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 sheriff’s 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
Mirecki
“I didn’t know them, but I’m 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.
“I’m mostly shaken up, and I got some bruises and sore spots,” he said.
Douglas County Sheriff’s Officials are classifying the case as an aggravated battery. They wouldn’t say exactly where the incident happened, citing the ongoing investigation
The sheriff’s 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 sheriff’s 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.
Can I correct you there?
There was no blood.
You're trying to have it both ways here: "If it happened, I'm going to gloat and gloat, but if it didn't, well, I'm covered there too because I'm skeptical."
Who's gloating? I understand that all groups have scumbags in them. I have never associated them with all creationists, or tarred all creationists with this brutish brush.
What I have done is taken creationists to task for comments made on these boards, from gleefully cheering these scumbags to simply remaining silent and not condemning them. Posters here are responsible (and only responsible) for what they say and do on these boards.
If I'm qualifying, it's because I reserve judgment until the facts are in. Unlike the posters here who glorify this violence....
Who has condemned Rudolph and bombing abortion clinics on this thread? Not you. Not your buddies. They have praised him. They brought up bombing as a legitimate tactic. I didn't bring it up. That you have nothing at all negative to say about their statements or the actions of Rudolph says a lot. And none of it is good.
And yet, those are the same people who will deny the presence of moderate Muslims and ask why they haven't condemned the violent tactics done in the name of their faith....
I'm new to Free Republic.
This is an interesting read.
Back to the top.
How do you know who they are or what they believe or whether or not they are trolls?
from gleefully cheering these scumbags
What scumbags?
to simply remaining silent and not condemning them.
Condemning whom? It is impossible to condemn that which does not exist.
Posters here are responsible (and only responsible) for what they say and do on these boards.
And yet you attempt to use their posts against others of their ilk, as you define ilk.
Posters here are responsible (and only responsible) for what they say and do on these boards.
And yet you attempt to use their posts against others of their ilk, as you define ilk.
Yes, posters are responsible for what they say or in some cases refuse to say on these boards.
Anyone who rejoices in the beating of another human being because of a political difference deserves to be called on it, and those who refuse to condemn such a beating deserve to be called on that as well.
Who has condemned Bubblehead Mirecki for setting up university classes to ridicule the beliefs of others? Not you. Not your buddies.
Rudolph is not germane to this discussion. He is a red herring. I'll reserve my comments regarding Rudolph for an occasion that merits such comments.
No, I never said that. I merely made the point of fact that one can say anything one pleases but will reap the consequences whether expected or unexpected. I never said the consequences were warranted, legal, or necessary. (p>If you disagree, then go shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater and see if you don't reap the consequences.
So do you believe that those consequences are in any way right or justified? Not for "Fire" in a theater but for political speech?
No, it is not. That is why I find the subject to be unrelated to the topic at hand. You seem to enjoy it, however. Perhaps your "moral anchor" has become unchained.
Please re-read my previous response.I answered that question clearly.
Then by your silence you are complicit in the consequences. Denounce this act of terrorism, or else . . . ! /s
"No, it is not. That is why I find the subject to be unrelated to the topic at hand."
The topic we were discussing is post 461 when one of your creationist buddies said that blowing people up was just fine. I DIDN'T BRING IT UP. Nobody forced him to bring it up; nobody goaded him into it. He offered it up freely. That you refuse to deal with the post, and the subsequent posts that praised blowing people up, and specifically the actions of Eric Rudolph, says much about either your moral cowardice, or your moral depravity. You can't even bring it upon yourself to condemn the actions of terrorists.
By the way, do you consider Kansas University religious studies professor's "tirades against Christian fundamentalists" as political speech? I don't. Slander perhaps, hate speech perhaps, but not political speech. There's nothing political about it. What if his tirades advocated the extermination of all Jews, etc.? Is that political speech? What makes political speech different than any other speech? Just wondering.
Please re-read the first word in my response in post #670 There's my answer. Or were you yanking my chain? :-)
No. You have been making post 461 your topic of choice. Once that post appreared you decided to railroad the thread into a discussion about terrorism. There are other threads to discuss terrorism. You can even start your own thread about Eric Rudolph and invite the rest of us to posit our opinions about the guy.
For the the time being I would simply like to know why you and your cheerleaders have refrained from criticizing this loopy professor for setting up a class dedicated toward the ridicule of people with different beliefs. I would also like to know how you fail to recognize the connection between his inflammatory remarks and the potential for physical recourse on the part of looopy fanatics.
The "/s" means I'm yanking your chain.
By the way, do you consider Kansas University religious studies professor's "tirades against Christian fundamentalists" as political speech? I don't. Slander perhaps, hate speech perhaps, but not political speech.
Hate speech? Hate speech? Since when do conservatives believe in "hate speech"?
That tells me all I need to know.
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.