Posted on 11/25/2005 8:34:07 AM PST by 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
> I don’t demand that anyone respect my beliefs; I demand only that they refrain from interfering with the free exercise thereof.
Since your view of "refrain from interfering with the free exercise" means that nobody can even call some aspect of your beliefs "mythology," while you can refer to anybody else's beliefs as "whacko cults," it's pretty clear what your demands are.
> Yes, they are clearly rebelling against Christianity
No. Just that simple... you're wrong.
> When people attempt to resurrect a religion that has been defunct for centuries, they’re not sincerely searching for God; they’re playing at religion for the money and sex they can get out of it.
It's amazing how arrogant you are that you think you know the minds of others... when it's blisteringly obvious that you do not.
> As I predicted, you are equating legitimate religions and whacko cults.
Please, do us all a favor and define, in objective and quantifiable terms, what the difference is between "religion" and "cult."
As expected, you continue to restate your opponents' positions to irrational extremes that bear no resemblance to anything they actually said, for the purpose of slurring them.
“Since your view of "refrain from interfering with the free exercise" means that nobody can even call some aspect of your beliefs "mythology,"
Case in point.
Aside from the fact that creationism is not an aspect of my beliefs, there is a great difference between “nobody can even call” and “officials of public institutions should not deliberately discriminate against certain beliefs under cover of office.”
“while you can refer to anybody else's beliefs as "whacko cults,"
I’m a private citizen in a discussion forum, not an official of a public institution abusing his authority in his role as such. In addition to which, unlike you, I am applying rational criteria in distinguishing between legitimate religions and cults.
”No. Just that simple... you're wrong.”
OOOOooooo, great argument.
“It's amazing how arrogant you are”
Gee, there I go “insulting and abusing” you again. I’m a bad boy.
“that you think you know the minds of others... when it's blisteringly obvious that you do not.”
(Snicker) I see through you like glass.
“Please, do us all a favor and define, in objective and quantifiable terms, what the difference is between "religion" and "cult.”
Who is “us all?” Are you speaking for yourself and the two mice in your pocket?
Best I can see, there are only a couple of people on FR who remain in the dark on that issue. And frankly, you’ve used up all the good will I had. Attempting to educate the ungrateful is not an exercise in which I care to persist.
> I am applying rational criteria in distinguishing between legitimate religions and cults.
Clearly not, since you are using the "whacko cult" brush rather broadly, demonstrating a severe lack of understanding of the concept.
"Clearly not, since you are using the "whacko cult" brush rather broadly, demonstrating a severe lack of understanding of the concept."
Yadada yadada yadada. Every time you use the word "clearly," it's a sure bet that nonsense will follow.
Now, take the last word, then stop annoying the adults.
Please, do us all a favor and define, in objective and quantifiable terms, what the difference is between "religion" and "cult."
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.