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.
Please, I want to hear from one of those Republicans who say that the Religious Right is not trying to create a theocracy here in the USA.
Kansas is becoming America’s Afghanistan.
Fundamentalist Christian brownshirts.
Pingback: Yellow Swordfish » Onward Christian Soldiers
Wow…
That’s… Yeah, very theocracy… How horrible…
This behavior is horrifying, but not too surprising to those of us who live out here in “Christian Taliban” territory. Not a week goes by that I’m not diverted from my commute home so they can “demonstrate for “Jee-zuz-a” (their clergy pronounce jesus with three syllables, you see), or demonstrating against “wikedness and SEE-in!” (that’s “sin” with two syllables) This would border on the ludicrous, except for the fact that it is rapidly progressing from a lunatic fringe to the mainstream belief system. And I’m scared…
Pingback: Irregular Times: News Unfit for Print » Blog Archive » Man Gets Beaten for Speaking his Mind. Conservative America’s Response? Must be a Fag! Hit Him Harder!
in all fairness, the professor did post a message on a public student forum insulting fundamentalists, which i think is what caused the class to be cancelled in the first place. he dropped the ball by failing to keep things civil even when the facts were already on his side.
Well, he used the term “fundies.” They beat him.
That’s the difference between “bashing” and bashing.
Bob, in all fairness??? What the hell does fairness have to do with beating people up who refuse to follow the religious doctrine of Intelligent Design?
Last I checked, professors had the freedom to speak their minds. Is that over now? Is there a special exemption, that we must never criticize the Christian Fundamentalist Ayatollahs of Kansas?
Yeah, Bob. “In all fairness,” the bitch was walking around without a headscarf. Go to Iran where you belong.
Bob, I wil disagree with what you used to justify violent actions to answera disagreement with a policy that is blatently “creationist”. What I will NOT do is stoop to the level of Ray and a few others, ordering you to move out of this copuntry. That is improper for any American who believes in the First Amendment, and I will be the first to apologise for their angry outburst. But I WILL demand that the people who committed this assault be charget with a “hate crime”, which, we must all agree, this assault was. You are entitled to your belief. Just don’t foist it off on me or my children, and call it “science”.
I agree with Mike. The whole “leave the country” motif is stupid and intolerant. I disagree with Bob, but let’s not go nutty.
“…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….”
Let’s see what he actually said:
“…this will be a nice slap in their big fat face …”
“… I expect it will draw much media attention. …”
“…Doing my part to p*ss of the religious right…”
“This thing will be a hoot.â€Â
So, he intends offense, he wants to P*ss people off, and he expects to draw much media
attention for it. So now he’s had this little “incident” that he “claims” was done by
people who reacted as he intended them to, i.e. “p*ssed off”. If you really believe him.
It seems like a huge grab for his “media attention”. Maybe his 15 minutes wasn’t enough for
him, so he staged this. Just a “theory”.
After his “private” remarks were intentionally betrayed to the media by one of his own private
group members, (was that also his intent, for more media publicity? Only a few people at the University,
after all, had already signed up for the class, so maybe a little extra publicity was in order?)
he stated thusly: “I have assured the provost of the university that I will teach the course according to the standards this university rightfully expects  as a serious academic subject and in an manner that respects all points of view.â€Â
Oh really???? Does this follow in line with his previous, obviously biased statements regarding his true intent?
Can you really spin those together into coherence?
Of course he’s now also backpeddling (or is he really this wishy-washy or hypocritcal)
“I accept full responsibility for an ill-advised email …”
“…My words in the email do not represent my teaching philosophy or the style I use in class….”
Oh really????
“…be able to discuss differing points of view in a open, fair and civil fashion…”
Oh really??? That’s how he viewed ‘open, fair and civil’, p*ssing people off?
“…my belief that there is no place for impertinence and name calling in a serious academic class…”
Oh really??? I guess he’ll turn off the impertinence and name calling when he gets to class, assuming
he’s claiming his class is ‘serious’.
I think it’s appalling when anyone resorts to violence to make their point. His getting roughed up is far worse
than the stupid remarks he made. There’s more to
it than meets the eye, however. He seems rather secretive about the event:
“..Also, there was conflicting information about whether Mirecki reported it at the scene or at the hospital.
In an interview Monday with the Journal-World, he said he called police from the side of the road,
but sheriff’s officials said they were dispatched to the hospital.
Mirecki declined to clarify the discrepancy when asked about it Tuesday outside the sheriff’s office.
“I can; I just don’t want to,†he said…. ”
Oh really?
Thank you, GopherGrace, aka IceyMaster, aka MondoPercipient (what’s your real name?), for demonstrating the nature of conservative moral standards. What you write is very instructive, although perhaps not in the manner you intended. Very instructive indeed.
You’re really good at sticking to issues and facts…
My point is that someone who changes his pseudonym on a regular basis making innuendos is sadly typical.
What I’m not seeing addressed is that Intelligent Design clearly IS mythology – it’s a cultural storyline based on speculation about what might have been. What problem can there be with that?
Whether you agree with Professor Mirecki or not, the idea that university courses should be withdrawn because they are offensive to a particular religion ought to be outrageous to all. We cannot have intellectual freedom when professors feel that they are not allowed to say anything that offends Christian fundamentalists.
It seems to me that the right wingers in Kansas are insisting on their own political correctness – or to be more precise, religious correctness. This is a sadly medieval approach to education.
Kudos Jimmy! You are sticking with your story, if not to the relevant facts here.
You’re clearly wrong on the actual reason why he withdrew the course. (and perhaps why he resigned too). Not merely the course name, which we all agree as thinking people does not connote anything inherently negative. No, it was his comments, that clearly show that he was not offering this class in the spirit, as he says, of ” a manner that respects all points of view” and “civil fashion”. Not, he clearly compromised the academic nature of the class’ premise by stating that he was really just aiming for publicity and to “p*ss people off”.
His own bigotry is what sunk him, not that he wanted to explore something intelligently and with academic standards. He made a major goof, which he has to admit, simply because there was no serious way he could not apologize for those remarks that “didn’t lead by example” at least academically.
You of course are not too stupid to realize this truth, and we both know it.
I personally agree with their viewpoint entirely that ID has no serious place in a discussion of science. That’s not my issue.
Anything else you are saying is really just smokescreen, probably because he is a weak person to defend on this because of his “ill-advised” remarks. Try sticking to actual facts.
His “attack” if there indeed was one should be explicitly condemmed by all. There
are a few wackos that make stupid statements, just like some of the ones I saw P-wood make when he doesn’t take his medication. That doesn’t change the reality that most people would not want to see him beat up, even if they did think his remarks were weak-minded. To suggest that most religious-minded people wish him physical harm is pretty misleading.
As far the the ‘perfesser’, he didn’t have enough gonads to stick to his anti-religious viewpoint publically, when the going got tough. He had tenure, so why back down and make a false apology, if you really did mean it. (and I think he did). I certainly don’t care about calling anyone so benign a name as “fundie” even if he was intending disrespect. It’s the lack of academic standards by placing his class as a media circus to “p*ss people off” that I question. That’s not the purpose of education, and even he and the school publicly admit that that. So his ranting was out of place, given his position as a agent of the school and higher education. No where will you find me defending people who trashed him, so don’t bother to go there.
He certainly does raise questions about the validity of his claim when he changes the official relating of it, then all of a sudden refuses to discuss why he said one thing, then changed it after the police press release contradicted him. His desire to gain publicity over this makes his true motives a little less pure. First, someone on ‘kos says he was severely beaten to within inches of his life, then I find out he drove to the hospital and was released and went back to school the same day.
Gopher Grace,
You’re hardly one to lecture people about how to present themselves, with a rant with so many ad hominem attacks as you’ve given here.
It is entirely understandable that Paul Mirecki choose not to speak publicly, given the way that the right wing has been determined to use anything he says to destroy him.
The real story here is the right wing Christian campaign to destroy anyone who disagrees with fundamentalist theology. Personally, I don’t see that there is a reason to shut down a class by a professor who offends people. Students are not forced to sign up, and if they want to challenge the professor, they ought to confront him in class. Preventing Mirecki from holding his class, while FORCING Kansas teachers to present a fundamentalist Christian perspective in science classes shows that the right wingers are not fighting for any principle of open education, but rather are engaged in a naked power grab.
I think that the comparisons of right wing Christian Kansas with the Taliban in Afghanistan are quite apt.
Gee, last time I checked we were at WAR with violent religious extremism. I guess not if they’re American Christians…
Tell me the difference between beating up a college professor for proposing a class and beating up a woman for not wearing a headscarf. Oh, wait, I know: One fundamentalist thug prays to Jesus and the other prays to Allah!
You know why we’re going to lose the global struggle against violent religious extremism? One word: racism.
Palestinians will denounce Israeli rocket attacks in the strongest possible terms, but they go all soft on their own suicide bombers. Israelis denounce Palestian suicide bombers in the strongest terms possible, but they go all soft on Israeli attacks on Palestinians. Everybody’s got a soft spot for their own darling little good ol’ boy violent extremists.
Are any words too harsh for Bin Laden and his band of violent religious extremists? “In all fairness,” is it America’s fault for “p*ssing off” Al Qaeda? Did Americans “fail to clear up some discrepancies?” None of that matters if someone who prays to Allah attacks Americans, now does it?
But you know, gee, if someone who prays to Jesus attacks a college professor, the professor was probably asking for it and it’s the victim’s fault…
Racism, pure and simple.
Should the guys who beat up the college professor be hauled off by the CIA in the middle of the night and tortured at some “black site” former-Soviet dungeon? No? Then we should jolly well stop doing it to anybody. But apparently if you pray to Allah, it’s okey-dokey to do that to you, but if you’re a violent religious extremist who says “Jesus” when he prays, gosh, harsh words are going too far!
GopherGrace/MondoPercipient/IceyMaster, you’re being careless in your zeal.
I haven’t said a word about Mirecki’s resignation, so I can’t possibly be wrong in what I’ve said about that.
Furthermore, I don’t believe I am “clearly wrong on the actual reason why he withdrew the course.” I wrote “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.”
He WAS forced into a position where he had to withdraw the course. That WAS a reaction to his being shouted down by conservative religious fundamentalists. They DID complain that they were being bashed. They DID say his course offended their moral values.
I’m not going to fall into the trap of defending the particular substantive validity of what Professor Mirecki said. The problem is that Professor Mirecki got beaten on the side of the road because he dared to say something offensive to fundamentalist Christianity. To focus on the beating of Professor Mirecki is not a tactical “smokescreen.” You’ll notice that we didn’t discuss Mirecki on this blog until the beating occurred. No, we’ve placed a consistent focus on the beating. You seem earnest in your efforts to place the focus elsewhere.
You’re overreaching in all these aspects, to further some agenda I imagine. Why don’t you come on out and share that agenda?
Ray, your observation that
is keen. We who call ourselves liberal must endeavor to remain liberal, and call out violent left-wing extremists for what they are. (We indeed try to do that here: put “Kill Bush” in the search box on this page to see what I mean.) But it is also important, especially because the right-wingers have a grasp on all branches of American government, to be vigiliant when it comes to right-wing extremism. The people who beat Mirecki most likely voted Bush back into office.
But Jim,
You say I was out of line for denouncing Christian extremists who violently attack American citizens, and their apologists, as anti-American.
But Muslim extremists who violently attack American citizens, and their apologists, are anti-American. Aren’t they?
What’s the difference?
If we’re REALLY going to have an international struggle against violent religious extremist ideology, why is it “stupid and intolerant” to start at home? If we’re NOT fighting that struggle, let’s pull our troops out from Afghanistan and Iraq, and dismantle the Department of Homeland Security.
The U.S. is trying to take the mote out of the other guy’s eye while leaving the beam in its own. We won’t throw so much as harsh words at our homegrown violent religious extremists, but we’ll drop white phosphorous on whole cities where someone else’s are hiding.
It’s racism of the most hideous kind.
Well, I didn’t mean it to come across that way, Ray. I don’t denounce you for denouncing Christian extremists. I have trouble with people telling other people to leave the country — that’s crossing the line for me. I think we mostly agree, substantively speaking.
I don’t think people like Bob realize that they are giving aid and comfort to the enemy in the global struggle against violent religious extremists. I don’t want him kidnapped and tortured like America does to suspected violent Islamic extremists. I’m against “rendition,” even against the enemies of civilization.
But the fact remains that his apology for violent extremist religious ideology is a betrayal of the United States. Telling him to leave the country is the most straightforward way I can think of to tell him that–through his own words–he has sided with the enemy. What “line” is that “crossing?”
Racism and bigotry have only one common root. ‘I am better than you’. Such actions are usually perpetrated by those who either consider themselves superior to their chosen target, or object to the presence of `inferiors’ in any discussion.
In my 68 years, I have discovered racism and bigotry against the Irish, the Poles, the Germans, the English, Americand (Black Brown and White), Asians, Africans, Tribes, Casts, Jews, Mexicans, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, Adult, Children, Communist, Fascist, Conservative, Socialits, Democrate, Republicans Right wing or left wing of every religion and philosophical persuasion, and politicians of all shades of the spectrum. All have been attacked by members of others in the list and the list keeps growing.
If you think or have opinions and have the temerity to express those thoughts or opinions out loud, YOU WILL BE ATTACKED.
One hopes your attacker will use words, not fists. Those who use violence, do not have the intelligence to use rehtoric and are themselves victims. Nevertheless, such people tend to be in the majority and are most likely to be praised and supported by that company of bigots for whom violence is the only response to differing opinions.
It would be better if those of us whoe are proud to be called liberals, will choose rhetoric over violence.
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy:
You dissappoint me. Or rather, the predictive comments and nonsense you throw around to shelter you from
trying to make reason out of this is more wearisome than chuckle-worthy.
Now, it’s a new conspiracy theory. There’s a hidden agenda that I’m just not going to tell you.
Can you really write drivel like that with a straight face? Or is it so easy for you to lie to yourself?
I clearly said that you were wrong on the reasons that were posted above, on why he withdrew the course.
The University made it clear that the course was something they supported fully. Read their statement.
It was Mirecki’s out-of-class remarks that showed clearly that his educational integrity was sorely lacking.
He showed that the class he intended was staged for publicity and to p*ss people off that he openly disliked.
That shows the power of making public (even when you think they’re not so public) statements on the internet that
clearly show that you don’t have education as your intent, but other, more politcal goals. He compromised that;
no one else did. The course or the name itself was clearly not enough to drop it; the course content was strongly
supported by the school. It wasn’t until his dimwit remarks became public that the pressure came on. He’s certainly
entitled to his views, which I stated I mostly agree with. Scheduling a course for personal publicity and to make a politcal
point however, obviously wasn’t what the University thought was defendable as a sign of educational integrity. For that, he gets
no sympathy. His views, fine; His approach to education: D-
It’s the opening paragraph that sets the stage which is incorrect fundamentally. To repeat that assertation:
He didn’t get the course cancelled because he held views which disagreed with fundies. No, it was his showing
that the intent of his class was not to educate, but to p*ss people off, that forced the University to withdraw it.
The leadership of that University publically states that they share his view on the subject. They can’t possibly
admit that they share his disdain for the purpose of schooling and education, and the use of civility. Just because
some fundies make stupid statements does not grant him the priviledge of making stupid statements of his own.
I of course did not say that you said anything about the reasons why he resigned; that’s your smokescreen effort.
I did say that you were wrong about the actual reason the course was withdrawn. Which is what I indicated was probably
also the same true reason he ‘decided’ to resign.
As to Juniper’s comment. Why he chose to start being silent about the facts of the case is entirely
different than being silent about his educational and political views. He was asked to comment why
his story was different than the police view, not what he thought about the ‘fundies’. Why he makes
no reasonable explanation for the inconsistency is up to him, but if it was as simply as “I made a mistake
in what I said due to being disorientated because I was just beat up”, I don’t think that would have given anyone
much to complain about. His silence on the truth of the matter is what is interesting.
You continue to distort. I did not say that Mirecki got “the course cancelled because he held views which disagreed with fundies.” I said he had to withdraw the course after being shouted down by fundamentalists. The two are different.
You’re making this into an internal debate about itself. I find my navel boring — Why don’t we talk more about the violence against Mirecki? How does that make you feel? Which is a bigger deal to you — that Mirecki said rude things about fundamentalists, or that Mirecki got beat up in retaliation for what he said?
OK, Gopher. Here’s where you lose me:
Fact: Extremists violently attack a college professor to promote their own religious ideology.
Point you think is salient: The professor is arguably guilty of poor pedagogy.
So, pedagogical quality in higher education is so important to you that it entirely eclipses the international struggle against violent religious extremists?
You’re entitled to your priorities, I guess. Quality higher education is certainly important.
But do you really think Jim is distorting things because they think the struggle against violent extremist religion is what’s worth focusing on here? That’s what I don’t get.
Hey Gopher, maybe on 9/11 there was a bad college professor in the World Trade Center, but then everybody just put up a big smokescreen by focusing on the attack by religious extremists!
Jim:
I think we could call it “distortion” when you leave out the second half of your OWN statement which was:
“..shouted down by fund… WHO..SAID HIS COURSE OFFENDED THEIR MORAL VALUES”
I’ll maintain once again, that if one believes that Mirecki’s course was cancelled because fundies
were offended by the course and shouted him down, that’s just wrong. He made statements that were
indicative of not being educationally “pure” in motive, and THAT’S why the course was cancelled.
If you think that correction is a minor point, then so be it. I think your claim above that “the two
are different” is so minor of a difference that you shouldn’t be picking nits with me on it, but it’s
your time.
OK, now talking about the violence: I think I did that in the very first post.
I said “I think it’s appalling when anyone resorts to violence to make their point.”
Appalling, for those that don’t know, means a bad thing.
In the following post, I said his attack “…should be explicitly condemmed by all.”
All, for those who don’t know, means “everyone”. Condemned, for those who don’t know,
means to express strong disapproval.
Is my position on attacking people with violence then somehow unclear to you?
And to Barney (and Fred too): I suppose in your way of thinking, a child who drowns in a pond
is the same as the tsunami tragedy. You relate getting a few bruises to an event that killed
thousands horribly (which means something negative, for those that don’t know) and you then
want to talk about MY perspective? That’s laughable, if it wasn’t so ignorant.
I think overall that violence in any form is a terrible thing, as I stated. I don’t think that
carrying around mistaken views of the facts do much to help correct the situation. That’s what
you accuse the religious extremists of doing. Start by being more accurate yourself.
Peace!
G: “If one believes that Mirecki’s course was cancelled because fundies
were offended by the course and shouted him down, that’s just wrong.”
Funny, that’s exactly what I read in quotes like these:
# “He wouldn’t have those bruises if he had the sense to refrain from establishing a university class dedicated to the ridicule of other people’s beliefs.â€Â
# “A professor sets up a class designed to ridicule the beliefs of others, and somehow certain folks are ‘appalled’ that unpleasant consequences ensue. I don’t buy their sanctimonious, drama queen indignation.â€Â
# “It’s not smart to play with blasphemy.â€Â
Wow,
because those morons make wrong statements, that somehow proves YOU right?
You’re in excellent company!
Nice to draw conclusions based on those quotes. I guess what the University
said on the matter does not have any influence. Nice research; good sticking to the correct facts.
I guess also that the Professor now changing the statement he made in his resignation letter is also
a part of my “hidden agenda”. He believe it too. He’s claiming a hate crime,(which according the legal
definition, it doesn’t qualify as such, although I think it should) and says he’s getting
threatening emails (which I surely don’t doubt) but he thinks the police department is against him
because they’ve questioned him too much and “took his computer”. Hello, Professor, the computer is
considered what they refer to as “evidence” with regard to your claim of threatening emails. But I’m sure
the cops are merely Christians who want to plant some child porn on it to discredit him. Sheesh!
OK, whatever. You’re in another one of your flame war stances, Gopher/Mondo/Icey. I’ve been in 14 of them with you and have figured out you just want to fight about something.
“Those morons” are indicative of the arguments being made against Mirecki’s course, and they’re not about pedagogy. They’re about “blasphemy.” But yadda yadda yadda. Believe whatever you want to believe on that point. Blah blah blah. Call me “Jimmy” again. Get your jollies.
The act of violence is clearly not what’s central to you. It’s your right to feel that way, but boy is it interesting.
No, the case is very interesting. It was YOU however, in the first paragraph of your post that mentioned
“shouted down” yada yada yada. Be glad to stick to what’s relevant, if that’s what YOU were doing.
Was the course cancellation relevant with his beating. If he HADN’T dropped the course and apologized,
I suppose it might have been.
I don’t doubt that you can dig up plenty of stupid remarks by stupid people about Mirecki.
Not everyone was talking about it in those terms however. I’ve read many articles by serious
education professionals, which I’m sure you can access as well that state otherwise. Whether he
was beaten or not, it was his deplorable actions that sunk him, not his views.
Now you want to complain about calling you “Jimmy”. How hypocritical of you to drop to that.
Your first two posts to me mentioned nothing about the topic, just jabs at using a different name.
Get off it. This kind of double-standard is pathetic.
You make another mention (again) that I didn’t address the violence. I did in the first two
posts and you don’t acknowledge it. That’s up to you to focus on whatever you want. You seem to be
one of those unfortunate persons who will never admit to mistakes. Sounds a lot like Bush. (oh, sorry)
I don’t think Mirecki nor anyone else deserves to get beaten for his views. I think it is very interesting
that while he was involved in the first bit of controversy over the course, the University’s Hemenway was
very vocal in supporting him. Now that the beating took place and he’s threatening a lawsuit against them
(which seems pretty useless) even Hemenway referred to it as “apparently attacked”. He’s even losing credibility
among his own supporters. Is it deserved? Well, we’ll possibly see. Now, that would be interesting. Of course,
it wouldn’t be the first time a hate crime was staged. We remember the lady who spray-painted slurs on her own
car. I believe she was convicted.
But Mirecki was shouted down. And I didn’t say that you didn’t address the violence. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
This is why I don’t take you seriously. But keep babbling if it makes you feel good.
Gopher,
Why exactly are violent attacks by religious extremists not a big deal to you?
Because they’re beatings instead of killings?
Or because the people doing the beatings are Christians instead of Muslims?
If you tell me straight up that if you heard about Muslims beating a woman for not wearing a headscarf, you’d “condemn the violence” but then focus primarily on how she was “p*ssing them off,” I’ll accept the consistency of your views.
Otherwise, it’s clear that you’re nothing but a racist.
Ray,
You make some interesting questions. Interesting to wonder if you read any of this.
However, since you seem to be somehow able to read, I’ll repeat what I said above in post #30:
“I said “I think it’s appalling when anyone resorts to violence to make their point.â€Â
Appalling, for those that don’t know, means a bad thing.
In the following post, I said his attack “…should be explicitly condemmed by all.â€Â
All, for those who don’t know, means “everyoneâ€Â. Condemned, for those who don’t know,
means to express strong disapproval.
Is my position on attacking people with violence then somehow unclear to you?”
Maybe you can explain why my position on violence is unknown to you?
For you to make a statement saying it’s “clear” that I’m nothing but a racist is childish.
It’s possible to have a clear position on more than one issue. I clearly state (again and again)
the above position on violence. I strongly condem it, no matter who does it. I haven’t backed
off on that one iota. Nowhere did I say anything to the point that somehow Mirecki’s words
“earned” him a violent attack. You’re reading that into it because I think somehow you simply want
to.
The same as Jim’s believe that Mirecki resigned because his course p*ssed off fundies.
The school supported him and the course explicitly, until his lack of pedagogical integrity
became an embarrassment to the school and its programs. THAT is the truth, even if you and Jim
want to continue to deny it.
I wrote that point to correct his original post, which opened with an untrue conclusion as to why
Mirecki’s course was cancelled. It simply was untrue to view it that way.
Why are you against telling things truthfully?
There’s nothing wrong with discussing the condemnation of a violent act by weasels.
I believe one should speak the truth however when they do so. Why don’t you?
But, “Gopher,” I didn’t say that “Mirecki resigned because his course p*ssed off fundies.” I haven’t talked about Mirecki’s resignation at all.
I think you’re projecting here. There have been a number of times you’ve said I’ve said things I have not said. It seems you’re reading what you want to read. Please be more accurate.
Pingback: Telic Thoughts » Opinions about the Mirecki Story
I can read.
In your first post I read 40 lines of blaming the victim. You go on and on about how the victim of extremist religious violence was offensive, looking for publicity, and may have staged the attack against him.
Then I read three lines of you saying, as an afterthought, how “apalling” the violence is, to which you add that “there’s more to it than meets the eye, however.”
It is perfectly symptomatic of the racist coddling of one’s own homegrown violent religious extremists that’s going to lose us this war:
Palestinians that rail on and on about Israel, drop in an afterthought about how the violence of Palestinian suicide bombers is a pity, then follow up with “however…”
Israelis that rail on and on about Palestinian suicide bombers, drop in an afterthought about how Israeli helicopter attacks that kill civilians are regrettable, then follow up with “however…”
When the world loses the global struggle against violent religious extremism, it will be because of racists like you.
I’m sorry Ray. I thought you sounded like someone who was interested in discusssing all the facts
of something; being open to other ideas and points of views, and listening to others in an open manner.
Whoops, I mistook you for Mirecki’s claimed methods. (just kidding you of course)
First to the accuracy of your ‘count’. 40 lines? About half of that were just quotes from Mirecki himself.
I get blamed for blaming him by repeating what he himself said? Nice try.
My aversion to violent behavior is not an ‘afterthought’, and it’s presumptuous of you to make
a determination of what I find important, based on a sample of the ratio of words in a post.
As far the victim here goes: Right now, he is an alleged victim, according the police and his
own University colleagues. I think based on inconsistencies in his story and some of his secretive
behavior, he has opened up himself to at least a certain amount of suspicion and question.
Certainly, I’ve seen a lot of posts around here that are pretty quick to make the same general level
of prejudging outcomes of investigations and criminal proceedings before they’re finished. If you
want to give him a free pass on his claims, that’s your right to believe whatever you want. If because
he is a university professor, he should be believed, then I direct you to the case of Professor Dunn at
Claremont College, about a year ago. Does this implicate him? Certainly not, but an open mind should
at least be able to discuss the possibilty without an out-of-hand dismissal.
I’m certainly not going to give your claim any legitimacy regarding racism. If you have evidence that
I’d forgive his alleged beaters because they’re American and claimed Christian, you’re welcome to show it.
I’m not suggesting for a moment that his alleged abusers are not tracked, captured and prosecuted if they exist.
None of that has anything to do with the inaccuracy of the original reporting perspective, much as you’d like
to shift the topic.
If you want a dialogue on what the punishment should be for his alleged beaters, let’s have it, I’m willing.
I also said above that I believe these should be included in the category of hate crimes, even though it
doesn’t meet the actual legal requirements. You don’t mention that either. If you have a solid point, make it.
If you’d like to keep you mind closed and stick with your own prejudices, that’s your right of course.
Whether or not one counts the quotes, you devote about ten times more space in your first post to criticizing the victim than you devote to denouncing the crime. Then you say it’s “preposterous” for me to judge your priotities from that?
When you want me to discuss “all the facts,” what you seem to be saying is that you want me to join you in focusing on negative things about the victim.
Of course, I don’t know all the details of what happened. It’s possible he staged the attack on himself, for all I know. But there’s no evidence he did. Then again, for all I know, it’s possible America staged the attack on the USS Cole. But there’s no evidence we did. Either way, I’m not going to spend ten times the effort denouncing the victim in an “apparent” or “alleged” attack by religious extremists. If I did that regarding the attack on the USS Cole, you’d accuse me of sympathy for the terrorists. Wouldn’t you?
Did you say, verbatim, that “he deserved it,” or that “he was asking for it?” Maybe not. But then why, exactly, in the aftermath of a violent attack, do you think it’s appropriate to overwhelmingly focus on criticism of the “alleged” victim?
The reason I think you’re a racist is because I simply don’t believe you would spend ten times the amount of time and effort pointing out negative things about the victim of religious extremist violence if the attackers were Muslim men who “allegedly” beat a woman for not wearing a headscarf. You have consistently avoided the issue, which is all you do when you say you won’t give it “legitimacy.” Convince me otherwise.
I’m sure you don’t consider yourself a racist. Racists seldom do. They usually start off sentences with things like “Well, I’m not a racist, but…” That’s exactly how your “however” comes off: I denounce violence, “however,” we should look at “all the facts.”
Let me clarify: I don’t suspect you’re part of that small minority of racists for whom hatred of a given group is an all-consuming passion. I think you’re part of that great plurality of racists for whom people just tend to seem a little more or less credible, a little more or less deserving of sympathy, depending on their ethnic or religious identity. Given your vast numbers and the tacit support you provide for the more extreme racists among you, it is the racists like you–on all sides–who will lose us this war.
Did I say you don’t call for the arrest and prosecution of the attackers? No. But you are clearly far more concerned with criticizing the victim than with denouncing the attack. Furthermore, you seem terribly averse to the observation that Christian Americans could possibly be among the violent religious extremists the United States has committed itself to a global struggle against.
Why?
You’ve drawn conclusions on the amount of space? So if I used a lot of
spaces, commas, and whatever that counts as my opinion too? Nice theories on content.
If you wanted to suggest the USS Cole was a hoax by the US, feel free to, if you think
there is something suspicious in the way it was described, or an inconsistency in the story.
I’d be glad to hear a reasonable theory behind it, if you actually had one. I won’t accuse you
of terrorist sympathy if you have indications that it may not be true. Certainly, some people
suggest the WTC destruction was a hoax also. I’ve yet to see credible thoughts that sustain that theory.
Maybe you have those, too.
I only focus on an inconsistency in the reporting of the description of his course withdrawal on this site.
Since that viewpoint was challenged by one of the writers, I responded. The writer didn’t ask me to discuss
other views, or I would as I have gladly done. I’m open to reasonable discussion.
For discussion purposes,let me draw the same conclusion about you that you seem so eager to draw about me.
You know virtually nothing about me, yet you quickly brand me a racist Christian, do you not?
You place me into a “vast number”, yet you know not of what group. You presume, you prejudge.
You sound like someone who has vast prejudices of their own, by assuming that I have doubt that
self-proclaimed Christians could have been involved in a beating. I said nothing to that effect
or in any way implied it, yet you presume. I never said that I am Christian, nor support Christianity,
yet you prejudge. You sound like you have plenty of bias, maybe not based on race, but still bigotry
against a group of people. Does the shoe fit you? You answer that for yourself honestly, if you can.
I apologize if the above hypothetical discussion about you is offensive to you, if it is not deserved.
Peace!
Yes, I’m judging based on the space you overwhelmingly devote to disparaging the victim rather than denouncing the crime. The ratio is striking: approximately 10:1. Half that would still be very significant. How much do you think you can edge out by counting commas and empty spaces? Are you really unaware how much you’re straining?
You have now broached the issue of racism, by turning it around and accusing me of it. That’s fine. It’s typical and symptomatic of the type of racist you appear to be that they immediately project criticism back outward onto others. “No,” they’ll say reflexively, “it’s the people accusing ME of racism that are the REAL racists.”
But let’s look at the racism you accuse me of: Your accusation is based on my supposed assumption “that [you] have doubt that self-proclaimed Christians could have been involved in a beating.”
That is not an assumption, it is an observation. You certainly do doubt that the attacks occurred at all, which is why you take great pains to emphasize that they are “alleged” attacks.
Your bias is obvious from your comments, which focus overwhelmingly on impugning the victim of an “alleged” attack by violent religious extremists. Do you “blame the victim” in precisely those words? Perhaps not, but you take every opportunity, use all possible rhetorical slant, to divert criticism from the attackers onto the victim.
Racists never admit to “blaming the victim.” They’ll always say they’re just “telling the objective truth” or “looking at all the facts.” Their racism is embedded so deeply in their world view that it just seems to them like everyday common sense, so they think anybody who doesn’t share their racist point of view is just not looking at reality.
That’s you in a nutshell, and I’m not saying that based on assumptions I never made about your racial or religious identity. I’m saying that based on the not at all subtle rhetorical slant of your comments, which reveals a bias toward America’s enemies in the struggle against violent religious extremism.
Ray,
It’s hard to objectively respond when your comments appear to be from someone living in a dream reality.
I find it hard to believe that you are as naive as your comments would lead one to believe, but I’ll
have to take them in the spirit of what they intend.
I dont’ disparage the alleged victim at all. If his words seem to disparge him to you, then I
guess that’s just the effect of his own words. My listing them are not disparaging him, they are merely
his own words.
I’m not the one who is “alleging” that he was actually attacked. Our US legal system is at this
point investigating that. If someone is “charged” with this crime, they are still presumed innocent
until proven guilty. Do you have a problem with the American system of justice? Do you want all “criminals”
immediately assumed guilty and placed into prison? In today’s America, that would immediately implicate
a large number of the African-American population that is accused of crimes. Is that what you therefore propose?
That could be assumed a bit racist.
I doubt that you could objectively state that you don’t consider my comments as “Christian-based”. Please,
deny that unieqivocably if you dare. If you dare, then explain what you think my “bias” would be based on.
Do you think a Muslim is going to be defending an alleged Christian attacker? Do you think a Buddisht is defending
an alleged Christian attacker? Do you show anywhere where “I” have defended any attacker, for that matter?
Your’re right in one regard. Prejudiced people are very unlikely to admit their prejudices. Are you ready
to admit yours?
Peace!
Also, placing human beings “in a nutshell” is indicative of not taking the time to understand or research fully.
Of course you think I’m living in a “dream reality.” Racists like you equate their own twisted world view with objective reality and common sense. Your relationship with racism is like a fish’s relationship with water–it pervades you, and the way you see your surroundings, to the extent that you don’t even realize it’s there.
You simply won’t face up to what you have said in the past:
Post 45: “I don’t disparage the alleged victim at all.”
Post 26: “It was Mirecki’s out-of-class remarks that showed clearly that his educational integrity was sorely lacking.”
Post 26: “His approach to education: D-”
Post 17: “As far the the ‘perfesser’, he didn’t have enough gonads to stick to his anti-religious viewpoint publically, when the going got tough.”
Those are but a few of the dozens of disparaging comments you made about the victim. Those are your words, not his. You are lying.
Do you honestly think you are being straightforward about what you have said? This is as absurd as asking me to count your commas.
Objectively, I have no way of knowing your ethnic or religious identity. Nor have I ever assumed it, or assumed that your comments had any basis in your religion or ethnicity. For all I know or have ever assumed, you could be a self-loathing secular humanist.
I accuse you of racism based not on who you are, but on what you say. When you focus 10:1 on disparaging the “alleged” victim of violent religious fundamentalists, you have made your prejudice very, very clear.
And before you accuse me of hypocrisy, yes, I am disparaging you. I am not disparaging you on the basis of your race, religion, gender, nationality or sexual orientation. I know nothing of these things, and have never assumend them. Nor am I disparaging you to distract attention from attacks by violent ideological extremists.
I am disparaging you for being a racist, and for failing–through the indulgence of your own prejudice–to even recognize the enemies in the global war on violent religious extremism, much less join in the struggle against them.
Ray,
I speak of your ‘dream reality’ for a couple of very good reasons.
First, I was not even posting to make a point about the beating of the professor and violence in general.
You take my original remarks completely away from their topic, which was to refute the original poster’s claim that Mirecki’s course was withdrawn because conservative religious fundamentalists “..said his course offended their moral values.” I maintain he withdrew the course not because of its content or title (which the University fully supported) but instead because of remarks that he made that showed his intention was not to educate, but to in effect create a media circus around the topic of ID.
Because of his expressed desire, I raise the topic that perhaps this alleged beating was a ploy of his to
bring further “much media attention” (his words again). If you don’t share this skepticism, that’s fine, but in no way does my focus on skepticism regarding the event become a justification for his beating. You make that assumption, incorrectly.
My comments in reaction to Jim’s diversionary remarks was to continue to focus on what I said, which was that Jim makes a mistake in claiming why Mirecki withdrew the course. This again has nothing directly to do with the beating incident. It is you that is trying to tie the two topics together.
You’re free to get as nutty as you want, including telling me to move to Iran too. This country doesn’t have mental hospitals like it used to anyway.
I find it a bit amusing that you won’t admit that you’ve prejudged me as being of Christian belief.
“self-loathing secular humanist”? You do make me chuckle! Oh well, it’s amazing how well your own
‘swimming in’ remarks fits you. With your definition of ‘racism’, I think it has to be pretty clear what you think I am, unless you come up with some other twisted subplot.
But OK, I can give you so far whatever you want in your game. But let’s see if your pretzel logic (apologies to SD) can actually work to brand me a racist. I’m giving this far more ink than it possibly deserves, but here goes:
You say I am a racist. Your theory is based on ‘what I say’.
Your argument for the topic of racism is: “But apparently if you pray to Allah, it’s okey-dokey to do that to you, but if you’re a violent religious extremist who says “Jesus” when he prays, gosh, harsh words are going too far! ”
This appears to mean that one who condemns the religion of Islam, while embracing Christianity, is therefore racist.
This logic can by itself be taken apart a lot of ways. I won’t even bother to ‘debate’ with you all of the reasons why. First, Islam is a religion, not a racial characteristic. Maybe you’ve heard of black Americans who are Muslim. Maybe you’re heard of white Americans who are Jewish or even Devil-worshippers. Saying it is ‘racism’ doesn’t always hold water, since Muslims can be of many ethnicities.
In this particular Mirecki case, the alleged perps were described as white men in a pickup truck. Did this
mean that they pray to Jesus? They weren’t possibly Jews or something else? Another prejudice.
So finally, even if you want to believe that I’ve somehow defended Christianity by pointing out the real reason why Mirecki withdrew the course and ultimately resigned, you’ll have to provide the other
side of the stick: Where do you see me giving Muslims a hard time? Even if Islam was a race instead of
a religion (and I’ll remind you that if you think anyone who ‘looks’ Muslim must be, and therefore it’s a racial thing, I’ll show you plenty of people with similar racial characteristics who don’t pray to the same deity) I’ve never made a single remark about religious extremists from that area of the world.
Where does anything I’ve said or quoted bring about the belief that I’d like to persecute Muslim men?
Come on, bring something out where you can reasonably infer that. If you just have a ‘belief’, then you
are dropping to a level far below creationist nonsense.
I sincerely hope that you swallow hard and start connecting the dots on paper, not just the ones in your head.
You sound like you think you’ve got the powers of a medium.
Peace!
“I was not even posting to make a point about the beating of the professor and violence in general.”
You are right. You were not posting to denounce violence on the part of religious extremists. You were posting to discredit the victim of what you take pains to specify as an “alleged” attack by religious extremists.
I stand by my comments in post 19. Those comments were not directed at you specifically, but in general at a revolting racism that pervades American thinking.
If the American government suspects a Muslim of being a threat, they will grab them and dump them in a legal black hole where they can be tortured with impunity, even if they are American citizens.
Unless of course you’re a privileged white hot tubber from Marin County, California by the name of John Walker Lindh, who was captured right on the battlefield bearing arms against American troops, in which case you get swift access to the courts and get off with a plea bargain.
Heaven forbid, though, you’re a poor hispanic kid from Chicago by the name of Jose Padilla–you’ll get grabbed at the airport and shipped off without so much as a charge being filed, and held by the DOD (that’s right, the Department of Defense, not the police, not the courts). By the time they even schedule a trial for you, John Walker Lindh will have served out almost half his low-ball plea-bargained sentence.
When we think Muslim insurgents are hiding in a city in Iraq, we go house to house binding, hooding, and interrogating men and teenage boys while we hold the women and children at gunpoint. If we don’t think house-to-house raids are enough, we “shake ‘n’ bake” whole cities–white phosphorous to burn people alive and high explosives to kill them.
But when good ol’ white American boys like McVeigh and the Nichols brothers blow up the Oklahoma City Federal Building, we don’t “shake ‘n’ bake” any cities. The Michigan Militia doesn’t get raided at gunpoint with U.S. forces hooding, interrogating, and beating people at will. Everybody’s presumed innocent until proven guilty at a fair trial.
This is racism at its most hideous. And of course, you’re right. The extreme double standard goes beyond racism to religious bias, bias on the base of national origin, etc.
And since nobody else is saying it, I will. This abject hypocritical cruelty is unworthy of the glorious history of America, the centuries of dedication to lofty ideals that–through the hard work and sacrifice of millions over hundreds of years–swept away evils like slavery and the subjugation of women that had plagued humanity for millennia.
No, this racism is unworthy of the great American tradition. It is more suited to the despicable thuggery of brutal theocratic hell-holes like Iran or Saudi Arabia. That is where it belongs.
You could have joined me in denouncing this racism, but you have not. Instead, you preferred to focus on disparaging the victim of a violent attack by religious extremists. You will have me believe that this has nothing to do with the fact that the attackers were white, or that their attack was carried out in defense of fundamnetalist Christianity. Yet when asked whether you would focus so heavily on criticizing the victim of attacks by Muslim extremists, you are silent.
It’s getting harder and harder to take any of these comments with any amount of substantiality, given
some of the more off-kilter statements presented above.
The ‘glorious history of America’ including ‘lofty ideals’?
Regarding your mention of slavery and women:
Denmark banned slavery in 1792, England in 1833. The United States was one of the LAST major countries
to enact a total ban on slavery.
Women: The US didn’t allow women to vote until 1920. Australia was almost 20 years ahead of us, in 1902.
Austria, Canada, Germany, the UK, Poland, Hungary, Russa; these and many more countries were ALL ahead
of us in granting women voting rights.
I’ve spent too much time trying to get you to think clearly. If you didn’t like the fact that I pointed out an inaccuracy
in the original post, so be it. I’ve mentioned plenty on what I thought about the violence. If I don’t parrot what comes
out of your mouth on it or anything else, I’m beginning to feel OK about that.