KU prof's e-mail irks fundamentalists (Christian Bashing OK)

Wichita Eagle ^ | 25 Nov 2005 | Associated Press

[Exton1]

KU prof's e-mail irks fundamentalists

http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/living/religion/13252419.htm

Associated Press

LAWRENCE - Critics of a new course that equates creationism and intelligent design with mythology say an e-mail sent by the chairman of the University of Kansas religious studies department proves the course is designed to mock fundamentalist Christians.

In a recent message on a Yahoo listserv, Paul Mirecki said of the course "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationisms and Other Religious Mythologies":

"The fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category mythology."

He signed the note "Doing my part (to upset) the religious right, Evil Dr. P."

Kansas Provost David Shulenburger said Wednesday that he regretted the words Mirecki used but that he supported the professor and thought the course would be taught in a professional manner.

"My understanding was that was a private e-mail communication that somehow was moved out of those channels and has become a public document," Shulenburger said.

The course was added to next semester's curriculum after the Kansas State Board of Education adopted new school science standards that question evolution.

The course will explore intelligent design, which contends that life is too complex to have evolved without a "designer." It also will cover the origins of creationism, why creationism is an American phenomenon and creationism's role in politics and education.

State Sen. Karin Brownlee, R-Olathe, said she was concerned by Mirecki's comments in the e-mail.

"His intent to make a mockery of Christian beliefs is inappropriate," she said.

Mirecki said the private e-mail was accessed by an outsider.

"They had been reading my e-mails all along," he said. "Where are the ethics in that, I ask."

When asked about conservative anger directed at him and the new course, Mirecki said: "A lot of people are mad about what's going on in Kansas, and I'm one of them."

Mirecki has been taking criticism since the course was announced.

"This man is a hateful man," said state Sen. Kay O'Connor, R-Olathe. "Are we supposed to be using tax dollars to promote hatred?"

But others support Mirecki.

Tim Miller, a fellow professor in the department of religious studies, said intelligent design proponents are showing that they don't like having their beliefs scrutinized.

"They want their religion taught as fact," Miller said. "That's simply something you can't do in a state university."

Hume Feldman, associate professor of physics and astronomy, said he planned to be a guest lecturer in the course. He said the department of religious studies was a good place for intelligent design.

"I think that is exactly the appropriate place to put these kinds of ideas," he said.

John Altevogt, a conservative columnist and activist in Kansas City, said the latest controversy was sparked by the e-mail.

"He says he's trying to offend us," Altevogt said. "The entire tenor of this thing just reeks of religious bigotry."

Brownlee said she was watching to see how the university responded to the e-mail.

"We have to set a standard that it's not culturally acceptable to mock Christianity in America," she said.

University Senate Executive Committee Governance Office - 33 Strong Hall, 4-5169

Faculty

SenEx Chair

Joe Heppert, jheppert@ku.edu , Chemistry, 864-2270 Ruth Ann Atchley, ratchley@ku.edu , Psychology, 864-9816 Richard Hale, rhale@ku.edu ,Aerospace Engineering, 864-2949 Bob Basow, basow@ku.edu , Journalism, 864-7633 Susan Craig, scraig@ku.edu , Art & Architecture, 864-3020 Margaret Severson, mseverson@Ku.edu , Social Welfare, 864-8952
University Council President Jim Carothers, jbc@ku.edu , English 864-3426 (Ex-officio on SenEx)

Paul Mirecki, Chair The Department of Religious Studies, 1300 Oread Avenue, 102 Smith Hall, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Kansas,Lawrence, KS 66045-7615 (785) 864-4663 Voice (785) 864-5205 FAX rstudies@ku.edu

[dsc]

"Nope. Mockery = Persecution isn't an opinion... it's nonsense...In that case, there is little point in further debate with you..."

Who are you trying to kid? You're not trying to debate with me. You have yet even to acknowledge the argument I actually made, instead constructing distortions such as the one quoted above, and shooting down your own straw men.

You unwittingly demonstrate that you are firing blindly rather than debating, rather than responding to arguments actually advanced, with the last few words of your note: "...when it's not being forced on anyone."

In my discussion of the cases in which mockery can rise to the level of persecution, I specified precisely those cases in which it is being forced on people. Had you read and comprehended those arguments, you'd have known that.

But you didn't read and comprehend what I said, so you didn't know that. Didn't bother you, though. You just kept setting up the straw men.

You did get one thing right: since you lack either the brainpower or the intellectual honesty to address the arguments actually made, there's no point in continuing.

[AmishDude]

I understand now. I just view Newton as a mathematician with some interest in physics.

I see now that you view him as a prophet.

[donh]

...of in Newton's philosophy.

Sigh.

[AmishDude]

Shakespeare, chief. I was paraphrasing Shakespeare.

You know what? Forget it. Never mind. It's all obviously over your head.

[donh]

You know what? Forget it. Never mind. It's all obviously over your head.

No doubt.

[donh]

There are many things in heaven and earth, donh, than are dreamt of in Newton's philosophy.

Consult your buddy AmishDude about the heinous crime of referring to me without pinging me.

[orionblamblam]

> I see now that you view him as a prophet.


What the *hell* are you talking about? I was pointing out that Newton was *wrong* on a number of things, and incomplete on others.

[AmishDude]

You know what? I'm tired. I'm also very sorry. I misread your post entirely and it is my fault.

[KC_Conspirator]

The guy who sent the email mocking religion wasn't just any old liberal prof. He is . . . the chairman of the religious studies department!

Yes, whiskey tango foxtrot is this bigot doing chairing the religious department? He needs to lose his job yesterday.

[aNYCguy]

Tell ya what. Come to Raleigh, NC. I'll meet you personally. It'd be a pleasure.

Can I come too? I've always wanted to attend the Raleigh Easter Eggstravaganza.

[aNYCguy]

It's not a comparison; it's a demonstration that speech can rise to the level of religious persecution. That done, one can next proceed to ask whether the present case so rises.

It could be reasonably argued that singling out a student for scathing insults based on their religious beliefs denies that student equal access to education. Good luck convincing a court that the existence of a college course which refers to supernatural legends as "myths" denies anyone equal access to education under the law.

Again, if I belong to a religion whose myths deny the existence of mass, am I being persecuted by the existence of physics courses?

this school is offering a class within the Religion department that labels ID and Creationism as myths. It is analogous to the Psychology department offering a course titled, "Atheism and Other Perversions."

Christian Creationism, as a traditional supernatural story which explains origins and world view, is a myth as surely as are other forms of Creationism. This is a fact. But to call something a myth is not ipso facto denigration, as is calling something a "perversion."

[orionblamblam]

> I'm also very sorry.

Hey, no sweat. Accidents happen, mistakes are made. How else do we explain Clinton winning *twice?*

[orionblamblam]

> He needs to lose his job yesterday.

What? Does a chair of a religious studies department need to accept *all* religious teachings? Or can he not determine what is and what is not myth?

Would you make the same arguement against him if he had a class that taught, say, that Muhammad pointing at the moon and causing it to split in half was a myth, or calling Scientologist E-Meters quackery?

[AmishDude]

Thanks. But there's no excuse. I should be more careful before I spout off in a huff. Or even a half of a huff. Thank you for understanding.

[orionblamblam]

> I should be more careful before I spout off in a huff.

Bah. Where's the fun in *that*?

[AndrewC]

It was a mistake. Thank you for your polite, straightforward and relevant correction.

And thank you for the same.

[grey_whiskers]

I looked up the page source for the laughing face in your post near post 557.

It includes break clear="all"...

What does that do specifically?

Cheers!

[Mamzelle]

Aw. You got to pop the cherry.

[grey_whiskers]

...of in Newton's philosophy.

Sigh.

Given that Newton is associated with classical physics, and we are considering how that is outmoded, shouldn't your reply read:

Y ...?

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

How else do we explain Clinton winning *twice?*

Rush Limbaugh called it the arousal gap.

(See an earlier post in this thread where I explain that G.K. Chesterton wanted to deny women suffrage, on the grounds that the voting power in the body politic would discourage women from exercising political power by persuading their husbands.)

Cheers!