Skip to comments.KU prof's e-mail irks fundamentalists (Christian Bashing OK)
Posted on 11/25/2005 8:34:07 AM PST by Exton1
click here to read article
You again? You're really obsessed with God, aren't you? Just can't stand to allow people room for their beliefs.
"In a word: bullcrap. I know of at least a few Asatru (adherants of the Norse beliefs) right here on FR."
It's not surprising that you would accord them credibility. After all, you share the trait of being stuck in the state of adolescent rebellion against God.
"Nope. Quite a bit is known about those old religions...the followers of the Olympian and Norse gods have as much to go on as followers of the Judeo-Christian god."
Showing once again that your ignorance of that which you hate approaches totality.
Don't have to wish anything. It's a blindingly obvious fact...except perhaps to the blind.
"Asatru, for example, is officially recognized by the state in Iceland and Norway. "
So? The inmates are in charge of the asylum. The lunatic ravings of diseased minds are only taken seriously by other diseased minds.
"And the answer is: no."
Speaking of lunatic ravings...
Your attempts at insults and abuse are childish in the extreme. It's a pity.
About time someone hit the abuse button on you.
Part of right of passage is for the young to be exposed to whatever in college. Professors can and should teach courses with a point of view. College kids are not delicate china. They can handle it.
What does the unabomber think?
"Your attempts at insults and abuse"
Ah, another one who loves dishing it out, but can't take it.
"About time someone hit the abuse button on you."
Dig two graves. You've been a lot more abusive and insulting than I.
> You've been a lot more abusive and insulting than I.
Really? Don't think so. Check back when I decalre that Christianity is not a legitimate religion, or that those who do not believe as I do do so out of malice or immorality, or that those who do not believe as I do are raving lunatics.
You, sir, do not suffer from the sin of "pride." You *revel* in it. You wallow in pride. Your self-worship is rather blinding.
But do as you will. The best arguement your opponents can make is to display your own posts; hopefully that won't tarnish the conservative movement too much.
"Conservatives are fools."
Frightenly close to Earth in the Balance.
"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."
Oh come on you moron.
Anybody can sign on to a Yahoo message board unless your board had restricted membership. And even then, you just have to request permission and 9 times out of 10, you will get approved without any effort or having to prove who you are.
The idea this was unethical is ridiculous.
FYI, it took almost zero effort on my part and guess what, this is the group he was a part of:
just for professors, just atheists. According to a person posting on another site, until recently, the messages WERE VIEWABLE BY ANYBODY GOING TO THE SITE.
As of now, they are restricted to members only.
For those interested, here is his full post, with some cussing removed:
"Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005
Subject: I.D. & Creationism class to be taught at KU this spring!
To my fellow damned,
Its true, the fundies have been wanting to get I.D. and creationism into the Kansas public schools, so I thought "why don't I do it?"
I will teach the class, with several other lefty KU professors in the sciences and humanities. Class is:
REL 602 Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationisms and other Religious Mythologies.
Tuesdays 7:00-9:30pm. Smith Hall room 100. Open to undergrads and grads.
Enrollment limited to about 120. 3 credit hours.
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". I expect it will draw much media attention. The university public relations office will have a press release on it in a few weeks, I also have contacts at several regional newspapers.
Of course, I won't actually be teaching I.D. and creationisms, but rather I'll be teaching ABOUT I.D. and creationisms as modern mythologies, indicating that these ideas have no place in a public school science class, but can certainly be analyzed in humanities classes for their function in society. Basic approach is my usual: anthropology with a focus on religious thought and behavior.
Any ideas for textbooks, guest lecturers and panels would be appreciated.
So far, six faculty have eagerly signed up to lecture. I can probably pull Chancellor Hemenway into this also, especially in the light of his public comments supporting evolution.
Doing my part to (expletive deleted) of (sic) the religious right,
Evil Dr. P."
As it is, only Christianity is expressly forbidden to be practiced by the state, while criticism/bigotry is only allowed against Christianity.
"Really? Don't think so."
Yes, I'm aware that you are blind to your own bad behavior.
"Check back when I decalre that Christianity is not a legitimate religion"
Oh, so my remarks about religions to which you don't subscribe are abusive and insulting to you, are they?
"or that those who do not believe as I do do so out of malice or immorality, or that those who do not believe as I do are raving lunatics."
This is a good example of your primary mode of abuse and insult: restating your opponents' positions to irrational extremes that bear no reseemblance to anything they actually said, for the purpose of slurring them.
"You wallow in pride."
Yes, yes, anyone who would dare contradict the great orionblamblam is obviously afflicted by pride.
"hopefully that won't tarnish the conservative movement too much."
If anyone is harming conservatism it is you and your ilk, arguing a core tenet of leftism, and worse, doing it in the same dishonest fashion that leftists do.
>> "or that those who do not believe as I do do so out of malice or immorality, or that those who do not believe as I do are raving lunatics."
>This is a good example of your primary mode of abuse and insult: restating your opponents' positions to irrational extremes that bear no reseemblance to anything they actually said, for the purpose of slurring them.
Well, now, let's just see:
"They are whackos who have invented new cults loosely based on what we know of those religions, solely as an act of rebellion against Christianty. They are not legitimate adherents of legitimate religions."
"you share the trait of being stuck in the state of adolescent rebellion against God."
"The lunatic ravings of diseased minds are only taken seriously by other diseased minds."
You *demand* utter respect for your beliefs, even when, as with Creationism, they are entirely inconsistent with logic and facts (i.e. a little thing we call "science"). But anyone who dares follow some other religion, *especially* one you thought you had exterminated, are clearly "rebelling against Christianity," not "legitimate religions" and are "diseased minds."
Clearly, you just can't stand to allow people room for their beliefs.
True.Bread mold was around for a long time without being useful. My point is that mold is not a useful medicine, even if you know it kills bacteria. Any more than crude oil is gasoline.
the class has been pulled
"Where the partisan tunnel-visioned users of scientific work product slide into scientism is in illicitly bootlegging the scientific enterprise's contributions into arguments about meta-physical issues, where it has no special authority. "
I hope you have better luck with that argument than I've had. The only response I got to it was to be labeled a creationist.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
See the following for some good ways of approaching this point with those who are blind to their own meta-physical presuppositions, and who confuse their axioms with theorems:
Why Religion Matters: The Fate of the Human Spirit in an Age of Disbelief (Paperback)
by Huston Smith
Why Religion Matters is a passionate, accessible, ambitious manifesto written by one of the very few people qualified to address its titular topic. Huston Smith is the grand old man of religious scholarship. Raised by missionary parents in China, Smith went on to teach at M.I.T. and U.C. Berkeley, among others, and his World's Religions has long been the standard introductory textbook for college religion courses. The subject of Why Religion Matters, Smith writes, "is the importance of the religious dimension of human life--in individuals, in societies, and in civilizations." Smith believes that the religious dimension of human life has been devalued by the rise of modern science: we have now reached a point at which "modern Westerners . . . forsaking clear thinking, have allowed ourselves to become so obsessed with life's material underpinnings that we have written science a blank check ... concerning what constitutes knowledge and justified belief."
In candid, direct style, Smith describes the evolution of intellectual history from pre-modern to postmodern times, and the spiritual sensibilities that have been shunted "by our misreading of modern science." In the book's final sections, Smith avoids the folly of predicting the future, instead focusing on "features of the religious landscape that are invariant" and therefore may serve as "a map that can orient us, wherever the future may bring." This book is fresh, insightful, and important. It may prove to be as influential in shifting readers' terms of religious understanding as any of Smith's previous writings. --Paul Power--This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
From Publishers Weekly
In this challenging but accessible book, Smith ardently declaims religion's relevance, taking on luminaries, such as Carl Sagan and Stephen Jay Gould, who hold that "only matter exists" and suggest that religion relates only to "subjective experiences." Smith defines such thinking as scientism, an unfortunate worldview distinct from science, which, in and of itself, he celebrates.
But scientism, Smith says, contributes to "modernity's tunnel," a metaphorical structure that hides the metaphysical from view. He argues that "scientists who are convinced materialists deny the existence of things other than those they can train their instruments on," but in reality have "discovered nothing in the way of objective facts that counts against traditional metaphysics."
Smith's arguments are reminiscent of Philip Johnson's Darwin on Trial; in fact, he nods appreciatively to Johnson's work. However, Smith's stature as a scholar probably affords him more credibility among scientists than evangelicals such as Johnson enjoy. Moreover, Smith's disarming tone, replete with perfectly placed anecdotes and quips, tempers the audacity of his theses and the difficulty of his subject matter. While he may be vulnerable to critiques that inevitably arise when non-scientists engage and challenge scientific claims [more accurately, claims made in the name of science! - BRMG], Smith demonstrates an impressive grasp of physics and biology, and defers to scientists who share his concerns.
Most gratifyingly, after spending the book's first half implicating science, philosophy and the media in the marginalization of religion, Smith spends the second half elucidating and affirming metaphysical worldviews and imagining ways for science and religion to partner more equitably in the future.
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc.--
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.
You *demand* utter respect for your beliefs
Case in point.
I dont demand that anyone respect my beliefs; I demand only that they refrain from interfering with the free exercise thereof.
even when, as with Creationism
Im not a creationist. Ive said that often enough that you really should have been aware of that by now.
they are entirely inconsistent with logic and facts (i.e. a little thing we call "science").
No one whose capacity for rational discussion consists entirely of erecting and knocking down straw men should be bragging about logic.
But anyone who dares follow some other religion
In this discussion, I am defending the rights of people whose beliefs differ from mine; people who, in fact, I believe to be wrong.
*especially* one you thought you had exterminated
Going to add rewriting history to your other sins against reason, eh?
are clearly "rebelling against Christianity,"
Yes, they are clearly rebelling against Christianity, another blindingly obvious fact to which your prejudices blind you.
not "legitimate religions"
Youre not really equipped to understand this, but religion is not something you put on and take off like a wineem, dineem, 69em T-shirt. When people attempt to resurrect a religion that has been defunct for centuries, theyre not sincerely searching for God; theyre playing at religion for the money and sex they can get out of it.
and are "diseased minds."
The diseased minds are the government officials that accorded legitimacy to whacko cults. That was clear from my note.
Clearly, you just can't stand to allow people room for their beliefs.
As I predicted, you are equating legitimate religions and whacko cults. Hope nobody is dense enough to be taken in by that.
"See the following for some good ways of approaching this point with those who are blind to their own meta-physical presuppositions, and who confuse their axioms with theorems: "
I'll put that on my list, up near the top.
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.