Skip to comments.Religious Studies Prof Slurs Christians and Jews
Posted on 12/01/2005 1:06:53 PM PST by Jo Nuvark
Religious studies professor slurs Christians, Jews Exclusive: Jack Cashill exposes pattern of ridicule, insulting comments--WND
"The KU faculty has had enough," Mirecki announced when he went public 10 days ago with a new course offering. He designed the course as a direct response to the Kansas School Board's recent decision to allow for critiques of Darwinism in public-school classrooms. Mirecki titled it, "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Unfortunately, this statement seems to make a lot of sense. It's hard to see how this professor can be considered "serious and intellectually honest" in his chosen field of study.
Which raises the question, why did he choose to become a Religious Studies prof to begin with?
You are correct. Did you read the part where the school used to be a seminary? Something went waaaay off course here. I have friends who have innocently taken religion classes that undermined their faith. Mirecki is an imposter as are many who call themselves "educators". No offense to the genuine educators out there.
Religious Studies department? Anti-God belief? When your in a place where the existence of God is not only denied, but there is open hostility toward even the slightest suggestion that a "Higher power" may even exist, the phrase "Religious Studies looses all credibility.
Notice how Atheist can't handle the "burden of proof" factor while trying to pawn their bile beliefs on others? There answer? Cease ALL DEBATE on the Existence of God, Force it out of the Public Arena.
This anti-God scroll has been rolling out for a long time. It is amazing that even the illiterate come to terms with the existence of God. It is the scholarly who struggle. The foolish will confound the wise.
"It's not that I'm afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it happens."
Faith is a gift that is bestowed on the foolish, ignorant...and geniuses. Some of the brightest minds that ever existed were true believers. There are athiest ignoramuses too.
The disturbing part is the anti-God parts played by the ACLU, the media and the federal and state judges. It is especially anti-Christian and virulently anti-Catholic.
There was a statement by Judge Napolitano (O'Reilly Factor) that said that 77% of the Supreme Court judges have been (and are) either Catholic or Jewish. I thought that was interesting.
It would be interesting to see how that showed through, if it did, with all the U.S. federal judges. Their interpretation of law always depends on point of view because "strict" interpretation of the Constitution has changed radically over the centuries....which says that there really is no absolute "strict" interpretation of the Constitution beyond personal opinion. So, in the end, the PERSONAL values, ethics and religion of judges WOULD affect their attitude toward current laws.
I am all for the government butting out of moral (religion) issues. The young and Biblically illiterate trust our government to make lawful decisions, but it is no guarantee the decisions will agree with God.
Many people are culturally Jewish or catholic. Faith and obedience to God is not even a consideration.
I am NOT at all for the government butting out of moral issues.
If the Founding Fathers wanted government "butting out of moral (religion) issues" there would not have been a Constitution. Laws are founded on the understood (through shared religious convictions) concensus of right and wrong.
Religion tells us what is right and wrong.
A government with a sense of right and wrong based on moral relativity (greed, power, fads, etc.) is no government at all....just a collection of power mongers who do whatever it takes to stay in power.
1. Murder. If the morons of moral relativity had their way "Tookie" (the monster) Williams would not be on his way to his rightful execution. He would be set free, after four murders.
2. Abortion. Murdering our own most helpless and innocent children because they are inconventient or imperfect would be considered right by all the judges and lawmakers.
3. Same-sex marriage. Giving homosexuals the license to marry would open the Pandora's box to what India has in the way of legal marriages--
a. four wives/one husband
b. multiple husbands/one wife
c. child marriages, 11-year-olds marrying 12-year-olds or marrying 60-year-olds
d. Farsi marriages, any union but mother-son
Societies like ours draw our laws from our religious, moral codes.
Moral absolutes/moral imperatives sound harsh only to the young, stupid, foolish or moral relativists.
[...NOT at all for the government butting out of moral issues...]
If we agree that the moral baseline is the Bible, then we have no argument. But in this post Judeo-Christian era, the moral baseline has become relativism and secular humanism. I'm saying we cannot trust the government to rightly interpret the Constitution. Dennis Prager said it much better than I.
The left thinks legally, the right thinks morally
Posted: September 21, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Dennis Prager
To understand the worldwide ideological battle especially the one between America and Western Europe and within America itself one must understand the vast differences between leftist and rightist worldviews and between secular and religious (specifically Judeo-Christian) values.
One of the most important of these differences is their attitudes toward law. Generally speaking, the Left and the secularists venerate, if not worship, law. They put their faith in law both national and international. Law is the supreme good. For most on the Left, "Is it legal?" is usually the question that determines whether an action is right or wrong.
To the Left, legality matters most, while to the Right, legality matters far less than morality. To the Right and to the religious, the law, when it is doing its job, is only a vehicle to morality, never a moral end in itself. Even the Left has to acknowledge this. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Ala., bus in 1955, she violated the law. Therefore, anyone who thinks she did the right thing is acknowledging that law must be subservient to morality.
Hey D, I have been meaning to ask you. Although this guy is now faking a hate crime (or maybe not), I have been thinking of you since this story came out. How the hell does an anti-Christian bigot get to be the head of the effing "Religious Studies" department? I thought you or Paul R. would have an answer for me. Anyway, have a good Christmas and I hoep your family is well.