, we should look at his reasons for doing what he did. What about Bin Laden? Are his reasons for doing what he did of concern to you?
McVeigh was arrested, promptly charged with a crime, and received a jury trial in accordance with the rule of law. If you see no difference between that and the system of secret “black site” prisons around the world where the U.S. sends Muslim terror suspects, you’ve been drinking the racist kool aid.
No, you won’t condemn the racism of America’s war on terror. You can’t even see it. Your immediate, reflexive response: Oh, the poor white people!
Of course what the government did at Ruby Ridge and Waco was terrible. But in terms of lives lost, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been, literally, a thousand times worse.
Nevertheless, once again, you make every possible excuse, express every possible sympathy, for white, non-Muslim Americans. Yet you deny the very obvious racism and religious discrimination inherent in Bush’s so-called war on terror, using any means you can think of to distract and distort. Your racism is very deeply ingrained, to the point where you think anyone who doesn’t share it is delusional. You don’t get it.
You haven’t heard aplenty, you haven’t heard nearly enough. I’m sorry that you haven’t heard more from your family, your friends, your school, or your church. If you haven’t heard about your racism from them, loud and clear, they have failed you. And they have failed America, by allowing racism to flourish in their midst.
I was going to stop responding to your blather, which is what it is turning into,
but I’ll make one more point. (which will undoubtably give you license in your mind
to rattle on some more)
You are amazing at missing points. I don’t give a crap why McVeigh did anything.
However, the reason he gave is an excellent example of America punishing white, non-Muslim
religious people.
If you think that was an abberation, there are more cases of America showing disfavor to
other white, non-Muslim groups. Now you want to start counting bodies here and bodies there.
That is pathetic. The terror inflicted by McVeigh and Nichols was shown to be from an
extremely limited group. The whole ‘Michigan Militia’ was not involved, even if those
two were members. They might have also had library cards too, we don’t automatically assume
that all library patrons were in on it.
Your one-note song is playing off-key. That doesn’t mean that there is some credence to it,
but your defense of your position is laughably weak.
Peace!
If you have been articulating consistent points, I confess I have missed them.
Post 56: “I don’t give a crap why McVeigh did anything.”
Post 54: “Do you remember or even know why [McVeigh] claimed he did what he did?”
Which one is the point, Gopher?
Your “points,” whatever they are, keep drifting in an indecipherable tangle. Whenever you can’t keep traction with one–comma counting, false claims you didn’t disparage the victim, etc.–you shift to another one.
Your arguments are completely groundless and inconsistent, but one constant remains: a racist and religiously biased tendency to sympathize more with whites, Americans, and Christians than with others.
I’m sure you could come up with more examples of whites and Christians as the victims of American history. And I’m sure you could come up with some “point” or other about how portraying them as such absolves you from the responsibility of facing the racism and religious bias inherent in America’s unequal treatment of ideological extremists. I’m equally sure you could shift again, to yet another “point.”
You needn’t feel obliged to bother. At the end of the day, you need not answer to me, but to your own conscience, and to whatever source of cosmic justice you may or may not believe in.
If you want to take a sentence (or a phrase, or a word, whatever) out of its context,
you can probably start claiming I said anything. Why don’t you also start taking my words
and pasting them into a different order, then you can claim I said those things too.
You brought up McVeigh and Co., not me.
What I said in Post 54 (the whole statement, that is) was this:
“…Do you remember or even know why he claimed he did what he did?
The US Federal government, ala Janet Reno & Co. killed in our own country
a bunch of non-Muslim, white religious people in Waco.
…”
No, “I” don’t care WHY he did anything. I don’t think one bad act is a justification
for another. He was brought into the conversation by YOU, so be prepared to open up
the related issue, which was WACO. And your inclusion of him is obviously a detriment
to your ‘point’. McVeigh WAS executed, and he WAS white. The people that he claimed he
was doing the bombing to get revenge for (the Davidians) WERE white, and we DID ’shake and bake’
their compound, to use your sensitive expression.
In your post, YOU brought him up. If the facts around him don’t support your point, that’s your
problem. If in the obviously tangled web of neurons you call your mind, you think that my pointing
out inconsistencies in YOUR own arguments means somehow that I hate Muslims, well I guess I can’t
argue with a bowl of tapioca pudding either.
Peace!
McVeigh was charged with a crime and received a jury trial in accordance with the rule of law, unlike Jose Padilla.
That was the original context in which I raised McVeigh.
What does Waco have to do with that? Nothing.
It has to do with your paranoid delusions of Janet Reno’s anti-white reign of terror, the death toll from which pales beside a single bad day in Iraq.
“Shake ‘n bake” is the U.S. military’s own sensitive term for two-staged urban assaults consisting of white phosphorous to burn people alive followed by high explosive to kill them. This was not done to the Davidians in Waco.
Shouldn’t you say that Janet Reno “allegedly” killed the people in Waco? It was never proved that the U.S. government started the fire, so we should say “alleged,” right? Apparently, this is very important to you.
Of course none of this matters to you, because the only “point” you’re concerned about is the racist delusion in your own head: White Americans are the REAL victims, truth be damned.
Did you have a happy “white” Christmas, GopherGrace?
Pete,
Your moronic echoing of this clown’s claim of racism is childish and weak, at best,
not to mention it’s a very old joke. Where did you hear it? At your last Klan meeting?
As to Ray: you’re wrong again.
I don’t need to say “alleged”, because all I said was that we “shaked and baked” the compound. I think
whatever type of force we used there, entering and demolishing a building by force with armored vehicles
is pretty much the same thing.
As far as to Janet Reno, et. al. there is no doubt that they killed people in Waco. It was by shooting by ATF officals before
the standoff began.
Again, if you’re going to make nonsense claims, at least try to read a little more carefully and understand history.
Of course, I never said anything about white Americans being ‘victims’ of anything/anywhere. That’s merely YOUR
prejudicial blathering and non-speak. Keep it up, the pudding is very tasty.
Post 61: “I never said anything about white Americans being ‘victims’ of anything/anywhere.”
Post 58: “McVeigh WAS executed, and he WAS white. The people that he claimed he was doing the bombing to get revenge for (the Davidians) WERE white, and we DID ’shake and bake’ their compound”
Which is it, Gopher?
And may we get back to the matter at hand,
which is surely not about Gopher
but about the fact that the right wing brownshirts of Kansas
beat up a man just for defying their religious edicts?
The matter at hand is attacks by violent religious extremists against civilization. The matter at hand is the global struggle against them.
How many violent religious extremists are there in the world? A few thousand, maybe low tens of thousands. Yet the entire world can not win a war against them. How will so few defeat the entire world?
Only with the help of millions of people like Gopher, whose bigotry provides the cover of silence and sympathy that is exploited by violent religious extremists around the world.
That’s the matter at hand.
Sigh,
You just can’t read, can you?
Or is it you just can’t comprehend? Which is it?
Your post 59 tries to put the following words in my mouth:
“White Americans are the REAL [your emphasis] victims, truth be damned”
That is a general statement, which I certainly did not make, nor do I hold that opinion.
MeVeigh is an individual case, and yes, he was white, and yes, he was executed.
If that is something you are either stupid or crazy enough to spin into your general
comment, then you’d be right.
Again, you were the one who brought him into the topic, not me. Yet it still
does nothing to bolster your dumb argument.
The matter at hand is I leave you to your own cloudy, murky thoughts with the relief
that you’re not in my presence.
peace!
Well Gopher, you did bring up Waco and Ruby Ridge–emphasizing that the victims there, like McVeigh, WERE white and WERE killed by the federal government. You even offered to provide more examples of white victims of the U.S. government.
Now you say that you were discussing McVeigh as an individual case. That’s a lie. You insisted on discussing him in the general context of U.S. victimization of white people. Now you’re lying again, claiming I made the whole thing up.
Your so-called arguments are nothing but a combination of lies and empty accusations of delusional thinking. They’re not convincing.
I’m sure you’re not a terrorist Gopher, but it’s abundantly clear that you are more sympathetic to some terrorists than to others. It’s that kind of sympathy, fueled by racism and religious bigotry, that’s keeping us from victory in the struggle against violent extremism.
But hey, Gopher, if the truth hurts, accuse others of delusion. Just remember you’re sacrificing victory in the process.
You are more of a nutjob than I thought.
YOU brought up McVeigh, in post #49.
In post #54, I replied to it, saying that your bringing him into the discussion wasn’t too bright.
“…You make an argument with a poor choice of examples, however.
In Post 49, you mention McVeigh and Nichols. These are your examples,
one must presume of ‘white A-S terrorists’.
Did McVeigh get off? Or did he end up as a large penny in a fuse box?…”
If your thoughts are not coherent, that’s your problem I guess.
Please stay away from operating heavy machinery, for the benefits of the innocent.
I’d really like to see more discussion of the brutal beating that was given to professor Paul Mirecki just because he did not pay deference to the churches of the religious right, and kowtow before the Creationist thugs that are making Kansas look like a foolish backwater of medieval thinking.
As far as I know, Mirecki’s version of events has not yet been reliably refuted by the right wing media that is so eager to paper over the attacks against him.
Exactly, Frutaka.
The national press barely covered Mirecki’s beating in the first place. Neither the press nor the Bush administration connected the dots between this attack and the extremist violence we are supposedly fighting around the world. Nor have they made the obvious connection to Pat Robertson’s call for the assasination of democratically-elected Hugo Chavez, or Reverend Lusk’s Kruschevian declaration that fundamentalist Christianity has “buried” its critics in the past, and was making “funeral arrangements” for them now.
Did the Bush administration go so far as to even use the presidency as an “bully pulpit” to publically rebuke Pat Robertson or Reverend Lusk? No. Rick Santorum even applauded Lusk’s call for extremist violence. Yet the Republicans say they’re fighting a struggle against violent extremism around the world. Oh, and by the way they need to shred the Constitution to do it, if you don’t mind.
My point is this: Around the world, those religious extremists who issue the fatwas and carry out the attacks are relatively few, but their sympathizers and apologists are many (as we have seen here). We can not defeat the extremists militarily until we defeat their apologists in the realm of public opinion. Yet nobody–neither the press, the Bush administration, Democrats in Congress, nor even the American people–is willing to step up and do what it will take to win this struggle. That is why we will lose.
We will lose, because “we” spend two months discussing irrelevant passages of obscure documents and reasoning.
Liberals are on the outside because we defend our liberalism instead of attacking the real beast.
If you don’t know who it is, I say again. You have not been paying attention.