Posted on 12/01/2005 7:24:47 AM PST by Lobbyist
The Harvard-educated Paul Mirecki serves as the head of the Religious Studies Department at Kansas University – at least for the time being. By the time a KU administrator finishes reading this article – much of the information revealed here for the first time – Mirecki's job may be in jeopardy. If he continues in his post, it will be further proof of the double standard that universities maintain when it comes to the question of "hate speech."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I'd rather be a fundie than a faggie. And, btw - what is an athiest doing as the head of the religious studies department? That's like having Michael Moore run the health food store, or Hillary own a Beauty Salon.
> It's amazing how fearful atheists are of God and the Bible.
Amazing that there's almost no fear whatsoever?
> If it's just a fairy story like Harry Potter or the Legend of King Arthur or the Greek mythologies then why such an intense desire to refute it?
Because believers in King Arthur and the Greek myths don;t generally control school boards.
> What are they so afraid of? Surely not God!
Correct. Atheists do not fear what they believe does not exist.
> what is an athiest doing as the head of the religious studies department?
Why not? Would you put a Scientologist, say, in charge of a department that teaches about Hinduism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Christianity?
I don't see where Intelligent Design and biology are mutually exclusive.
I may be missing some fundamental tenets of intelligent design, but it seems to me that the idea that a Supreme Being established the processes by which biology works, and by which evolution is thought to have progressed, does not conflict with any bit of proven science.
(Of course, it could conceivably conflict with some theory, but, until a theory is proven, it remains just that - a theory)
If that were all that ID is, few of us would have any problem with it, though it shouldn't be taught in science class, since the above is a metaphysical and untestable contention.)
My point was that the same people who are aghast at an atheist teaching religious studies, insist that someone who rejects the fundamental principles of modern biology be allowed to teach it.
I won't say you've proven my point (that atheists actually fear God, which is why they seem to have such a strong desire to deny His existence), but you definitely provide an additional data point in support of it.
Why such an intense need to argue with those who believe in God?
That headline was funny, noting that the atheist prof's e-mail had irked "fundamentalists".
The thing liberals, both in and out of the media, never recognize is that one can be a fundamentalist atheist, and Mirecki clearly is such a "fundie".
This whole idea about atheists and secularists being "open-minded freethinkers" is just nonsense. I remember years ago reading a news report on a pro-life referendum victory in Ireland. The reporter (pro-abortion, as usual) blamed the pro-life win on people in rural Ireland, whose minds were supposedly under the control of the Catholic Church. The pro-abortion voters weren't thought to be under any control at all. They had, supposedly, voted the way they did because they independently and open-mindedly concluded ("rationally", of course) that abortion was a fine thing.
But that was just the usual self-absorbed atheist/secularist nonsense. Such people are just as fundamentalist and just as much prone to being influenced and even controlled by outside ideas than the so-called religious fanatics, if not more so. Go to any message board or thread with a lot of atheists on it and they all pat each other on the back, fully agree with one another, and generally take their position from the prevailing zeitgeist, which is what "controlled" the votes of those pro-abortion voters in Ireland.
Atheists are, in fact, quite easily herded.
I would have to be very suspicious of professors who spend their lives studying religions, yet do not believe in God.
I do not know how you teach religion outside the bounds of faith. If they are approaching it as strictly mythology, then it really isn't being taught as religion. And their courses should not be in a religious studies department, but should be part of departments that study mythology.
Yep, and it goes deeper than that. The point of the thread was how a professor that despises religious thought chairs the dept for religious studies. KU did not place someone that appreciates people of faith, religion or its history in that position, they placed an atheist activist who despises people of faith there.
But somehow the point got lost in this thread, it has turned into a ID/Evolution debate somehow. When that happens the thread turns into a complete waste of bandwidth.
> I won't say you've proven my point
That's good, because you'd be wrong on *many* levels.
> Why such an intense need to argue with those who believe in God?
No such desire, at least on my part. However, there *is* a desire to argue with those who like to misrepresent facts or tell outright fibs.
Because the course he's teaching is called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies"?
>> Why such an intense need to argue with those who believe in God?
>No such desire, at least on my part. However, there *is* a desire to argue with those who like to misrepresent facts or tell outright fibs.
Interesting then, with SO MANY topics to choose from that are just chock full of misrepresentation and lies that you'd choose this one.
Mirecki, an atheist? Not really. His poor publication record allows a look at his real interests, viz., magic, Gnostics and apocrypha. He is in fact a heretic.
Where is Torquemada when we need him?
> Interesting then, with SO MANY topics to choose from that are just chock full of misrepresentation and lies that you'd choose this one.
Well, science is a particular interest of mine, and evolution/Creationism is one of the relatively few areas where conservatives will tell falsehoods (knowingly and otherwise) to other conservatives. So, you have the confluence of science, anti-science and internal debate.
If you know of other such topics, let me know. As to topics such as "Michael Moore tells another lie..." well, that's not really something to generate a whole lot of actual debate.
Does anyone else notice a lack of impulse control among people like this professor?
We keep hearing news reports of people not being able to contain their antagonism towards things they don't like ... like little children who have not yet learned how to control themselves.
..................
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.