Skip to comments.Mirecki hospitalized after beating (KU Relig. prof. who mocked religion)
Posted on 12/05/2005 8:13:08 PM PST by Will_Zurmacht
Mirecki hospitalized after beating
By Ron Knox, Eric Weslander (Contact)
Originally published 05:37 p.m., December 5, 2005 Updated 06:31 p.m., December 5, 2005
Douglas County sheriffs deputies are investigating the reported beating of a Kansas University professor who gained recent notoriety for his Internet tirades against Christian fundamentalists.
Kansas University religious studies professor Paul Mirecki reported he was beaten by two men about 6:40 a.m. today on a roadside in rural Douglas County. In a series of interviews late this afternoon, Mirecki said the men who beat him were making references to the controversy that has propelled him into the headlines in recent weeks. Mirecki
I didnt know them, but Im sure they knew me, he said.
Mirecki said he was driving to breakfast when he noticed the men tailgating him in a pickup truck.
I just pulled over hoping they would pass, and then they pulled up real close behind, he said. They got out, and I made the mistake of getting out.
He said the men beat him about the upper body with their fists, and he said he thinks they struck him with a metal object. He was treated and released at Lawrence Memorial Hospital.
Im mostly shaken up, and I got some bruises and sore spots, he said.
Douglas County Sheriffs Officials are classifying the case as an aggravated battery. They wouldnt say exactly where the incident happened, citing the ongoing investigation
The sheriffs department is looking for the suspects, described as two white males between ages 30 and 40, one wearing a red visor and wool gloves, and both wearing jeans. They were last seen in a large pickup truck.
Anyone with information is asked to call Crime Stoppers at 843-TIPS or the sheriffs office at 841-0007.
Mirecki recently wrote online that he planned to teach intelligent design as mythology in an upcoming course. He wrote it would be a nice slap in the big fat face of fundamentalists.
The remarks caused an uproar, Mirecki apologized, and KU announced last week the class would be canceled.
Grammar? Let's not start off too fast - get the lad a spell-checker to start with.
You should read the Christ's Parable of the Weeds before contemplating murder.
Seems you've tryed it tell your bowlegged!
What the hell language is that? Form a sentence please.
Petronski,You used to be alright,What happened? The newbie is
a douche bag pure and simple,and I'll leave it at that.
I don't like your graphic at 92. I don't know the n00b, I only know the graphic at 92 is beneath us IMHO. I'll leave it at that.
The man staged this whole thing. No one beat him up. The state police need to investigate it on the basis that it was a false report.
How is that funny?
How do you spell Christianized without an 'H?'
And I will take "your" comment as an affirmative. You do support the actions of the mass murderers, grown filthy rich from their crimes that Rudolph, took them to task over.
If respecting a person who sacrificed the rest of his young life for his actions against mass murderers, makes me a sociopath-it will be interesting indeed to hear what diagnosis defending the mass murderers, merits for my accuser.
"And I will take "your" comment as an affirmative."
You would be mistaken. I am against abortion.
"If respecting a person who sacrificed the rest of his young life for his actions against mass murderers, makes me a sociopath-it will be interesting indeed to hear what diagnosis defending the mass murderers, merits for my accuser."
Yes, you are a sociopath for defending the terrorist actions of Eric Rudolph.
Thank you, then I will wear the title, "Sociopath" with pride.
"Thank you, then I will wear the title, "Sociopath" with pride."
Okay. I will allow you the last slur.
How do you spell octogenarian with an a?
Let me clarify my statement meant as /sarc. One can open their mouth and say whatever they want to say. They have the right in this country to do so, but beware, whatever one says can have unexpected consequences that one did not anticipate nor can one control.
And you're okay with that? Really? Fists as a response to speech?
It has nothing to do with having the rights to free speech. It has everthing to do with basic human interaction, ergo, my original statement was intended to point out the irony that you have rights of free speech, but if some other person gets offended by what you said, then you may pay in the end by receiving an unexpected result from voicing your free speech. You can choose your actions, but you cannot choose the consequences. That's all.
And the thug would be wrong, and he ought to spend a great deal of time behind bars.
Free speech means nothing if you think violence is an acceptable response to speech you don't like.
That kind of "free speech" isn't. It's sick. It's thuggery, and it has no place in a free society.
Moderate Fundie placemarker
I'm sorry. Were you trying to illustrate a non-sequitur?
Couple of differences here, though.
In the case of Muslim terrorists, they are picking random civilians--to KILL. And solely for not being Muslim. And then they post videos of the murder (sawing off of heads, anyone?) on the internet for the hapless victim's family to see. Or pin Muslim screeds to the victim's chest with the knife used to kill him.
And then they publically take credit.
In this case, you have a guy who was publically bragging about humiliating a certain subset of Christians.
Then he shows up with some wounds, a vague description, and alleging that Christians beat him up. This is of not much evidentiary value either way: there is a track record of all sorts of people from all different walks of life, faking assaults and attacks. No particular slur on Darwinists. But on the other hand, someone who has just been roughed up might not have known in advance what was coming, in order to pay especial attention to the make of the pickup truck, etc. So as far as that goes, it's a wash.
And in the meantime, you might note that if he WAS beat up, the perps did not videotape the beating, and did not issue public statements about "Dembski akhbar" or what ever.
Try a more reasoned approach rather than napalm--the thread will be a lot more civilized.
I am not convinced that it happened, but if it did, I expect a lot of crow to be eaten by those who are currently dancing in our virtual streets over this beating.
Given the vitriol evidenced on the crevo threads, it's more like:
Let he who has run out of stones commit the first sin.
Actually, if you think about it, the abortionists have prob'ly killed a considerable number of (would-have-been future) abortionists.
Occupation-based Darwin awards aplenty.
Except in Bill Clinton's Revised EditionTM, it says
"Now go and sin some more"
May I respectfully suggest that you stay on Free Republic to exercise your Free-Speech-Rights-to-Flame-People-on-a-moment's-noticeTM?
From what I've seen of you on your blog, it doesn't seem like you'd do too well in a physcial altercation.
Unless of course you practice your Second Amendment rights, too ;-)
--reminiscent of the fine old W.C. Fields retort ending with "...but I'll be sober in the morning!"
The old fashioned "I don't know."
Kind of in short supply on these threads...
You ought to be ashamed of those who endorse act.
can't say I dismiss this story, but...
can't say I don't have "what's the frequency, Kenneth" looping through my noggin upon reading it.
Can he tell just which version of the bible they thumped him with?
I don't think you have anything to worry about from us Christians, professor.
But if we were gone, and it was you vs. Islam, without us to defend Western Civilization, you might have some worries. You secularists are doing a pointedly lousy job of defending Western values in France, Canada, Holland, Sweden, and anyplace else Islam has taken root. You might think about the consequences of a society where it's atheism vs. Islam. Only a fool would bet against the Mullahs.
"So why are we fighting a war on terror and not on abortion."
So what's stopping YOU from being the great big war hero, aside from the fact that, by your own publicly-expressed standard, you're a physical and moral coward?
Yeah. The same "moral anchor" that supports the establishment of university classes dedicated to the ridicule of other peoples beliefs. The same "moral anchor" that equates a light pummeling with terrorism.
Maybe if you'd pull that "moral anchor" out of your behind I'll loosen that vice grip on my head.
Not here. I think the people on this thread opining Mirecki was not beaten enough, or comparing him gleefully with the 'little queer' in Wyoming, or celebrating the life of Eric Rudolph (who, let's recall, also bombed Olympic Park and a gay disco), are gasbags who'd run like dye in a cheap shirt if they heard a car backfire.
But telling me the fire is a little cooler than the frying pan isn't very inviting, A colleague of mine in a University 100 miles south of mine man, and I stress the word, have been beaten by one of you lot for speaking out, however immaturely he did so. You'll pardon me if I make up my own mind whether y'all are threats.
You're bringing terrorism into a thread about some loon who got beat up. Why? You may be a master baiter, but I'm not taking the bait. At bottom you support professors who set up classes to ridicule the beliefs of others, and then think it odd that such a professor might suffer a little punishment at the hands of other fools. You further would like to paint all Christians as complicit in such foolery, which in turn makes you no different than this goofy professor, complicit in his attempts at ridiculing others, and complicit in his attempts at painting all Christians with the broad brush of terrorism.
Your chest-beating "disgust" is hollow and disgusting in itself.
I guess if you're going to stress the word, you should spell it right.
A colleague of mine in a University 100 miles south of mine may, and I stress the word
LOL! W.C. did have a way with words.
"You ought to be ashamed of those who endorse the act."
And I am ashamed on those who endorse the act of abortion, as we all should be.
Very well. You pursue the subject of terrorism in a thread involving a possible pummeling of a loon. You appear to support the establishment of university classes intended to ridicule the beliefs of others.
As for this Eric Rudolph you reference (who was it that brought his name up?), I do not know the man. You seem keen on everything about him. Do you support him?
"Very well. You pursue the subject of terrorism in a thread involving a possible pummeling of a loon."
I DIDN'T BRING UP TERRORISM, someone else did. Learn to read.
"As for this Eric Rudolph you reference (who was it that brought his name up?), I do not know the man. You seem keen on everything about him. Do you support him?"
Have you been living under a rock for the last 10 years? Have you ever read a newspaper, watched the news, or listened to the radio? At any rate, a few of your creationist buddies know all about him and have no trouble saying they support his actions. He murdered an abortion doctor. He set off the bombs at the Atlanta Olympics. He is a terrorist. What do YOU have to say for your buddies here supporting his actions?
Because your tone is almost always vitriolic, insulting, and your initial statement was in full support of beating this guy up. You got called on it and made up some nonsense about it being sarcasm, but your initial statement was totally in character. I don't believe you because you are not honest.
There is a difference between the ACLU joining the case and the Kansas school board seeking out an alliance with Islamic clerics because of their success in getting ID taught in fundamentalist Islamic schools.
Furthermore, I don't recall anybody cheering the election of democrats to the Dover school boards. IIRC, there was more jeering than cheering. They tried to cram religion down the throats of other people's kids and every one of them got beat at election time. That they got beat by democrats, well, that's what happens when republicans try to violate the first amendment.
They were actually four Democrats and four Republicans. They ran on the Deomcrat ticket because the Republican ticket was all clogged up with creationists.
Would you please direct me toward some evidence that my friends are supporting this guy? Please provide specific details as to the nature of their support. Have they donated to his cause? Have they entered a plea in his defense? If you count a lack of condemnation as "support," then you have a problem understanding what constitutes support.
Don't worry about the spelling. I make more than my share of typos!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.