Slashdot Mirror


Kansas Anti-Creationism Professor Resigns

An anonymous reader writes "A Professor of religion at University of Kansas has resigned from his position at the university because of his anti-creationism views." From the article: "Mirecki had planned to teach a course in the spring that examined creationism and intelligent design after the State Board of Education adopted science standards treating evolution as a flawed theory. Originally called 'Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies,' the course was canceled last week at Mirecki's request." The article goes on to explain that Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-Christian sentiments around to people interested in the class, and was subsequently beaten for his troubles.

172 of 1,469 comments (clear)

  1. It sounds like email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Could've used a bit of intelligent design.

    1. Re:It sounds like email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fucking evolutionalists.

      Maybe you descend from monkeys. Not me.

      Now, where have I put my banana *scratch* *scratch* ?

    2. Re:It sounds like email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      It reminds me of that t-shirt I saw--how'd it go? Oh yeah:

      "I got a teaching job at the University of Kansas and all I got was a lousy beat-down by some Christians."

    3. Re:It sounds like email by Ziviyr · · Score: 3, Funny

      Shove that, I'm going to duplicate it with some variation and see if it fares better or worse, then someone else will copy/alter the better one. Of course, someone might think they're god or something and try to make a perfect version on the first try. I'm sure my way is better, the way it really is!

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    4. Re:It sounds like email by HTTP+Error+403+403.9 · · Score: 2, Funny
      Could've used a bit of intelligent design.

      Shouldn't the higher being that designed us given us a more sturdy head to withstand beatings from fundmentalists?

      --
      I'm not a Troll, it's reverse psychology.
    5. Re:It sounds like email by theodicey · · Score: 2, Informative
      He sent it to the local skeptic's society. A private forum, with no expectation of its becoming public.

      Of course, the local fundies had a stooge on the email list, and used their normal right-wing media outlets to stage a bogus controversy.

    6. Re:It sounds like email by Elektroschock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, I am very concerned to see pseudo-science infiltrate the United States and when scientists are depicted as anti-Cristians because they support views which are commonly accepted among educated people I wonder what direction the US will go. What next?

      Perhaps improvement in theological education is the first step. Enlightment reloaded. If uneducated preachers spread unenlighted views and therefore a kind of scum of public opinion undermines real science, it is time to think why people in other Christian countries in the world do not even talk about this bullshit. I mean, the US is not Iran...

      Proper university education for preachers and scientific reflection on theological issues and "Christian" pseudoscience will fade away.

    7. Re:It sounds like email by Jaysyn · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, but if they do it long enough, then that trait would probably eventually evolve, thus proving our point.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    8. Re:It sounds like email by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I mean, the US is not Iran...
      Yeah, for now...
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    9. Re:It sounds like email by ocelotbob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The email he wrote was tactless and ill-timed, plain and simple. He knows he's in a controversial position right now, he should have had an ounce of common sense and written his feelings in a much more...political...tone. There were definitely better ways to express his opinion than the email he sent out, which smacked of the same tones and language that he criticizes fundamentalists of using.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    10. Re:It sounds like email by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A lot of the problem comes from certain "evangelical" sects of Christianity who teach a literal read of the bible, and don't require any special course of study for their priests...That is to say, they believe everything in the Bible is literally true, and that you don't need to be taught how to preach, or how to read/interpret the bible, in order to be a priest. It's extremely anti-intellectual.

      The Southern Baptists, in particular are almost post-rational when it comes to any sort of reasoned argument. It's amusing in a sad/scary sort of way.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    11. Re:It sounds like email by TimTheFoolMan · · Score: 5, Informative

      As a card-carrying Southern Baptist, I'd like to say that I'm insulted, but sadly, your assessment is more true than not. We have, particularly in the last 20 years, taken on an anti-intellectualism stance that borders on the kind of thing that you see in HS jocks, where they apparently take their pride in NOT being intellectual. It's as if being educated about science and history (meaning, using books other than The Bible) becomes an immediate mark of suspicion.

      Fortunately, the history of the Baptist denomination is one of independent behavior, so we have no pope or central authority figure who can tell us what to believe, or what creed we have to sign up for in order to stay members of a Baptist church. (I could go into great detail about some of the finer points of Baptist tradition that demonstrate this kind of independent thinking, but that's a bit OT... not Old Testament.)

      As it stands today, much of the work that had been done in integrating pastoral care with well-researched psychology is virtually out of the cirriculum in most of our seminaries. Sadly, the work of Baptist leaders and theologians in the 50's, 60's, and early 70's has been cast aside by a large segment of our denomination in favor of segregating language/theology, and radically poor politics.

      In spite of this, there are a few of us left who still think for ourselves, so please hesitate to flip the bozo bit on all of us just yet.

      Tim

    12. Re:It sounds like email by harp2812 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've always enjoyed the "controversial" profs... however I've found that most of my profs simply beat their beliefs into the students, and berate anyone who questions what the prof holds to be true. My professors frequently push their own beliefs and then use grades to enforce it,.. any complaints to the University are returned "inconclusive", assuming you get a response at all. Those profs who push the students to question *everything*, are few and far between in my experience, but often the most fun to take classes from. (YMMV)

      --
      I've found that nurturing one's Zen nature is vital to dealing with technology. Violence is pretty damn useful too.
    13. Re:It sounds like email by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Nah. When you go back to the fundamentals of atheism, all you have is no belief in a god or gods.

      a = "without"
      theism = "belief in a god or gods"
      a-theism = "without belief in a god or gods"

      As a fundamentalist atheist myself, I'm perfectly prepared to say there might be one. In fact, might be two or three. Or 42. Or thousands of them.

      But since none have shown their heads, or their works, around my neck of the woods there is no point in getting all tangled up in some belief without a reasonable basis in objective fact to reason from. So I keep the idea in the same drawer with other ideas that require extraordinary evidence, such as pink unicorns, UFOs and telepathy. Sure would be interesting to see. When and if that happens, I'll re-evaluate the situation.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    14. Re:It sounds like email by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful
      how are you any different when you are also saying that you are right and they are wrong without a second though?

      Here's the short version:

      Most atheists have gone on to 2nd thought, and further. Seriously.

      Now, if I say to you, "Yesterday, I had a ham on rye, and I got it from the deli", how likely are you to believe it? Let's look at it. First, ham on rye is a reasonable foodstuff. Second, delis sell this combo, and it's in the common experience of most people to have that confirmed as objective fact. Now, you don't know if I had it in fact, but inasmuch as it's a reasonable claim, you might be inclined to accept it unless it is shown that I have a habit of lying about my lunch, or it turns out that there is no deli later. ok?

      But, if I say to you, "Yesterday, I had manna from heaven, which was given me by an angel", now how seriously are you going to take me? What is manna? How often has it been noted coming from heaven? How many people have been observed to have been fed by an angel? When was the last time anyone photographed or measured an angel? Even if you skip all of that, still, are you going to take me at my word?

      I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you're going to agree that my story is unlikely. Most people would, and for good reason. Here it is: I'm making an extraordinary claim, one that is outside the realm of common (or even known) human experience, and so your instinct is going to be to want some pretty good evidence for my claim before you get all jolly and decide I'm telling you the truth.

      The refined phrase is: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

      Finally, the problem here is that the bible(s) are full of extraordinary claims. People rising from the dead. People being turned into pillars of salt. The entire world being flooded, which would require more water than there is on the planet. Everyone having common ancestors in the persons of Adam and Eve. Geological formation of planets (this one, specifically) in non-geological time frames as well as creation of complex life in very, very short time frames. So, just as you probably found it in your heart to doubt my story of manna from heaven at the hands of an angel, atheists find good reason to doubt the stories told in the bible. These stories make extraordinary claims. Not only is there no extraordinary evidence, there appears to be no evidence at all for those stories, and quite a bit (like fossils, current amount of water on the planet, observed evolution and speciation time frames, various methods of dating geological formations, DNA comparisons between one human being and the next) which actively argue for disproof of some of the specific points made in those stories.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    15. Re:It sounds like email by Belseth · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The issue I have is with intolerance. The recent Christian movement doesn't even tolerate other Christian sects. Personally I'm a Buddist and the core beliefs are that life and religion is an individual journey and you shouldn't force your beliefs on anyone else. If all religions followed this simple doctrine an incredible amount of violence and death could have been avoided over the centuries. Most of the war going on today has roots in religious intolerance. I take exception to religious doctrine being taught in school including Buddism inspite of it being a more Philosophy than a religion. I believe in studying all religions and I make sure that my children are well versed in as many religions as possible including Hindu and Mosleum faiths. There's good in all religions and most share core beliefs. There's even a strong belief that Christ studied Buddism since much of what he taught was Buddist in nature. It's always a trick question what religion Christ was. It's obvious but most people have trouble getting past prejudice to realize he was a practising Jew right up until the day he died. Christianity came out of Judaism and the Mosleum faith came out of Christianity. It's why so many of the holly places are the same. The Old Testment is basically Judaic. It's amazing to me that none of them really get along. The mosleums and Jews even consider Christ a holy man, it's the divinity issue where they part company.

      Public school should be about proven fact and science meets that standard. Religion doesn't require proof but that's what makes it subjective. Science should be the one thing they all can agree on. Saying that science is wrong and three to four thousand year old religous text is right does make us look ignorant and that's how much of the world has begun to view us. Jewish scholars have found much of the old testment is incorrect. The irony is they have accepted the science and have begun to view much of it as stories with a message where as Christians in this country are still holding that it is fact and children should be taught as much in public schools. Can you see the irony? Christians borrow part of their religion from Jews who later find it is a collection of stories and not fact, they accept it but the later religion chooses to hang on inspite of what the parent religion now believes to be true. Even the Catholic faith has accepted evolution. What people need to consider is it the Bible that makes you disbelieve in evolution or what the preacher on Sunday told you? The New Testment makes no mention of how creation occured. What's really ironic is most Bibles these days don't even include the Old Testment yet that seems to be the part where all the contention is, that's the PreChristian part to be more specific. If the world being 6 billion years old instead of six thousand years old shakes a person's faith I think they need to exaimine the strength of their faith and not simply try to silence those who don't share their beliefs, in this case most of humanity. Just an FYI, if you think the preacher on Sunday morning is telling you the whole truth double check what is said against the Bible. There's alot of grossly inaccurate information being thrown around if the point is literally interpretation. My favorites always revolve around Angels and Heaven. Most are taught Heaven is full of good people and they turn into Angels when they die. Not sure where they got that? It wasn't from the Bible. The only "person" that comes to mind currently in Heaven is Jacob, direct assention. Everyone else is waiting judgement. Also Angels predated men/humans. They were never people but another race and were called "The Sons Of God". In fact there's no mention of female angels anywhere in the Bible. Sadly a lot of the intent has been lost. Praying to get things and passing judgement on others aways drives me nuts, they are blanantly unChristian. According to the Bible you are supposed to accept God's will and whatever happened to "Judge not lest yee be judged"? God is supposed to judge not man. I have no problem with re

    16. Re:It sounds like email by rickbrodie · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Not to be insulting, because your post makes a lot of sense, but I find it slightly concerning that you claim to be a "buddist" but cannot even spell buddhism or muslim or even testament properly. Maybe these are the accepted spellings in your part of the world - though you sound like you come from america - but I have never come across these alternate spellings before...

      I do hope that for the sakes of a lot of people in the world that they are wrong in their religious beliefs because if they are right quite a few are going to burn. I can't see God taking kindly to raping small boys and murdering people for financial gain
      This does not seem like a very buddhist sentiment to me, to be honest. I thought it was only for god to judge? I like to think that I try and follow the buddhist philosophy as much as possible too, and I know that it does not do us any good to spend our days judging others.
    17. Re:It sounds like email by buddyglass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Points of note: 1. This guy isn't a scientist. He's a religious studies professor. 2. He wasn't "depicted as anti-Christian" because of his views. He made explicit derogatory comments towards a large portion of U.S. Christendom. 3. Given that there are Christian adherents even among the extremely well educated, and given that most mainstream Christian clergy obtained a standard, secular undergraduate degree prior to their religious studies, I can't see that "more education" would have much of an effect. 4. Something obscured by Slashdot's coverage of this story is that Mirecki didn't resign his teaching position, he only resigned as Chairman of the Religious Studies Dept. Considering he made direct, disparaging remarks towards millions of Americans' faith, I don't think his resignation as Chairman is unwarranted or unexpected.

    18. Re:It sounds like email by RichardX · · Score: 2, Informative

      I hate to get pedantic over what is basically a one liner joke post, but... this shows a serious misunderstanding of the process of evolution, and it's that kind of thing which allows nonsense like "Intelligent Design" to get as far as it has

      Organisms do not evolve new features by developing them that way - for if there are a race of monkeys, and their only food source is tall trees with bananas in, they're gonna spend a lot of time stretching their arms to reach bananas - they'll probably get really really good at it, and with enough stretching their arms might even get a bit longer than they would be without the stretching. So, will this trait be passed on to the kids, resulting, over time, in a species of long armed super-reachers? Well... no, actually, because acquired skills/changes don't cause any genetic change.

      On the other hand, those monkeys who just happen by genetic variation to be born with slightly longer arms will find it easier to reach the food. When food becomes scarce they are the ones who will survive - the short armed ones will starve to death, and therefore it's the "long arms" genes which will prosper and be passed down to the next generation.

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    19. Re:It sounds like email by jimktrains · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Religion is not the opposite of science. This is the biggest problem in the world today: that people do not understand this. There is not reason that I cannot belive in God and evolution. The two can go hand in hand. Religion is why (the philosophical why) things are they way they are and science is how (fact, figures, mechanisms ::shivers::) they became what they are.

      Example:
      Religion: People exist because God wanted there to be people
      Science: People exist because random genetic change enabled there to be people.

      What is contradictory in my example?

      I have a friend who is agnostic. I get from him that since there is more than one religion he has no basis to say that one is correct and another is not. He also does not see any relgion that does what is says (i.e.: radical muslims and christians both contridict their values). He isn't agnostic simply because he feels science and religion contridic each other. In fact, he has helped me reconsile some of my beliefs and science.

      Also, please do not judge all christians by the STUPID actions of a few. Why should some dumb ass in Kansas, who can't possibly belive that God wanted evolution to happen and made it and science cannot say "God willed it," so we can only comprehend random change and statistical patterens as left overs from God's will, should make me, who can reconsile belife and science, look like an idiot?

      --
      "You will do foolish things, but do them with enthusiasm." - S. G. Colette
    20. Re:It sounds like email by aichpvee · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe he's from Indiana, you insensitive clod! I heard that it's "a great place to end a sentence with a preposition at."

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    21. Re:It sounds like email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: "Stop. Don't do it."
      "Why shouldn't I?" he asked.
      "Well, there's so much to live for!"
      "Like what?"
      "Are you religious?"
      He said, "Yes."
      I said, "Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
      "Christian."
      "Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
      "Protestant."
      "Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
      "Baptist."
      "Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
      "Baptist Church of God."
      "Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
      "Reformed Baptist Church of God."
      "Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"
      He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."
      I said: "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.

      (Stolen from http://www.shipoffools.com/Features/2005/laugh_jud gment_results.html)

    22. Re:It sounds like email by IllForgetMyNickSoonA · · Score: 2, Informative
      When I talk about religion, I talk about the most wide-spread religions in the western world. This is, in part, due to my ignorance for other religion beliefs beyond the most influential ones (Christianity and Islam), and in part because those less influential religions play only a very minor role in our lives.

      As of definition of religion and its' relationship to the Science, here is what Wikipedia says. If you have some better source, be my guest and present it here, instead of making empty remarks about how "I should review the definition of religion".
      Religion (see etymology below) sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine; and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions and rituals associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe
      I suppose we can all agree that neither Christianity nor Islam defines itself primarily as "the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe", therefore it's all about worshiping supernatural, sacred, or divine something. In a selfish hope to gain some benefit from it post mortem, I might add. Of course, it's also about making big monetary donations to the institution in place to promote your favourite religion, but it's another topic.

      Oppression of the free Science, of course, is not written down in a definition of a religion, but is a logical consequence.
    23. Re:It sounds like email by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I realised that it took a lot more faith to picture myself as a deterministic cog in a Universe consisting only of mathematically perfect laws, than as a part of a greater plan. The idea of being a mere biological machine ceased to appeal to me when it became a matter of denying reality as I perceived it. What about you? Have you really thought about this?

      Not in those terms, because it doesn't "deny reality as [I] see it."

      As I see reality, I'm an animal (a biological machine) with some intelligence. More than some animals, less than others. I am fairly certain this is the case for all animals. This makes sense to me, and (so far) I have encountered nothing to make me think otherwise... even a little bit.

      Perhaps there is extraordinary evidence for the existence of God. Perhaps it's you.

      I don't think so. If humans (it is silly to consider it to be me, but I will consider it to be people in general) are supposed to be the evidence for design, then I can only conclude that the designer in question was an incompetent fool. From babies born without critical (or simply useful) parts of their anatomy, to the incredibly dangerous and flaw-riddled female role in the reproductive system (which, I should point out, has only just recently begun to be less so, and only by the efforts of other humans, not any god or gods), I see the human condition and human configuration as one long testament to random development and/or extremely poor design. Which definitely leaves out the concept of a god or gods as has commonly been brought forth by the religions I have known and read about.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    24. Re:It sounds like email by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Example:
      Religion: People exist because God wanted there to be people
      Science: People exist because random genetic change enabled there to be people.

      What is contradictory in my example?

      Science puts forth the idea that random genetic change was part of the process because science has observed this process, and the theory, in a fairly basic and reasonably well accepted intellectual exercise, simply extends the idea that this has been going on since DNA has been the blueprint mechanism for building another biomachine similar to the previous biomachines. In short, there is decent evidence for this idea, and given that so far, it seems to be the idea with the best evidence in support, it is reasonable to use it as the current working model until, or unless, something better comes along. Add to this the observation that DNA is a combination of chemicals, and apply the idea that this combination might have come together as the result of some natural series of events, and we have a general overview of a theory of life, sans god or godlike influence.

      Religion puts forth the idea that people are here because god wanted it that way. This is in the final analysis an attempt to answer the same basic question: How did life get started? If you want to start with the premise that god started us by triggering and/or designing DNA-based organisms, that just moves the domain of the question to: How did god get started?

      If your answer is that god was always here, then why can't your answer be that we were always here? If your answer is that god's existance arose spontaneously, then why can't your answer be that we arose spontaneously? If your answer is that god was designed by someone else, then you've just moved the domain one step further and we go around again.

      The bottom line is that we do not know how life got started here. Science, to its credit, is trying to find potential answers to that using the tools that belong to it: Examining evidence, deduction, theorizing, testing, falsification and around again. In the process, many interesting things have been uncovered (DNA, for instance) and many many more can reasonably be expected. That's the reason science is so popular; it is very productive of real-world benefits, not just metaphors for objective reality. That, in turn, gives at least some of us considerable confidence in science, and the scientific method in general.

      Still, we do not know. We will not know even if life is created in the laboratory. We may have discovered something that is one of the possibilities, but we can't be certain, because we were not there when it happened. There is no "proof" forthcoming from science, only theory. And theories are mutable — that is their primary strength.

      Turning to religion, the first question is, ok, if god kicked this off, where is the supporting evidence for this idea? We have the NT (AD 300 or so) and we have the OT, which is quite a bit BC compared to the NT, but still, very, very recent in terms of the planet's apparent geological age. We have nothing that backs up any of the bible's accounts, and in fact, we have quite a bit that contradicts the bible's accounts. Now, if you want to step away from the bible (a long way!) and just say that god did it 4 billion years ago using natural tools, then I simply ask, where is your evidence to back that assertion up? We look to the sky and we see solar systems in all stages of formation; theory accounts for much of this without a huge number of unknowns. We don't see god up there, but we do see physics.

      So perhaps you'd like to go back to the formation of everything instead (which pretty much removes the idea of god from our day to day lives [or even eon to eon existance as a race] and I would question why you would even care at this point, but...) and then we are back to but who created god? And if your answer is "was always there", then we're back to that can be the answer for everything, and there is no need for a god to explain anything at all.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    25. Re:It sounds like email by williamhb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      These stories make extraordinary claims. Not only is there no extraordinary evidence, there appears to be no evidence at all for those stories


      Here's another perspective on the "extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof" issue. Sorry it's a little long.

      (from the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Luke 16)
      [The rich man] said, "but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent".
      He replied "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced, even if someone rises from the dead."


      And indeed it seems you haven't been convinced - even though someone rose from the dead. When it comes down to it, what you want isn't a one-time-proof, but for God to be in a state of constantly proving his existence with fresh miracles every day. I'll explain:

      In Jesus's time, the Pharisees asked for a miracle as proof because they didn't believe the "extraoardinary claims" either (Matthew 16). Jesus said he'd give them one - rising from the dead. And he did. After the resurrection and pentecost, the apostles performed miracles in the process convincing some more people of the extroadinary claims (most of Acts). But naturally, you say those 'miracles' are just more extraordinary claims. You'd perhaps also say the book of Luke is a set of extraordinary claims even though it was Luke's report of his investigation into the extraordinary claims. At every step forward, there's a grumble that yesterday's proof is today just another extraordinary claim unless some more proof is given for that last piece of proof. Each day, someone wants another miracle, and that continues right up to today and your post.

      So, what you want is your own personal miracle in your individual sight. (And, to be brutally honest, I suspect you would probably find a reason to disqualify any evidence unless it was God appearing to perform a personal miracle for you.) Well, the sovereign God responds to that with a bit of a poser. He does do some things specially for people on an individual basis [answering prayer] but the catch is you already need to have faith to ask in faith.

      Perhaps having sent his son to die for you, God doesn't feel he needs to degrade himself any further just to prove himself to you individually? Personally, I can't really blame him - after all when it comes down to it, it's not his eternal life that's on the line.
    26. Re:It sounds like email by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And indeed it seems you haven't been convinced - even though someone rose from the dead.

      Oh, for Pete's sake. Let's be perfectly clear here. If indeed anyone rose from the dead, it happened about 2000 years ago, didn't happen in front of me, wasn't recorded in any contemporaneous documents of the regime in power at the time, nor by any contemporary historian, and is only described as such by a book that was put together from codexes that date back to about 300 years after the fact. To top it off, we know of no such event, and our knowledge of the universe says it can't happen. This reasonably leads me to the position of doubt. I'm not doubting because I'm just a crank, I'm doubting because there is an extraordinary event here, and no proof any kind, much less extraordinary. If someone rises from the dead in front of me after three days of rigor mortis, putrifaction, and zero life signs of any kind, I will be duly impressed.

      Perhaps having sent his son to die for you

      If the story is true (which I do not believe to be the case), God sent his son to hang about on earth for thirty years, then gave him the best seat in heaven, after having him suffer a few days of moderate-level torture. For just one of many instances: Many Americans have sent their sons to die, where they ended up in the hellholes of Vietnam's POW camps, where those fellows endured being stabbed with dung-encrusted pungi sticks, maimed, beaten, caged, starved, diseased, mentally abused and worse, for years at a stretch. After which these fellows came home (well, those who survived) and were pretty well ignored by both the government and most of their fellow citizens, if they weren't actively reproached for having done what they were told to do. On a scale of one to ten, where let's call prisoner of war service a 7, I'd say Jesus's reported troubles rate about a two. If god wants to impress me with a sacrifice, then he can get down here and clean up some of the messes he's let go on without interference, such as birth defects, tsunmamis, regular failure of the female reproductive tract (with the side effect of killing the mother), Hitler, Cancer, Pol Pot, plagues, Stalin, the Spanish and Papal Inquisitions, the Crusades and so forth.

      As a story, god's "sacrifice" of Jesus lands with a dull thud because (a) it was no sacrifice, it was a very short though admittedly annoying interval with a HUGE reward, and (b) human sacrifice dwarfs it on every level. By the numbers, and by intensity, and by the degree of what was hoped to be accomplished by many of the sacrifices made by humans. True story: I had a relative who was burned to death going into a burning home after a little girl's kitten. He tossed the kitten out of an upstairs window, but he didn't make it out himself. He was an atheist; I'd say his sacrifice dwarfs that of Christ's, even if, no especially if, the crucifiction story is true. My relative burned to death and according you and yours, he's going to suffer for all eternity. Christ, in the meantime, is where? At god's right hand.

      Well, the sovereign God responds to that with a bit of a poser. He does do some things specially for people on an individual basis [answering prayer] but the catch is you already need to have faith to ask in faith.

      I afraid you're ruffling my feathers here, because of all the Christian mythos, this is some of the most offensive tripe that hits the fan.

      Your god is too something-or-other to help out, for instance, the most honorable, giving, self-sacrificing atheist who wishes for a child to be saved from cancer (or saves a little girl's kitten, as I related above); but he'll help you out for any random thing because you "have faith." I would not want anything to do with your god. Your god doesn't meet my standards for a decent hu

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    27. Re:It sounds like email by metlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't it ironic how complex and capable our Gods become in relation to how complex and capable we become?

      God was first a voice in the sky causing thunder and rain, and then he became a spirit from the planets, and when we knew what the planets were, only to become a spirit in the stars. And now, we find out that he's not in the sky, he's not in the planets nor the stars - and so, he definitely is beyond our comprehension, beyond our Universe.

      The problem is that the "God" for many religions (e.g. Christianity) were created keeping in mind the science and advancement of that age. Unfortunately for the religion, science has moved on.

      Ergo, those "tall claims" do not hold water anymore.

      Science is not against religion - it just raises the standard that religion has to live up to.

      And religion, like most man-made things, is man-made. And men would rather fight than try and live up to a higher standard. The only folks who would rather not fight tend to be those that are capable of rational thought.

      Unfortunately, there does not tend to be a very large percentage of those that adhere to fundamentalist religious tenets who practice rational thought.

      End result? Well, the end result is that religion considers science to be its enemy because it raises the bar. It makes you think, rather than blindly follow. And we all know how much our fellow humans love thinking.

      So, science is considered to be an affront to science. But mind you - it is quite possible for having religious faith even if you are scientific, just that your worldview would be a lot more overarching. But most people are not capable of this, and to them, science is evil because it challenges their beliefs.

      And while science does not care about religion, it gets dragged into a fight, simply because by its very existence, science is a threat to those that would rather blindly take word-for-word from a 2,000 year old book that's been forcefully edited by zealots over the ages -- rather than think for themselves. As a result, these folks threaten science and what it stands for, and science has no choice but to fight for.

      Religion is based on faith, science if based on fact. Unfortunately, as science grows, it discovers new facts that challenge what religion claims based on faith. The very act of discovery is a threat to religion and its claims.

      So, that is why religion hates science. By its very existence, it threatens to shatter the blind security and ignorance of its believers, forcing them to think rather than blindly follow. And we all really do know how much our fellow humans admire and relish thinking for themselves.

      Of course we do, don't we?

  2. To clarify... by exley · · Score: 5, Informative

    He resigned as department chair, but as of that article, hasn't quit entirely. Just in case you don't want to RTFA (not that that happens here).

    1. Re:To clarify... by belmolis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is an important point that I think people aren't paying enough attention to. He has resigned only an extra administrative position that he may not particularly have enjoyed anyhow. In American universities (outside of the medical schools) being Chair of the department is usually not that big a deal. It isn't like some European universities where the Chair is really the person who runs the show. Mirecki still has his job and his academic rank - all he's done is stepped out of the limelight a little, whether to make life easier for himself or to keep himself from being a lightning rod for anti-University sentiment.

    2. Re:To clarify... by Council · · Score: 2, Informative

      In American universities (outside of the medical schools) being Chair of the department is usually not that big a deal. It isn't like some European universities where the Chair is really the person who runs the show.

      For example, at my school, the chair of the Physics department cycles through the faculty, changing hands every three years.

      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    3. Re:To clarify... by rew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Suppose you know a thing or two about Chemistry, and you are teaching a (basic) course in the second year of university. Nothing speculative, just the basics: 2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O stuff like that.

      Suppose the school board decides that you have to point out to the students that what you're teaching is just a theory, and that you have to point out that there are other theories. (Nobody has SEEN the molecules react!). Someone is appointed to teach the "earth, water, air and fire" theory. How would that make you feel? How's that for science?

      The most recent noteworthy news from Rome is that they have found a reasonable way to make science and christianity work together. If a super-being set off the universe a long, long time ago, setting the rules of physics, evolution and chemistry, then they don't see anything inconsistent with the bible.

      Now suddenly the "war" between creationists and evolutionists is defused. Good. Science is not inconsistent with the bible. Good.

  3. His sign by jav1231 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of his emails talked about how he couldn't wait to teach this course to throw his position against ID in "their big fat face." Okay, if you profess (ahemm) to be a professor and you can't muster up any more intelligent way to communicate than that I submitt you have no business teaching at a university. Kindergarten? Maybe.

    1. Re:His sign by gentlewizard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      College professors aren't supposed to be wishy-washy and neutral: the reason for tenure is to encourage them to have opinions, even strong ones. It's the interplay of multiple strong opinions, sometimes polar opposites, that makes the university experience useful.

      That's why, for example, the University of California not only tolerated, but defended Angela Davis and her pro-Comummunist party views, despite the current "governator" being one Ronald Reagan.

      So maybe he didn't say it very well. It's what he believes.

    2. Re:His sign by Moofie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Having an opinion that you can't express cogently and professionally is not useful for a college professor.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    3. Re:His sign by Superfarstucker · · Score: 2, Informative

      I disagree, I attend a public university as well and I've taken a section where just a small group of people who are interested meet up with the professor and talk. We rarely discussed anything relevant to the course, and it was never 'professional'.

      I found it to be most interesting, and always enjoyable. I kind of wish more of the interesting professors (you know, the ones who are actually interested in what they instruct) would do sections like that. It frees them of their 'obligation' to teach course material while in lecture and I figure most good professors have something interesting to say on other subjects as well.

      It was a CS&E professor teaching CS&E in case you get the impression it was some content devoid humanities course.

    4. Re:His sign by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are so many things wrong with Intelligent Design, there aren't even words for it.

      Lets just take two:

      1) It leads to an infinite regression. If complex things cannot come to being by themselves, then the creator can't come to be out of nothing either. And so forth. Que the infinite regress of creators.

      2) As a scientific theory, it lacks all predictive power. Apply the theory of evolution to, for example, Avian Flu, and you can imagine that, during the course of it's fluish mutations it will hit upon the combination that will make it contagious among the dominant species on the planet, thats natural selection among countless flu variations.

      What do you get when you apply ID to Bird Flu? The Creator is a bastard? The Creator is annoyed with us because there's too much sex on television?

      I sat in a coffeeshop listening to an ID advocate committing logical error after error. He was sitting there,and reasoning backwards from any number of existing things to their inevitable nature as created things. Hilariously bad science. I have in my hand a hairbrush, it is made of a substance I will call plastic. I cannot imagine making such a thing, it is not wood, nor stone. Therefore there must be a magician involved somewhere! Oooo, look a landbridge! Could something so useful have come about by accident? No!

      I sat and tried not to listen, while eating my damn lunch, and trying to imagine how any Intelligent designer could design a creature as foolish and ignorant as man.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  4. Re:Beaten? by Kazzahdrane · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Of course these people know their beliefs are right and if people don't believe them then they bloody well should do. Welcome to the world of religious extremism, if you need me I'll be in the bar with the bulletproof glass.

  5. Yeah, well... what did he expect? by el-spectre · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I applaud the guy for having the courage to recognize ID for what it is, a (weak) philosophical argument, not science. But as head of a religious studies department, attacking a given faith is just unprofessional.

    I'm an atheist, but I don't go pissing on church doors. That's (figuratively) what this guy did, and screwed up his career in doing so.

    --
    "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    1. Re:Yeah, well... what did he expect? by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But as head of a religious studies department, attacking a given faith is just unprofessional.

      You can teach Greek Mythology without always speaking the name of "Zeus" with reverential awe.

      You can even poke fun at your subject matter, depending on the focus of the course - I fondly remember my 1st semester physics professor ended practically every topic with something along the lines of "and of course in the days since Newton, we've discovered that most of this counts as complete rubbish, but I still expect you to know it for the test".

      In the case of the topic under consideration, I (and any potential studend would) have every expectation this professor did not plan to merely present it as an objective overview of the tenets of ID (though students should of course have come away understanding those); but rather, a thorough debunking of a laughable-yet-popular ("popular" in the sheer-number-of-fools sense) topic, possibly broad enough to include a general overview of the roots of the dangerously antiintellectual attitude currently brewing in our culture.

    2. Re:Yeah, well... what did he expect? by Alien+Being · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "attacking a given faith"

      He attacked "faith run amok". The problem isn't that people have this faith. The problem is that some of them try to pass it off as science and to make laws out of it. Their zealotry goes against what this country stands for.

    3. Re:Yeah, well... what did he expect? by el-spectre · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Reverence wasn't what I expect. For that matter, there are lots of courses in college that exist specifically to question a subject.

      The mistake was not the class, it was sending insulting email in a professional context, that's all.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
  6. Only from the Chair position not as a prof by abbamouse · · Score: 5, Informative

    I read this story earlier today on HNN. He resigned as department chair, not as a professor. He's still doing all the same stuff, but with less paperwork. I know that in many departments, chair is a generally detested position because although it carries some prestige it often carries little real authority and ALWAYS comes with scads of paperwork that prevent academics from spending time on their first love (research or teaching, as the case may be). So the guy isn't out of a job or anything; the move is largely symbolic.

    --
    Make cheese not war 8:)
  7. Of course ..... by hawkeye_82 · · Score: 3, Funny

    If these men can beat up a prof for saying things out loud, then its obvious the evolutionary process left them by the wayside, and they grew a up as apes. No wonder they dont believe in evolution.

  8. Kansas by colemanguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Woot! I am from kansas

    1. Re:Kansas by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Informative

      That is informative! At least by definition.

      In that case, I'm NOT from Kansas! :-)

      (Awaits for the +5 informative lol)

  9. Religious Violence by vodkamattvt · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Perhaps, instead of constantly attacking scientific communities and sex, religious leaders and their respective communities should actually teach what god and jesus intended .. compassion and forgiveness. When two people believe in god so much to beat someone up because they said something anti-christian says, to me, that the leaders of the religious community have failed miserably to actually relay the teachings of their religion.

    Then again, Im agnostic and havent attended church and base all my knowledge on written word and whatnot. Maybe in church they are saying to strike those evil doer anti-christians down like the wrath of god?

  10. Re:Beaten? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    'I actually did that act one night in the south, then after the show these three rednecks came up to me. "Hey buddy, we're Christians and we didn't like what you said." I said "Then forgive me." Later on, when I was hanging from the tree...'
    --Bill Hicks

  11. Re:Kansas... by pilgrim23 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Dear Auntie Em: Hate your Intleligent Design, Hate Kansas> Took the dog" -Dorthy

    --
    - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
  12. From the article by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A recent e-mail from Mirecki to members of a student organization referred to religious conservatives as "fundies" and said a course describing intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face." Mirecki apologized for those comments.

    Me thinks "poorly worded" is an understatement. It's one thing when you're a troll on Slashdot using that language. It's a completely different thing to be in a respected teaching position and acting like a Slashdot troll. And he wonders why people are upset with him. *shakes head*

    (P.S. I do hope they catch the assholes who beat him. That's not exactly acceptable behavior, either, no matter what he said.)

    1. Re:From the article by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was actually a bit more concerned about the "nice slap in their big fat face" remark than the "fundie" remark. I mean, that's not exactly the most professional remark I've ever heard. I shudder to think what the rest of his email was like.

    2. Re:From the article by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The student organization in question was the Society for Open Minded Athiests and Agnostics.

      So your point is that they're not as "Open Minded" as they claim?

  13. He handled it wrong by sycomonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's not a good idea to deride students or christians, and it's not as if every christian thinks evolution is wrong. I think it would have been a good thing to hold a class like that in a state like that, but if the prof is going to be confrontational about it, that's going to cheapen the whole point. Teaching ID in anything outside a philosophy class is such a crazy idea and so easily debunked that being negative is entirely unessicary, plain facts will do.

    --
    --The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
  14. The darn fool. by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-Christian sentiments around to people interested in the class, and was subsequently beaten for his troubles.

    All he had to do was stick to science and his ideas would have won. Instead, he played into the stereotype that 'scientists are anti-Christian' and has paid the price.

    But there are really three sides to the issue:

    1. Dogmatic Christians pushing their belief system as the anti-science.

    2. Dogmatic Athiests pushing their belief system as the anti-religion.

    3. The Rest Of Us.

    --
    resigned
    1. Re:The darn fool. by smallpaul · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't understand what scientists you are referring to. He is a religious studies professor.

    2. Re:The darn fool. by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, most Slashdotters fall into category #2. Take a look at some of the responses you got for some examples.

    3. Re:The darn fool. by Bogtha · · Score: 2, Informative

      All he had to do was stick to science and his ideas would have won. Instead, he played into the stereotype that 'scientists are anti-Christian' and has paid the price.

      What the hell are you talking about? He's a religious professor, not a scientist. I guess not only is it too much to ask that you RTFA, but now people aren't RTFSummary either?

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    4. Re:The darn fool. by guygee · · Score: 2, Informative

      But there are really three sides to the issue:

      1. Dogmatic Christians pushing their belief system as the anti-science.

      2. Dogmatic Athiests pushing their belief system as the anti-religion.

      3. The Rest Of Us.

      No, Not Really "Insightful" Let's try:

      1. Irrational religious fundamentalists who believe their "Holy Book" is literal truth and is the direct "Word of God".

      2. Scientists, mathematicians and philosophers who point out that the "Holy Book" contain contradictions and therefor cannot be literally true.

      3. Religious people who are also rational and accept that their "Holy Book" contains metaphors, literal contradictions, and corrections (as in "Old Testament vs. New Testament)", so that the book must be "interpreted".

      4. People who realize that science, philosophy or mathematics can neither prove nor disprove the existence of "God" (Not necessarily exclusive of categories 2 and 3).

    5. Re:The darn fool. by aminorex · · Score: 4, Informative

      You seem to have confused atheism with agnosticism.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    6. Re:The darn fool. by nathanh · · Score: 3, Informative
      You seem to have confused atheism with agnosticism.

      No, he hasn't. An agnostic asserts that the answer to the question of existence is unknowable and states nothing about their actual belief or lack thereof in gods. Many Christians are agnostic. Many atheists are agnostic. Most (traditional) Buddhists are atheists. Most Christians are not atheist (I'm not saying all because I'm sure there is some nutter who claims to be Christian but doesn't believe in the existence of any god).

      The Americanised versions of atheist and agnostic have basically made agnosticism a watered down version of atheism (ie, doesn't believe but isn't sure) which is stupid, because the term agnostic was specifically invented by Huxley to define his lack of gnosis (knowledge), not his uncertainty. I'll leave you with the words of Huxley.

      When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis" -- had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion. [...]

      So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes. [Quoted in "Encylopaedia of Religion and Ethics", 1908, edited by James Hastings MA DD]

      Brilliant guy. Total nutcase, but brilliant.

    7. Re:The darn fool. by sam_handelman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Post Chronicle article is nonsense - refusing to talk to the press is evidence that he was not actually assaulted? That's completely ridiculous. The article also accuses the professor of not keeping his story straight - either that he is unable to say exactly where it happened, or that he has contradicted himself - but doesn't provide sources for that assertion, let alone quotes.

        It is true that he may be lying (although I doubt it). Anyone could be lying - but no evidence that he is lying is actually presented in the article to which the parent links.

      --
      The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
  15. Re:Kansas... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Funny

    The United State of Kansas.

    U SOK?

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  16. ...Chair of Religious Studies Dept.? by theGreater · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's the part that confused me enough to make me read it twice. The CHAIR of the Religous Studies Dept. was saying things like:

    • referring to religious individuals as "fundies"
    • "a nice slap in their big fat face"
    • others described as "repugnant and vile"
    That boggles the mind. No excuse for beating the man, for any reason.

    -theGreater.
    1. Re:...Chair of Religious Studies Dept.? by mikaelhg · · Score: 2

      Just how, exactly, does quite plainly dishonest bullshit like this get moderated +5 Insightful?

      theGreater, uid 596196, took one part truth and two parts distortion, and presented it as an actual argument.

      What kind of an argument, accusation, judgement or pertinent comment is to reveal that the guy referred to fundamentalists as fundies? It has no other possible relevancy, but to present a convenient facade for the two parts of distortion.

      I say, good day to you, sir!

  17. hur hur hur by marcushnk · · Score: 2, Funny
    The article goes on to explain that Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-Christian sentiments around to people interested in the class, and was subsequently beaten for his troubles.

    bloody bible bashers :-P

    --
    "Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
  18. It depends upon the Church. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remember, there are a lot of Books in the Bible. Some of the older ones (Old Testament) have a lot of stuff about smiting and even killing or enslaving your enemies.

    It all depends upon what part of the Bible the church you attend wants to focus on. There's as much legitimacy in focusing on God's Rightous Wrath as there is in focusing on Jesus Forgiving.

    1. Re:It depends upon the Church. by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can't say that I'm a believer (I'm baptised, but I didn't have much of a choice then), but ...

      If you're a christian church and focusing more on the old testament than the new - and especially the loving and forgiving christ (Jesus), isn't it a fair case to call you a jew instead of a christian?

      As I understand it, christianity builds on the old testament, sure - but it weighs in much more heavily on forgiveness (obviously forgotten during the crusades and inquisition) and love than on "smiting your enemies". Pretty sure you'd be shit out of luck if you tried portraying Jesus as wanting you to "smite and even kill or enslave your enemies".

      Or did I not get the memo?

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    2. Re:It depends upon the Church. by Valdrax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unfortunately, the fundamentalist christians usually quote the parts of the Old Testament that involve "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

      Oddly they miss out on the fact that "An Eye for an Eye" is meant as an alternative to unlimited retaliation not as an alternative to forgiveness. It's a like a speed limit. It's supposed to be a maximum, but everyone treats it like a minimum.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    3. Re:It depends upon the Church. by Irvu · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's actually a huge field of "Christian Apologetics" (No I'm not kidding) which deals in exactly that. Thomas Aquainas was the first Christian Philosopher to attempt a reconciliation between the views of Jesus and the feudal philosophies of his day basically; "When would God/Jesus approve of you fighting someone and when will you be taking the fast train to hell?"

      He formulated the notion of a "Just Conflict" which meets certain tests chief among them, if I remember correctly, being pure motives (e.g saving the lives of innocents, liberating captives from the Nazi's before they were gassed, etc.). Aquinas argued that such conflicts exist and that it is possible, perhaps necessary for christians to beat ploughshares into swords for them. Keep in mind that his philospohy grew out of a time when a) europe was a feudal system, and b) christians were in power.

      So smiting is, according to that school of thought, sometimes okay. Enslaving is more wishy-washy. There were slaves in Jesus' day. He didn't own any, nor did he liberate any except in the spiritual sense. This fact has been used to argue (most recently by Southern Baptists) in the U.S. for the legitimacy of slavery. And, when it comes down to it, a literal reading of the bible (so far as I can remember) presents nothing much to oppose it

    4. Re:It depends upon the Church. by Granular · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was raised as a Lutheran, and to the theology which I was taught, the best reference on the relationship between Law and Gospel can probably be expressed by C.F.W. Walther's book of the same name: The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel (this book has fallen into the public domain).

      --
      "Suspicion Breeds Confidence"
    5. Re:It depends upon the Church. by whitespacedout · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, you hard to search a bit for that one, troll-boy. Amazing what you can do when you take it out of context. It's a line from a parable.

  19. Boy, I sure am surprised! by Thaelon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Someone else was beaten or killed in the name of religion! *gasp*

    What's the total up to now? A few billion?

    --

    Question everything

    1. Re:Boy, I sure am surprised! by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 2, Funny
      Someone else was beaten or killed in the name of religion! *gasp*

      What's the total up to now? A few billion?

      +43298572 Crushingly, Painfully, Soul-rendingly, Gnashingly, Wailingly, I-Weep-For-The-Speciesingly Insightful.

      --
      If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
  20. Interesting... by AstynaxX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The choices of prefix for this post... I'm curious, why is he anti-creationist rather than pro-evolutionist? Now, this may be innocuous, but choice of words can reveal bias.

    Also, anti-fundamentalist is not the same as anti-christian. Being opposed to a specific, fanatical, often belligerent sect of a religious denomination is not the same as being opposed to the entire faith.

    --
    -={(Astynax)}=-
    "Darkness beyond Twilight"
    1. Re:Interesting... by PCM2 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The choices of prefix for this post... I'm curious, why is he anti-creationist rather than pro-evolutionist?
      Because he's a professor of religion, not of science. Evolution has little place in theology; however it's perfectly reasonable for a theologian to question whether creationism represents fundamental religious belief or is simply an overly-literal interpetation of a nice and comforting myth.
      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    2. Re:Interesting... by dbIII · · Score: 2, Funny
      Also, anti-fundamentalist is not the same as anti-christian.
      Obviously - since the only bit of the New Testiment they seem to read is Relevations and there isn't a lot of Jesus in that bit.

      It's easy to teach intelligent design - here it all is:

      The world is too difficult to explain because the God ate my homework.

  21. Fron the article... by Lendrick · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A recent e-mail from Mirecki to members of a student organization referred to religious conservatives as "fundies" and said a course describing intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face." Mirecki apologized for those comments.

    It's too bad he had to be so unprofessional. I'm all in favor of his class, but I can't sympathize with someone who acts like that. He's basically ruined it for other universities that may want to do something similar because he made it into a personal issue instead of an academic one.

    1. Re:Fron the article... by Lendrick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This was an email sent out promoting his class to a number of students who may be interested in it. As such, he was acting in a professional capacity, and standards of professional conduct should apply. Furthermore, when you send inflammatory email to large groups of people, even those who generally agree with you, you should assume that it will eventually be made public.

  22. Re:Beaten? by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what are you alleging? That he beat himself up? Do you think that "a conservative activist in Kansas" has more credibility with respect to the investigation than Lt. Kari Wempe of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office?

    Does smear have no bounds in this country?

    --
    Very well; let this abomination unto the Lord begin!
  23. Re:You don't get it either. by el-spectre · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not saying he deserved a beating, not at all. I was talking about the other bit. When you hold a professional position and act unprofessionally (remember, he was communicating with a school organization), there are consequences.

    Also, there's no reason to assume "fundies" are idiots. They may be misguided, wrong, or just of a different opinion than you, but that doesn't make them idiots.

    I've met some brilliant preachers, and I recognize that even though I don't believe in their Magic Man In The Sky (tm)

    --
    "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
  24. Anti-Christianism in Kansas is legitimate by johansalk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When a whole nation is dedicating itself to anti-Islamism, while Christianism is fucking it up the ass (how's that for "poorly-worded"?), it's only fair that in a state like Kansas, made infamous worldwide by that ludicrous anti-science christianism, scientists would have an anti-Christianism sentiment and it's only fair that they make it heard by all concerned. If they won't, who will?! Don't kid yourself, Science, and scientists are under attack by the deliberate liars and peddlers of self-serving nonsense.

  25. Something similar happened at a friend's school... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Interesting

    here in Mexico. There was a student riot and strike (or something similar), they (the "students") shut down school. Some of them participated in violent protests against the government, and were sent to jail.

    A law professor was going to give a talk about "Difference between political prisoners and criminals". The pseudo-students didn't let him start the talk, and he had to run away because they were all throwing him rotten food.

    Lesson: Unless you're willing to become a martyr, never tell an angry mob they're WRONG.

  26. I don't really get this... by Zambo+McSplanky · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OK, so... why do fundamentalists get so worked up over this evolution thing? The Bible says not a darned thing about *HOW* God created everything. And it's pretty easy to get around the "well, it says it only took a day to make ____" -- considering it also says "a thousand years are like a day and a day like a thousand years". But all holy-textual concerns aside, it's like arguing about the tool. No rational scientist would argue that God is provably nonexistent... due to the utter lack of hard data available! No rational Christian would argue that God HAD to have used a non-evolutionary mechanism to create the world... due to the lack of scripture on the matter! Evolution is the hammer. Life on Earth is the spice rack. Who build the spice rack? Who knows! But we know they used a HAMMER because there are hammer marks all over the wood. And nails were involved. So just grow up and admit you don't know EVERYTHING! Both sides!

    1. Re:I don't really get this... by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Notice that the Catholic church directly and publicly threw its weight behind evolution.

      Sources?
      http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/kmc/?adate=1 1/14/2005

      http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
  27. Religion Professors Aren't Very Religious by chezmarshall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's easy to understand the conflict here. Of all people, scholars of religion are going to see how different religions absorb ideas from one another. I guess it tends to make them rather skeptical that any particular religion has access to some unique revelation. When you combine this skepticism with Christian fundamentalism in general and intelligent design in particular, there's going to be some discord.

    However, it's very myopic to reach any kind of opinion that all of this reflects poorly on Christian fundamentalists, Kansas, or religion in the United States. Consider that for his heresy, this guy got a beating that 99.99% of his fellow countrymen think was unjustified. Compare that to Iran, for instance, where writing a book that others consider disrespectful to Islam will get you a giant-sized can of fatwa.

  28. Re:Beaten? by poopdeville · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can't wait for the F Games on ESPN. Sports to the Fundament.

    --
    After all, I am strangely colored.
  29. Re:Beaten? by Omnifarious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know, he had his friends beat him up! Or, err... He managed to convince a hospital to fake a report or something.. err... and the police department too! Yeah, that's it! Obviously anybody who's beaten up is going to remember the exact road it's on and everything. And you're going to remember exact details about your attackers too, even when it's at night. Nobody's confused, frightened or panicky after being physically assaulted, especially atheists!

    Perhaps we ought to test out these theories on the stupid idiot who's trying to cast some sort of cloud over the guy's credibility without having any hard evidence to back it up.

  30. And vice versa... by HexRei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...would people be equally outraged if the Religious Studies Chair at a religious school, let's say BYU, were to badmouth atheism? My guess is that it probably happens all the time.

    1. Re:And vice versa... by jaypaulw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I attended BYU and I will tell you that we go to great lengths to respect other people's beliefs. We Mormons are a group of people who have historically had many of our civil rights violated and we do not seek to repeat those sins on others.

      And although the overwhelming majority of BYU professors believe in a personal God, and many students believe that beliveing in God is the "obvious" philosophical, metaphysical and spirtitual answer, and also that the majority of mainstream science is completely consistent with that belief and mainstream science is taught there -- mean spirited attacks of people's beliefs are met with swift critisism, even "outrage."

      You don't think it would make the news if we introduced a class called "Atheism: bad logic and hard hearts?"

  31. Re:Beaten? by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Insightful
    > Of course these people know their beliefs are right and if people don't believe them then they bloody well should do. Welcome to the world of religious extremism, if you need me I'll be in the bar with the bulletproof glass.

    Which will work well until the night of broken glass.

    Maybe it's not 1984, but it's 1938.

  32. Way to go by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only difference between religion and mythology is that mythology was the nonsense that people used to beleive, and religion is the nonsense they beleive today.

    Keep your religion out of our science! You beleive what you want, but anyone that thinks they have a right to force what they beleive on someone else needs a swift kick in the ass (and yes, that includes other people's children, its tragic enough that parents are allowed to brainwash their own children)

  33. Re:Gotta love that... by craXORjack · · Score: 4, Funny
    Presumably these Christians haven't heard of such advice as "turn the other cheek".

    The two men on a country road sound like the kind of christians who do say "turn the other cheek" as well as "squeal like a pig, boy!"

    --
    Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
  34. Intelligence is Clearly not a Dominant Trait by yintercept · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In some regards, the Intelligent Design groups have a point. The way that our society treats intelligent men and women, it is clear that it is not a dominant trait. The way humans chose to breed and the way that the powers that be cut down anyone who dares question authority ... one would guess that intelligence could not have evolved in the human species.

    The idea that people get worse with each generation has been around since at least Plato!

    Personally, I think the intelligence design debate will peter out as people realization that Intelligent Design is not only bad science. It is bad religion. The premise behind the belief is that the writers of the Intelligent Design book can see the hand of God in the gaps of the fossil record as currently understood by evolutionists.

    The premise of intelligent design is that our God is a second imperfect God who did a shoddy job when he put together the earth. God did such a bad job that we can see the gaps in the fossil record.

    If you held to a perfect God theory, then you would expect to find a perfect chain of evolution in the fossil record. For that matter, studying evolution would be a very spiritual and fulfilling science in that you are studying a perfect work of a divine creator.

    As more people seriously contemplate the theory of Intelligent Design, I suspect that they will find it lacking in both scientific merit and theological merit.

    On the far side of the debate. There was one area I wish science would bring to the table. That is that there is a lot of garbage philosophy stuffed into science. This was one of the demons that Karl Popper chased. Both Hegel and Marx were trying to guise philosophies as science. Both Hegel and Marx were claiming to see the future direction of the evolution of man. Today, I see a quite a few philosophies trying to gain the highground of scientific merit in by similarly perverting science.

    My point in this rambling is that good science is not in conflict with good theology because science (the study of the way things are) is also the study of the "divine creation."

    What we see all of the time in these silly debates is crappy science in conflict with crappy theology.

    It is a great shame that the proponents of Intelligent Design seek to deprive children of quality education because they have a bad theology. Similarly, I get sad when I see wanks pushing their personal believes in the guise of evolutionary psychology or that Hegelian/Marxists nonesense.

    Both good science and good theology seem hard to come by these days.

    1. Re:Intelligence is Clearly not a Dominant Trait by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're very right. And I've always wondered why Christians are so intent on getting ID taught. It very clearly contradicts the Bible. And if you're willing to accept that the Bible isn't literal truth, then what the hell is the problem with thinking God made the laws of physics, hit the on-switch, and sends a Jesus or two every once in a while? You don't need gaps in the fossil record for that.

  35. Re:Beaten? by Lifewish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would have downmodded the parent (yay! Mod points!) but sadly there isn't actually a moderation option for 'bollocks'. You'll note that, of the parent's links, one is just Mirecki refusing to speak to a fundamentalist journalist (this is what we call "following the lawyer's advice", and from the tone of the subsequent interview I can only say that I would have done the same). The second is a Conservative activist incisively pointing out that not all information on brutal beatings is immediately made available to the public (or it would be incisive if that's what he realised he was doing) and suggesting that the request for Mirecki's resignation (which iirc occurred before the beating) indicates he's a shifty sort of fellow.

    This is complete trash. It barely even suggests that Mirecki lied, let alone naturally pointing towards that conclusion. There are no inconsistencies. There is no need for double-quotes round the word 'beating'. There is only a respected member of the academic community, who planned a controversial course (and then made a stupid comment about it on an obscure mailing list), getting beaten up by two punks and a heavy object for suggesting that their beloved Creationism might, just possibly, be classed as a 'myth' in Religious Studies circles (which happens to be factually accurate, and wouldn't even count as tactless if he hadn't made the aforesaid dumb remark). This is unjustifiable and I'm mildly shocked to see anyone other than the monosyllabic perpetrators fighting Mirecki over this.

    More, I'm deeply worried by the chilling effect this will have on other courses similarly critical of Intelligent Design and Creationism. Evolutionary biologists critique evolution every day - why should ID and 'scientific creationism' be exempt merely by dint of being scientifically vacuous?

    --
    For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
  36. Substitute "Blacks" for "Christians"? by hmbcarol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People seem to confuse the very tiny number of people who attacked this professor and who maintain a non-scientific militaint anti evolusionist stance with the much larger group of people who call themselves "Christians".

    People are extrapolating the actions of a small group of hateful idiots to an entire class of people who happen to have an overlapping characteristic and disparaging the entire group as stupid, backward, or violent.

    I suspect those same people would be horrified if the actions of a single minority member were to be unfairly extrapolated to their entire race or culture.

    1. Re:Substitute "Blacks" for "Christians"? by theodicey · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Well, I respectfully suggest that the much larger group of people who call themselves "Christians" get a grip on the extremist, bigoted elements of their community which are currently running the country (and have always run certain states).

      Until you take some proactive steps to shame and marginalize the Dobsons, Robertsons and LaHayes, mainstream Christians will inevitably be associated with aiding and abetting backwardsness and stupidity.

    2. Re:Substitute "Blacks" for "Christians"? by cartel · · Score: 2

      I agree with you, that happens a lot. I guess you could almost compare these people to radical Islamist/terrorists. However, I don't think they followed any kind of doctrine in doing what they did. Their actions resulted from their idiocy.

      I think that today there are a lot of people out there (maybe even the majority) that call themselves "Christians," but they are NOT Christians. They think just because they follow religious traditions, do good works, or go to church, that makes them a Christian. But that's not at all what it's about. Christianity is about having a relationship with Jesus and following his ways.

      I live in Texas (in the "Bible belt"), and I'd say the good majority of those that go to church are not Christians at all. They go to church, but everything they learn stays there. They don't put into practice the things they learn. Most churches in the U.S. are really watered down too.

      Can I ask you something? I just want your views, and I'm honestly not at all trying to start a debate or a flamewar. Someone mentioned this to me, and I would like to know what someone who believes in evolution thinks about this.

      What is your take on irreversible complexity?

  37. Religious Right by kponto · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Begin rant

    I'm so fucking sick of these people. The fact that this guy calls a spade a spade (ie. calling crazy religious freaks "crazy religious freaks") and has to then resign is unbelievable.

    End Rant

    My roomate is a Christian, and he's a standup guy, thinks creationists are crazy, hates war and the like. He said to me the other day "You know, I really like the term 'Religious Right'. It implies that there's a 'Religious Center' and a 'Religious Left'."

    --
    This too, will end.
    1. Re:Religious Right by ClamIAm · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is why my favorite bumper sticker/button says "The Christian Right is neither", because in many cases it's pretty much true.

  38. Re:Beaten? by thx1138_az · · Score: 2, Funny

    Kansas Kreationism Kommittee

  39. Re:Beaten? by Moridineas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Eh, I'm not going to go so far as to claim the attack didn't happen, but it does seem like there are some oddities involved.

    http://www.kansan.com/stories/2005/dec/08/ne_mirec ki_folo/

    http://www.kansan.com/stories/2005/dec/07/ne_mirec ki/

    Who knows? I don't, but I feel sorry for all involved... the militant religious, the militant atheists, and stupids who have to put up with such a politicized anti-Evolution anti-religious crap. Long story short, people are idiots.

  40. Re:You don't get it either. by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've met some brilliant preachers, and I recognize that even though I don't believe in their Magic Man In The Sky (tm)

    So have I, but they're not the ones that are pushing creationism.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  41. Re:Beaten? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What would Jesus do?

    He'd lie on the ground bleeding, same as Mirecki did.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  42. Re:Beaten? by nasch · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Modern-day adherents to Christianity/Islam/Judaism ... are anything but sensible, unfortunately.

    All of them? There aren't any sensible people of those faiths?

  43. Re:A boycott of Kansas? by Triggersite · · Score: 2, Funny

    Boycott Kansas? What a great idea! Let's use the fact that this happened in Kansas to prove that a lot / most / ALL people from Kansas are religious nuts who beat their intellectual betters!

    You know what else? Nobody buy anything from LA anymore! Rodney King was beaten there because people from LA are racists.

    I rally behind your flag, noble sir.

  44. Re:You fail to realize... by sseaman · · Score: 3, Funny
    As a graduate student I can tell you that you are underestimating how petty academics are...

    and as a fundie I can tell you that you are misunderestimating how fat our faces are!

  45. More coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I live in Lawrence and work at the University of Kansas (KU).

    The Lawrence Journal-World is a newspaper in Lawrence.

    The Daily Kansan is the student newspaper run from KU.

    Beating story http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/06/mirecki_t reated_after_roadside_beating/

    Follow-up to beating http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/07/mirecki_m um_details_beating/

    Prof. Mirecki resisns as dept. chair http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/07/mirecki_s tep_down_ku_post/ and http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/08/mirecki_r esigns_leadership_position/ and http://www.kansan.com/stories/2005/dec/08/ne_mirec ki_folo/

    Several of Prof. Mirecki's posts [PDF warning] http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/12/02/mireckiema il.pdf

    News of cancelling the course and a quote from a message Prof. Mirecki posted http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/02/intellige nt_design_course_canceled/?ku_news

  46. Re:Beaten? by Creosote · · Score: 5, Informative

    Exactly right. Altevogt is the fellow who was lurking on the email list to which Mirecki sent the note about "fundies", and who then shared the email publicly in order to discredit Mirecki. Whether or not that tactic is ethical, he's hardly an objective observer.

    And I can't believe that the townhall.com column is the transcript of an actual interview; it's obviously satire. We're supposed to believe that Mirecki listened patiently to a couple dozen questions and replied "no comment" to each one, rather than simply cutting short the conversation at the outset?

  47. Re:Beaten? by zootm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't mention the forged Texas National Guard documents - right asshole? Because it's only wrong if a Democrat gets his reputation hurt. Scum like you make me sick.

    At the risk of feeding the troll, I'll put in my two cents or whatever here. I am not American, and I had heard of both of these, but the Swift Boat Veterans "thing" seemed to be far larger in scale (of both the smear and the controversy) than the Texas National Guard thing. So to choose one good example, a more prominent one would be the advisable one. The Swift Boat Veterans thing is a perfectly good example of people talking complete bullshit in a high-profile way for political gain, and a single example is enough.

    I'm sure there are high-enough profile examples going the other way, but Swift Boat Veterans is a perfectly good example, is what I'm trying to say. "Scum like you make me sick" shows a fantastic level of complete ignorance.

  48. I see a catholic revival in the future by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    American-style protestants are going further and further towards the nutso-crazy-idiotic anti-science anti-progress anti-secularism anti-other-religions stereotype.

    Every unfair stereotype of a an American WASP from 10 years ago has started to come true. Expect the unfair sterotypes of today to be true within 10 years (religious warriors, indeed).

    This contrasts oddly with the vatican, who has decided to embrace science as the language of God's tapistry.

    Even me, the dedicated Agnostic, finds that ringing a tone of truth.

    What these ID idiots don't understand is that there is NO WAY a creator would use such a blunt tool as Creationism to *poof* the world into existence. "God works in mysterious ways". "All miracles are subtle". Blah Blah Blah; if THATs the case, than why WOULDN'T he use evolution?

    In one swift motion, the creator, the mover unmoved, fathomed the universe. From that point on, utilizing all the 'random' constants that he blinked into existence, the universe expanded outwards in the big bang, following the scientific explanation of creation, evolution occurred, and we are currently at the present day.

    How is that explanation not FAR, FAR more amazing, and mind blowing, and worth of a creator than, "Well, kids, God dreamed up our world, and a week later, it was there."

    I guess the problem is that the American-style Protestant is really just not that smart.

    --
    WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    1. Re:I see a catholic revival in the future by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
  49. Re:Beaten? by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What "oddities"? I read both articles you linked, as well as the badger herald article you linked above, and none of them cast doubt on the beating. There is one conservative activist whining that a guy who ran to the hospital after being assaulted can't remember what street he was on, but nothing suggesting he made anything up. The second article from the Kansan said the cops no longer consider it a hate crime, but that does not mean they don't think it occurred. My guess is that to be a "hate crime" in Kansas, like here in California, the target of an attack must be a member of a protected minority, and secular humanists don't fit the bill. But there is nothing suggesting he made up the attack except insinuation on the part of an activist.

  50. Why religious people get upset by G4from128k · · Score: 5, Insightful
    OK, so... why do fundamentalists get so worked up over this evolution thing?..... Evolution is the hammer......

    The problem is that evolution is not like a tool. Instead it is a self-propelled dynamic that needs no outside maker/creator etc. The prerequisites for evolution (differential reproduction of heritable variation) is both basic and abundant in all biological systems of all levels of complexity (it even applies to "nonliving" prebiotic chemical systems such as RNA soups and lipid mycelles). The point is that even the simplest bacteria has all the tools it needs to make itself a different species given enough time.

    That is what upsets the religious. Evolution doesn't need any gods.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Why religious people get upset by bxbaser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "But we definitely (in my mind) get *something* that has to be accounted for, and hard science alone can't account for it"

      hard science right now cant account for it.
      go back 300 years ago and hard science couldnt account for a lot more of it.
      Go ahead 300 years from now and hard science can account for a lot more of it.

      Sooner or later there will be nothing left that hard science cant account for.

  51. Re:Beaten? by jamstar7 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Definately both bad.

    Fundies are just as dangerous, as this article shows.

    The difference is termininology - muslim extremists, christian fundamentalists.. in fact there's little difference - both prepared to kill for their beliefs.

    Actually, to be a bit more precise, they're prepared to kill YOU for your beliefs.

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  52. Again, it depends upon the church. by khasim · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Methodist churches have different views than Catholic churches.

    Who's to say which is "correct"? Except God/Jesus, that is. And neither of them return my calls anymore.

    Pay attention to the stories you'll be seeing about this. Check how many local churches publicly condem those actions and how many "Christians" write about how "he deserved what he got". You might have to hit local papers for that last one.

    The church is shaped by the preacher and the congregation finds a preacher who shares their view.

    1. Re:Again, it depends upon the church. by Davorama · · Score: 2, Funny

      Methodist churches have different views than Catholic churches.

      We methodists can't even figure out what our views are consistantly in the chuch. My church out here in CA will have some drastically different sermon topics then those of some perishes out in, say, KY.

      Who's to say which is "correct"? Except God/Jesus, that is. And neither of them return my calls anymore.

      You know, Jesus stopped returning my calls a few years back too... I wonder if everything is OK up there?

      --

      Davo -- Free speech, free software, AND free beer.

    2. Re:Again, it depends upon the church. by BushCheney08 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Who's to say which is "correct"?

      I prefer to crack my eggs on the big end, and all the little endians should be killed!

      --
      Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
    3. Re:Again, it depends upon the church. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      He's been busy. Bush keeps wardialing his line.

  53. analogy is backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In Kansas, Christians are the overwhelming majority. "Whites" would be a more appropriate substitution, in which case the "small group of hateful idiots" would be the KKK circa mid-1900's. The professor would, of course, be a black man who publicly insulted them and was beaten for it. Your point about allowing their actions to reflect on the majority still stands.

    It's telling that you chose the opposite analogy, though. I have a theory that Christians like to see themselves as a persecuted minority, especially when they're in the majority and doing the persecuting.

  54. Sounds like.. by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    he could have been more tactful in his choice of words. Also since he was assaulted for his expression I have a question. What happened to 'love your neighbor as your self' and 'turn the other cheek'? Sounds like the two that went after him are no better then the crazy people claiming to do things in the name of Islam over in the middle east.

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
  55. Mitant atheists? by CitizenJohnJohn · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm a militant agnostic. I'll be round tomorrow evening to burn a big question mark in your lawn. (This joke stolen from Billy Connolly)

  56. Rule #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Rule #1:

    Never argue with people that have imaginary friends.

    1. Re:Rule #1 by rnws · · Score: 2, Funny

      You've never seen "Fight Club" huh? :-)

  57. Living in Lawrence by CompMD · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I live, attend school, and work in lovely Lawrence, Kansas. I've been all over the state, and no other city has the allure and mindset of Lawrence. This is the most tolerant, free-thinking, and progressive city in the state. If you have any doubts of that, you should read up on your civil war history. There are people other than rednecks in this state. Keep in mind that Helium was discovered here 100 years ago this week. Lynx, everyone's favorite text-based web browser was born here (read your man page). I could go on for quite a while.

    The attack on Professor Mirecki is heartbreaking. Violence in the name of God is disgusting. I think that the rift between members of academia and radcial Christians is growing. We are becoming the society that as a nation, we most actively despise: a society driven by radical religious fundamentalists who have misinterpreted the tenets of the locally dominant religion.

    Kansas has always been a little weird. Nobody can debate that. However, Lawrence has been proud to stand out from the rest of the state and see things more thoughtfully. This most recent regression has hurt what Lawrence has always stood for: freedom. Freedom to live, freedom to express one's ideas, freedom to explore the unknown, and the freedom to stand up for those things.

    Whatever your current thoughts are about Professor Mirecki, the criminals who attacked him, or the course he was trying to teach, you should probably get your news from sources a little closer to the action. The Lawrence Journal-World has covered this quite thoroughly and has some very interesting blog posts from a wide variety of bloggers (myself included) discussing the articles. I recommend it if you want to get a better view of the scenario.

    Plenty of stupid things have taken place in Kansas this year. Let's work to fix the problems that we have caused here and try to move forward.

    Nick M.

    Research Assistant

    Kansas NASA EPSCoR

  58. Re:Beaten? by kermyt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe you are looking for the abortion clinic bombers and doctor murderers, I believe they are fundementalists. And the Muslum world (By and large) condems terrorism as well, even though extremists still perpetrate violence. Very little difference.

  59. Re:Beaten? by Total_Wimp · · Score: 5, Insightful
    On Monday, Mirecki was treated at a Lawrence hospital for head injuries after he said he was beaten by two men on a country road. He said the men referred to the creationism course. Law enforcement officials were investigating.
    Isn't that just a bit extreme?

    Oh Hell yeah.

    I happened to catch a book-signing talk by John Gibson about his new book "The War on Christmas," a few weeks back. In his talk he mentioned several incidents where people had removed references to Christianity or Christmas from a public place and subsequently received death threats. He even said that one of those men had to move his wife and kids out of town for the holidays because he feared for their safety. Let me reiterate, the ones getting threatened were the seculars and they were getting threatened by people who were presumably very much Christian.

    My girlfriend raised her hand and asked why Gibson was claiming seculars were perpetuating a war when his own examples showed Christians doing all the threatening behavior and she pointed out that he had said several times how nice the seculars seemed to be when he interviewed them. Gibson gave a very watered down reply that there are two sides to any war while the crowd proceeded to turn around and try to shout down my girlfriend. They neither noticed the substance of what she said, nor the fact that the she was taking every part of her point directly from the rhetoric of the author they had come to see. They didn't seem upset in the least that Christians were engaged in threatening behavior.

    I certainly don't have an agenda against Christianity, but I must say that in my mind Christians are doing very big damage to their reputations with these kind of antics. Death threats and beatings are so over-the-top wrong that it amazes me when I hear Christians give the contradictory proclamation that Christianity is about Love. That it's about turning the other cheek.

    I'm not against Islam, but I'm very much against Muslims who fly planes into tall buildings. I'm not against Christianity, but I'm very much against Christians who beat college professors on country roads. I don't think there's anything remotely like a war on Christianity right now, but if Christians keep insisting on beating and threatening people who disagree, they shouldn't be surprised when we eventually fight back.

    TW
  60. Re:Beaten? by agiduda · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I lived in Lawrence Kansas over a decade ago. Even then stopping on a rural road and getting out for a tail-gating pickup with two men in it was not positive thing to do in your own evolution.

    --
    How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct.
    -Benjamin Disraeli
  61. Okeydokey by agiduda · · Score: 2, Funny

    Reminds me of a bumper sticker that I've seen... http://6news.ljworld.com/art/apps/pennynews/110916 2592_bigoted.jpg

    --
    How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct.
    -Benjamin Disraeli
  62. If no one else is going to say it... by Smarty2120 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new Literal-Bible-Reading overlords.

    With scientific explanations out of the way, I can think of a bunch of ways to make a pile of cash:
    - Blood Letting - "It worked in the 1700s and now it cures Bird Flu"
    - Computer Security Pixie Dust - "Got popups and malware? Then have I got a magic sand bag for you"
    - Magic Box DRM - "Now through this amazing process your record company too can protect its products from unauthorized consumer replication. Simply place products in the box for 30 minutes prior to shipment, add sheep's blood, and rest assured that your copyrighted content is safe (sheep's blood NOT included)"
    - The list goes on and on...

  63. Re:Beaten? by Meagermanx · · Score: 4, Funny

    Damn. I thought it was 2005.

  64. Re:Beaten? by belmolis · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you look at Mirecki's areas of expertise his irritation with fundamentalists becomes all the more understandable. His areas areas are Ancient Mediterranean Religion, Early Christianity, and Coptic Papyrology. That means that he knows a lot about about religion in the area in which Christianity developed about the origins of Christianity, and about branches of Christianity that either died out (e.g. gnosticism) or have followed a rather different course from the one that led to fundamentalism (e.g. Coptic Christianity). For someone with this background, the belief of fundamentalists that their interpretation of the particular compilation of texts that they consider holy is God's Truth must seem particularly crazy. I can't speak for him, but I bet that to him fundamentalists seem ignorant, naive, and arrogant even if one looks just at the religious texts and their interpretation, without concerning oneself with the conflict between fundamentalist beliefs and science.

  65. Re:Beaten? by fimbulvetr · · Score: 2, Funny

    Of course, I forgot the inqusistion.

    Nobody expects the spanish inqusistion!

  66. Re:Beaten? by NixLuver · · Score: 2, Informative

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    The fact is that, world wide, there have been many atrocities in recent years perpetrated by Christians. See Bosnia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and others. They're not much different from their Extremist Muslim Brethren Of the Book. In fact, here in the US, among American Citizens, Christians have comitted far more acts of terror than any other religious persuasion. Think abortion clinic bombings and shootings and the like. Not to mention stuff that is almost below the radar like what happened to the Professor in this story.

    Shit, I think Christianity has the all time record so far for number of people killed in the name of God.

  67. Re:Beaten? by Scarletdown · · Score: 4, Funny
    What would Jesus do?


    Or more importantly...

    WWJD for a Klondike Bar?

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  68. Re:Beaten? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sounds like they'd make good KDE developers!

  69. Re:Beaten? by cfury · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Please don't take this out on the majority of the christian population. Yes, there are people out there who use fear and ignorance to take their deep-seeded agressions out on others... this is unfortunately human nature (the wages of sin is death, after all), and far too many people are far too easily manipulated by this kind of stuff.

    I just want to point out that BEATING PEOPLE UP is not a "fundamental" Christian philosophy. Jesus would certainly NOT approve.... Pick up a Bible and read through the entire new testament (you can skip Revelations if you'd like -- it's interesting, but confusing and not really the point.) Only then can a person actually understand what it REALLY means to live a christian life.

    Blessed are the meek.... for they shall inherit the earth.

    Chris

  70. Re:Evolution vs. Intelligent Design by jjohnson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's great that there's an underlying philosophy. Doesn't make it science, though, so there's no reason to give it equal time in a science class.

    Yes, science is profoundly materialistic. That's what science is. Accept it or don't, but corrupting it does everyone who's benefitted from scientific fields like medicine, physics, chemistry, etc... well, it does all of us a disservice.

    --
    Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
  71. *roll eyes* by tigris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is it that every ethnocentric/religious/sexually-oriented/whatever else group in the world these days is treated with respect except Christians? We're easy targets, sure, and it's not unexpected. After all, 6000 of us were covered in pitch and set on fire to light Roman streets in one fell swoop under Emperor Nero. Why should we expect any different treatment now?

    Some facts

    Percentage of the U.S. population who self-identify as Christian: %82

    Percentage of Senators = 89%

    Percentage of Representatives = 90%

    Percentage of Supreme Court Justices = %78

    Percentage of Presidents = %100

    Percentage of Current Governors = 94%

    Christmas = Federal Holiday

    and I can go on and on.

    Poor little Christians. So very, very oppressed.

    1. Re:*roll eyes* by belmolis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Christians are not persecuted in the US, but I think that they often think that they are for two reasons. First, evangelical Protestantism is an exclusive and evangelical religion. Since they think that they have the only truth, tolerance for other views is not a virtue and they think that they are not really able to be Christians unless the State enforces their views. Christians think that it is their right and duty to make everyone into a Christian. What for the rest of us is protection against harassment and imposition of Christianity is therefore for them an infringment of their right to spread Christianity.

      The second reason that fundamentalists, feel persecuted is because they know that their views are considered to be ridiculous by many other people, especially intellectuals and scientists.

  72. Observations from an actual KU student by mr_economy · · Score: 5, Informative

    As someone who is both interested in dismissing the conspiracy theories and was enrolled in the cancelled class, I think it is time to post some real information.

    First, Paul Mirecki is a well-respected scholar in the field of Christianity. He is regularly chosen as the lecturer for the week that covers the Old Testament of the Bible in an Honors Western Civilization I course. Mirecki's personal beliefs regarding religion never came up in that lecture - he stuck to the facts. My experiences echo those of nearly every student who has taken a course taught by him. In his 20+ years as head of the Religious Studies department, Mirecki's scholarship and teaching have been praised by scholars and students alike.

    Second, the email in question was sent via a Yahoo listserv to members of the KU Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics (SOMAA). While the group may be a part of KU, it is about as disconnected from the everyday processes of the University as can be. Student groups are funded through the KU Student Senate, which means the University's own democratic processes (which include plenty of Christians as voters) elected a body of individuals who sanctioned funding of SOMAA. The Christian individual who released the one paragraph of the email had no business doing so. The released text was taken out of any context (the vast majority of the message had nothing to do with the class in question). In addition, complaining about SOMAA being anti-Christian is akin to me joining the listserv for any of the multiple Christian student groups and then whining when they mention God or Jesus in their emails.

    Third, the Kansas legislature has a history of trying to destroy the University of Kansas. Several years ago, a state legislator claimed a student came to her and accused the professor of a popular Human Sexuality course of promoting pedofilia among other things. After much hubub and threats from the state, it came out that the 'student' was actually an aide of the legislator in question, had been encouraged to falsify her claims, and an investigation by the University found zero evidence to back the claims. Keep in mind here folks that we have more than one legislator without so much as a high school diploma. A prominent representative from wealthy Johnson County has vocally voiced her opposition to the 19th Amendment and women's suffrage. The conservative majority in our state legislature is uneducated, inept, and scary - only our governer is keeping things from getting too out of control.

    And finally, the beating is real. I notice one of the sources often cited for inconsitencies in stories is www.kansan.com . That is the online version of our student newspaper, and I would shudder to think that The Kansan would be used as a serious resource. The journalists on our newspaper staff have difficulties differentiating between their/there/they're, much less getting their facts straight on a criminal investigation. Please, if you're going to cite a Lawrence paper, at least go with something more reputable like the Journal World. After visiting with several faculty members of the Religious Studies department, they all gave similar accounts of Mirecki's injuries. Sorry to say, but I trust the accounts of professors with whom I have developed personal friendships over CNN journalists who probably did not even know where Lawrence was before this whole incident occurred.

    1. Re:Observations from an actual KU student by mr_economy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have it on good word from more than one of his co-workers in Religious Studies that it really happened. Honestly there is no reason for him to fake the beating, it's not like it will gain him much sympathy from the crowd that he upset anyway.

      And I most certainly agree it was a stupid thing to confront those guys. I grew up in Western Kansas (unfortunately), and anyone who has grown up in this area knows that two guys in a big truck means bad things. That being said, after being hounded by both the state legislature and every major and minor news organization imaginable, I don't think he was probably in the best state of mind at that time.

      I will reiterate that his 'fundies' comment was in one paragraph of a rather long email. His outrage is also quite understandable. The state board of education, comprised of lay members of the community, has decided to impose a new definition of science upon those trained in it. Neither I, nor most other people, have an issue with Intelligent Design being discussed in schools. After all, if we talk about Greek mythology, we should include the academic study of other religious mythologies as well. But none of those mythologies belong anywhere near a science class. If the legislature does indeed implement those recommendations from the BoE, there will be serious ramifications for Kansas students. More than one prestigious public university has vowed to not allow students from Kansas high schools if evolution is replaced in favor of Intelligent Design. Not to mention our state becomes, once again, the mockery of that nation. Speaking of vanishing multimillion dollar business deals, it becomes increasingly difficult to attract business commerce to a state seen as backward.

      On the hypothetical question of his usage of "Jews" or "Muslims", that question is not even worth addressing. Neither the Jews, nor the Muslims in this state are mounting a campaign to destroy science. It's not worth speculating about a situation that has little probability of occurring.

      Finally, your labeling of the cancelled class as an "anti-ID" class is misleading. There is a serious difference between the academic term of 'myth' and the way 'myth' is used in everyday conversation. The American Heritage Dictionary defines myth as: "A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society." The ID class would have explored the birth and evolution (no pun intended) of the Creationism and Intelligent Design myth systems. Because it traces a historical path, Dr. Mirecki is/was supremely qualified to teach it: his expertise lies in early Christian cultures and societies. The controversy that came with that class exposes the ID cronies and what they were really attempting: to repackage Christian myths in the most watered-down version in order to get a foot in the door of public schools. There is no outcry over the study of Greek religions and religious texts as mythology, nor is there any outcry against the same thing for American Indian religions.

    2. Re:Observations from an actual KU student by mr_economy · · Score: 2, Informative

      A professor with his own personal beliefs? Say it ain't so! The world must surely be coming to an end. Woe is me.

      Newsflash: everyone has their personal beliefs, including professors, and only a fool would try to deny them this ability. It is human nature to have differing opinions. The only thing that matters is that those beliefs do not impact his teaching. And as someone who has personally experienced Dr. Mirecki as a lecturer, as opposed to most who have been doing the whining, I see no reason to believe his personal beliefs have affected his teaching in any way. In fact I was quite surprised to discover he was the leader of SOMAA because of the way he delivered the lecture over the Old Testament - he would have been easier to mistake for a member of the clergy than an atheist. Mirecki's personal beliefs are relevant if and only if they impact his teaching, and there is zero evidence to suggest that is the case.

      Nice try on guessing my major, but it seems the Kansas legislature is the only one with a collective degree in drama here: this is the second time in three years there have been threats to pull all state funding from the University because of the questioned actions of one faculty member. This is all quite ironic because one of the largest conservative magazines in the country recently listed KU as a top public school with one caveat: the legislature does not provide enough funding.

      Now here's the truth from someone who is more than just an armchair op-ed writer: Paul Mirecki expressed the beliefs that many Kansans have been feeling since the last school board election. He has nothing more to applogize for than the faculty sponsor of University Christian Fellowship every time a reference is made to God or Jesus. Or would you prefer the state now get involved in dictating what personal beliefs individuals are allowed to hold? Make them members of the Party perhaps? I can see it now: in Nebraska you can always find a party, but in Kansas the Party finds you! You are making much ado about nothing. If this were a Christian at the focus of a witch hunt, you would be crying some more about how the poor Christians are so persecuted in this nation. And that argument would be as worthless as the one you advance here.

      In essence, your post and point functions as one giant red herring. The only real question here is whether Mirecki would have taught the class fairly according to the standards it set: exploring the history of ID and Creationism as myth (refer to my previous correct definition). For all the whining and crying people have done, there has not yet been a shred of real evidence to indicate those standards would not have been met. This man has been chair of the Religious Studies department for 20 years. One complaint in 20 years. Sensationalized? You bet.

  73. Read more history and anthropology by Valdrax · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Someone else was beaten or killed in the name of religion! *gasp*
    What's the total up to now? A few billion?


    Being that religion has been the social glue to bind humanity's tribal attitudes together for, oh only ten of thousands of years against the last two-three centuries of secularlist thought, methinks you give religion too much of a bad rap.

    Atheist viewpoints are not inherently better. Look how many people have been killed in a few years by fascists in worship of the state and racial purity or communists in the rise of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie or in economic "growth" initiatives.

    People are people and will attempt to hurt people who are different from them regardless of what supposed values make their kind of people better. Religion gets a bad rap because it's been the most abused concept in history, but making religion go away won't fix that human tendency either. It is not religion's sole provence (to paraphrase Voltaire) to make one believe in absurdities and then commit atrocities.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  74. Re:Beaten? by CRCulver · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...or have followed a rather different course from the one that led to fundamentalism (e.g. Coptic Christianity). For someone with this background, the belief of fundamentalists that their interpretation of the particular compilation of texts that they consider holy is God's Truth must seem particularly crazy.

    Copts, being orthodox (and Orthodox) Christians also believe that the Bible is God's word. Furthermore, there is a great suspicion about the theory of evolution among the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox. Notice that the Church Fathers, whose teachings ultimately constitute the Holy Tradition which is the basis of the faith and can't be questions, assumed that the story of creation in Genesis is true in its general details. While the Orthodox and American fundamentalist Christians greatly differ on many subjects, this is probably not one of them.

  75. Re:Evolution vs. Intelligent Design by lostboy2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Interesting comments. I too tend to believe that there's more to life than simple biomechanics, but IMO the fuss isn't about Evolution vs Intelligent Design or Science vs Religion.

    Many (and I'd hope most) of the scientists, teachers and professors who object to including Intelligent Design in science classes aren't objecting because they think Evolution is 100% correct, or because they think Intelligent Design is wrong. They object because Intelligent Design isn't science, by definition of the term "science".

    There are two purposes to any science class, in my opinion: one is to teach students what are currently believed to be the most accurate scientific theories, but the other (and perhaps more important) purpose is to teach the scientific method: the method by which those theories are developed.

    The main components of the scientific method are observation and experimentation. That is, you observe something, formulate a hypothesis, develop experiments that you can run to test the hypothesis, run the experiment and then see how well your hypothesis holds up. Typically, you'd find that something wasn't exactly the way you thought it would be, so you'd tweak your hypothesis, develop new experiments, and repeat the process ad infinitum. Through this process, you'd inch closer and closer to "the truth".

    With Intelligent Design, however, there aren't any experiments that you can run to reliably test the hypothesis. If God is omnipotent, God can alter the outcome of any experiment. Thus, you can never prove or disprove the theory (which, is the whole point of Faith, as I understand it). While that doesn't mean Intelligent Design is wrong, it means it doesn't fit the definition of Science.

    Now, many people (including Senator John McCain) wonder why teachers and scientists are so opposed to including Intelligent Design in the curriculum. The problem is that doing so would be an inherent contradition and, as a result, teachers would not be teaching the scientific method, which is the whole point of the class. It would be like teaching that beef is a vegetable in a botany class.

    That's not to say that the current scientific theories are all correct. In fact, we know that they're not. One hope of teaching science is to develop the next generation of scientists who can test and refine or change the current theories (or develop new ones) and bring us closer to "the truth". If we teach students that it's acceptible to ignore the results of scientific method in favor of theories that are untestable, then we are crippling our own progress and will slip further and further behind Germany and Japan (for example) in fields like Engineering. Would you want to fly in an airplane whose design was based on theories that are not testable and which contradict what we believe to be the laws of physics? Or, more succinctly, would you fly in an airplane whose design was based on faith?

    This is not to say that we should never discuss Intelligent Design at all. I've heard many scientists say that it is a valid topic, just not for a science class (or, at least, not a high-school level science class, in my opinion).

    Interestingly, many scientists feel the same way about String Theory as well (which is why this isn't about Science vs Religion). String theory is an attempt to rectify some of the inconsistencies between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. The problem is that there's no observable tests for String Theory. So, while it might be true, there's no way we could test it to find out.

    At one point (and it may still be the case) there were five versions of string theory, all of which seemed equally valid. But some of those theories contradicted the others. Since none of them could be tested, how would you know which one is correct? Similarly

  76. Re:Beaten? by Shanep · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, those Christian fundies are hacking off people's heads all over the place, and blowing themselves up inside crowded buses, schools, and bars because the rest of us don't believe exactly as they do.

    Idiot.


    Yeah, instead the Christ fundies blow up unidentified crowds of people (who are just walking down the street in their own country) with laser GBU's, kill innocents including children, call them "collateral damage" and the overall operation a "liberation" and all in the name of taking down some regime which never threatened to attack or had the means to attack the USA.

    Iraq did of course have a cunt load of oil, but that has nothing to do with the "liberation" does it?

    Then there is the whole torturing random people (who had one two many AK's in their house) to death and raping women (I've seen the photos). Oh and then there is the Christ fundies who make pot shots at random people in Iraq going about their own business (I've seen the video). Oh and the shooting of unarmed "combatants" (seen lots of the videos)... oh and the avoidance of getting so much as a shrapnel hit on a mosque, yet happily killing people who exit that same mosque, only once they get far enough away... etc etc etc.

    Yeah, the Christ fundies are just a bunch of kind, loving, forgiving, good folk aren't they?

    Hang on a sec, one to many AK's? If we applied this to the US, almost everyone would be fucking dead. Oh but that is okay because it allows US citizens to protect themselves from a government turned tyranical or from invading forces. So in Iraq, a home with more than 1 AK is a terrorist house, but in the USA a home with more than one gun is the home of some good little capitalist consumers. Right?

    Idiot.

    --
    War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
  77. Right by DanTheLewis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm a Protestant, and I don't start with Biblical inerrancy or something like that. In fact, I find those ways of reading the Bible rather dubious. Rather, I have been profoundly affected by the figure of Jesus; who is he? What was he about? What would he have to say to people like me? The answers to those questions, and to others about the meaning of life and death and about lived beliefs, brought me to Christianity.

    As a person of faith, I find that such a stance frees me to be rather more objective about the Bible, especially the Hebrew Bible. If I find out that Christ's story is a cheat, I can drop it, finally, in the knowledge that I was faithful to my reasons as far as they went. But now I don't have to concentrate on every so-called contradiction in the Bible. Instead, I can begin to know Jesus by examining the writings of the people who knew him best, and slowly expand from there.

    So I don't always know how to take the Hebrew Bible. The sons and daughters of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob talked about God, at times, in ways I don't recognize. I am not trying to revive the Manichean heresy (he thought that the Adonai of the Old Testament was the evil God, and Christ was the good God who defeated Adonai). But I can allow the questions to get a lot deeper into my thinking this way.

    --

    Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
    A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
  78. Rule #2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do not vote for a politician who claims special communication with higher beings.

    1. Re:Rule #2 by Winawer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, a relationship with God can apparently be had through your local intercom. :-)

    2. Re:Rule #2 by dorkygeek · · Score: 2, Funny
      So i assume that you're talking about some other religion, or some uniquely insane politician, neither of which has anything to do with Biblical creation.

      No, but unfortunately with the university of Kansas.

      --
      Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
    3. Re:Rule #2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Talking to God is fine. It's when God starts talking back that you should be worrying.

    4. Re:Rule #2 by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why do you need to Jesus to have a relationship with god? Why do i need a church? Why do i need a systemic beleif system that profits of the goodwill of its flock?

      Why cant i just love god and be a good person for whatever god is, or may not be?

      Why does one have to be in a cult to get some place? Heaven, Halebob, burned to the ground in Waco...

      It seems whenever a group of people get together in the name of god, they seem to miss the entire message of god.

      I wont claim to know what god wants... but it sure as hell cant be hating each other over sexual preferences, fairy tales, or exploiting the poor to become even more wealthier. I'm sure as hell national health care is a good "christian" thing to do, yet so many seem to be against it.

      Ah well.. GOD.. who knows what he, she, it, wants...

      Lets just be nice to each other... i think thats the whole point.

    5. Re:Rule #2 by Gibsnag · · Score: 5, Informative

      Uh, he wasn't saying to look for an answer besides God. He was saying that he doesn't understand why you need organised religion to worship a God. Organised religion hardly has the best track record so its a pretty valid point.

    6. Re:Rule #2 by Magic5Ball · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But there are over 2,000 years of human history with god(s) without fixing the violence toward your fellow man issue. I'd almost claim that religion has made things worse at the national level since conflicts between countries aren't resolved once the battle for land/resources is over, but persist in the minds and actions of individuals as a religious conflict.

      The ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict is decidedly not about control over world-class farm land, but about control over artefacts of religious value. Similarly, the Sunni vs Shiia issue in Iraq is not about getting the most competent people in power, but about electing people based on their non-objective interpretation a non-authoritatively documented divergence of religious views that happened 1500 years ago.

      Perhaps we should do some stronger natural selection against the mal-adapted religious sects out there...

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    7. Re:Rule #2 by Redwin · · Score: 4, Funny

      When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself. -- Peter O'Toole

      --
      Warning, comments may not have been passed by the sanity department of my brain.
    8. Re:Rule #2 by moz25 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The actual problem is with people like yourself who make absolute claims about deities and then that there must be something wrong with people who don't accept their mythology as fact. More troubling is the inability to conceive other points of view to the level that one cannot even imagine how another person's life and thoughts do not resolve around the same deity or a deity at all and that the person's motivations and logic can still be expressed in that deity.

      It's all fine, but let's not forget that it's only one of the multiple popular mythologies of our present day. Once we start confusing mythology with reality, we run into trouble.

    9. Re:Rule #2 by Chmcginn · · Score: 2, Informative
      organized book clubs?

      I mean, as far as I know, they're not responsible for any genocides... That's got to count for something.

      --
      Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  79. Re:Beaten? by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I can't speak for him, but I bet that to him fundamentalists seem ignorant, naive, and arrogant even if one looks just at the religious texts and their interpretation

    Probably even more so when he looks just at the fact that two of them beat the shit out of him for disagreeing with them.

  80. Embarrassing by IAstudent · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Some people like these that use their religion to promote intolerence are making Christianity look a little less appetizing. I grew up Catholic, gave my first communion, and other such rites of passage. Fundies are just one example that's making me embarrased about my beliefs.

    On the issue of ID though, that fact that it's psuedoscience has already been establish, and I'm not sure you can even include "science" in that term. Last year in AP Biology, my teacher brought in a National Geographic article that reaffirmed Darwin's theories of natural selection. I think ID was mentioned once during that class but it was a subject that was quickly dropped. Of course, that was about 9 months ago, before ID became topic fodder for the New York Times, Newsweek, etc. That's when I knew we had a problem.

    If the religious fanatics won't go away, then at least keep ID somewhere closer to the study of religion, not biology.

  81. As Mark Twain wrote in 'Letters From The Earth'... by jpellino · · Score: 5, Funny

    "A man got religion, and asked the priest what he must do to be worthy of his new estate. The priest said, "Imitate our Father in Heaven, learn to be like him." The man studied his Bible diligently and thoroughly and understandingly, and then with prayers for heavenly guidance instituted his imitations. He tricked his wife into falling downstairs, and she broke her back and became a paralytic for life; he betrayed his brother into the hands of a sharper, who robbed him of his all and landed him in the almshouse; he inoculated one son with hookworms, another with the sleeping sickness, another with gonorrhea; he furnished one daughter with scarlet fever and ushered her into her teens deaf, dumb, and blind for life; and after helping a rascal seduce the remaining one, he closed his doors against her and she died in a brothel cursing him. Then he reported to the priest, who said that that was no way to imitate his Father in Heaven. The convert asked wherein he had failed, but the priest changed the subject and inquired what kind of weather he was having, up his way."

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  82. Good old unbiased CNN by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Interesting how there is very little mention that this guy was physically beaten because of his beliefs. I imagine that if the guy was a priest who decried atheists, people would go nuts.

    I love CNN's unbiased reporting.

  83. Re:Evolution vs. Intelligent Design by Bush+Pig · · Score: 2, Informative

    >[T]he proponents of Intelligent Design are really just pushing for equal time.

    They don't deserve equal time. A right to equal time would imply they were saying something that, in the interests of a fair and balanced discussion, was worth listening to.

    --
    What a long, strange trip it's been.
  84. How often a Muslim blows him/herself by Descalzo · · Score: 2, Informative
    Try this:

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    There have been about 3,700 terrorist attacks since 9/11/01 perpetrated by Muslims.

    I don't hate Muslims, nor do I think they are evil, but it IS an interesting statistic. I am not blind, either, to wrongs committed by Christians or atheists.

    --
    I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
  85. Slaves, etc. by Descalzo · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It seems that many of Jesus' disciples or would-be disciples expected him to overthrow Roman rule and all sorts of things like that. But he made it clear that his kingdom was "not of this world." I have wondered about that, and I think that must be it. I think if He had spent time making political waves, the Romans would have made it very hard to get work done.

    This is something I'm still working on.

    --
    I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
    1. Re:Slaves, etc. by Irvu · · Score: 2, Informative

      I would argue that he did spend his time making political waves, in some of the most direct ways. His rejection of this world was itself a political statement. People participate in governments, struggles, movements, taxes, based upon the extent to which it "matters". If they sieze the idea that it doesn't matter then they won't bother and people who depend upon people caring (e.g. the rich) will be quite bothered by that, and they were.

      This is one of the reasons that most governments offer something "beyond death". Open theocracies tie participation in the state to rewards in heaven, or punishment in hell. Quasi theocracies (countries where you're okay so long as you are some kind of christian/jew/muslim/athiest, etc). Simply select for "acceptable" religions, i.e. the ones that don't oppose their views.

      In Jesus day it wasn't just the romans it was also the Scribes and the Pharasees who were two warring political factions within the Jewish heirarchy. Both were seeking power (the Scribes had it at the time) and both were arguing that they were better bets to fight/appease Rome. Other groups were also on the playing field such as the Sadduces(sp?) and others.

      At times in Jewish history their battles moved from words to violence cheifly over the question of who was best at fighting the Romans. Other related groups such asthe Zealots, and the Sycarii turned more openly to violence, the Sycarii were so good at assasinating people they opposed that Sycarius is latin for assasin.

      Jesus at one point (near his death) makes his opposition to these groups plain saying that the Scribes seek only to increase the size of their prayer boxes (a box tied to the head with prayers in it, the bigger the box, the more obviously pious you are). He has some similar comment for the Pharasees.

      The whole "Give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's and Give to God what is God's" story was a setup on their part to trap Jesus into declaring for one side or the other. Jesus's answer was a third option that pissed off everyone.

      Jesus pissed off both groups who had very real worldly ambitions with his, 'let's all be peaceful' approach. This is why they participated in handing him over to the Romans.

  86. Re:Evolution vs. Intelligent Design by belmolis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The differences between ID and evolution are not just differences in philosophy. Most forms of ID take as a major premise the claim that biological structures are so perfect that they must have been designed by an intelligent designer. And of course those IDers who are fundamentalist Christians, certainly a large fraction though not all, think that the designer was not merely intelligent but omniscient and omnipotent, the natural consequence of which is that biological structures should all be really well designed. The premise of biological perfection is an empirical premise, so empirical that it is false. IDers have a terrible time explaining why so many biological structures are horrible kludges. Take the retina for instance. What kind of nutcase would design an eye like that?

  87. Re:this guy is a dick by n6kuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >This riddle always irked me: If God is omnipotent, can he make a rock so big that he can (I think you meant "can't") move it?

    The question is linguistic nonsense. Don't agonize over it.
    God can't make a square circle, either.

    --
    If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
  88. Re:As Mark Twain wrote in 'Letters From The Earth' by blippy · · Score: 2

    When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I
    realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole
    one and asked him to forgive me. -- Emo Phillips

    I go to the rabbi and I ask him the meaning of life.
    He tells me the meaning of life, but he tells it to me in Hebrew.
    Then he wants to charge me $600 for Hebrew lessons. --Woody Allen

  89. Humble pie by beforewisdom · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Americans who watch news reports about Afghanistan and who lament how backward the taliban is should keep stories like this in mind.

  90. Re:Slashdot - Where Christians are constantly mock by CommieOverlord · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I better not find out that a single slashdotting atheist celebrates Christmas in any way (giving gifts, taking time off from work, etc.)

    That's a remarkably stupid comment. While I do not celebrate Christmas per se, I fully celebrate a winter celebration/feast/holiday. It's a time to have fun with friends and family, and add colour in the middle of bleak and cold winter. The winter celebration is in no way solely a Christian concept. Besides, my workplace shuts down at Christmas, I have no choice in the matter.

    Two obviously non-Christians (Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek)

    That's a sneaky statement. "Christians can't do bad things, therefore they must evil atheists". You know, they believe in Christ, the God, and the Bible. That makes them Christian. They may not have full understanding of the concept but it's the believe they faith in, so that's what they are. They're Christian, albeit errant Christians.

    Millions of atheists murder and rape people,

    And millions of Christians murder and rape people too. Given that people who identify as atheists make up 10% of the population in North America, Christian murders and rapists probably outnumber them by an order of magnitude.