Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, December 7, 2005

KU questions

December 7, 2005

Advertisement

To the editor:

Paul Mirecki's e-mail comments have stirred up the hornet's nest on both sides. There are those who defend his comments, and there are those who find his comments tragic. I, like Chancellor Hemenway, find them repugnant and vile.

However, Mirecki's comments should surprise no one. College campuses are a hotbed of liberal and left-wing fanaticism. Religion (especially Christianity) is, in the eyes of many college administrators and faculty, one barrier in their path.

But even as the religious studies department is infiltrated by these types, the questions arise. How did someone with his views become a professor in theology, let alone the head of the department? Are some of the classes offered, taught meaningfully or in a fraudulent manner? Does the university allow this type of behavior to go on unchecked?

The chancellor or someone from the university needs to address these questions so that taxpaying citizens of Kansas can see how their tax dollars are used by our state-funded university. By the way, how can you be both open-minded and an atheist at the same time?

Ray Mehl,

Lawrence

Comments

Spoken1 9 years ago

Ray, do you believe in freedom of speech? Or is that just too liberal, open minded, and/or un-American for you?

grimpeur 9 years ago

Um, Ray, perhaps you've missed the fanaticism on display on the state Board of Ed. Not just fanaticism: intentional, disingenuous, anti-intellectualism and lies from people who claim their ID agenda is not religiously-motivated. How do these people become school board members?

Keep your eye on the ball, people. Mirecki is a side issue. The real problem is religion and creationist propaganda masquerading as science.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 9 years ago

Ray obviously either doesn't know that KU has a Dept of Relgious Studies, not a school of theology, or just doesn't understand or accept the difference. But his ignorance apparently extends far beyond that.

I wonder if Mehl would consider someone who had suffered child abuse automatically incapable of functioning as a professor of HDFL (human devopment and family life) or a holocaust survivor incapable of teaching the history of WWII?

Randippidy 9 years ago

I would hardly call the use of reason over stupidity liberal. I would call it conservative restraint. If you wish bullchit to pass for reason you just do not get it. You have nothing to offer, prey for what? prey that people use reason for solve their problems? what the fascist is that? you offer us stupidity as an excuse to cover your inability to think rationally about the world. God is a joke, never existed never will exist. Those who believe in this fantasy are the most vile and dangerous of the old world that needs to be disgarded forever.

Jamesaust 9 years ago

"How did someone with his views become a professor in theology, let alone the head of the department? Are some of the classes offered, taught meaningfully or in a fraudulent manner? Does the university allow this type of behavior to go on unchecked?"

I find the implications here repugnant and vile (as well as exceedingly ignorant), although the the use of "myth" to describe ID was perfectly apt.

I, as a Christian, found the professor's comments expressing his opinions insensitive and misplaced.

That said, professors are still allowed opinions in this country and the author's fascist (a carefully chosen word here based on the textbook display in this letter) intimidation by questioning the qualifications of the professor, hinting at fraud, and implying that some 'action' against the professor is necessary (perhaps an 'education' delivered roadside?) is the true outrage here.

JVW 9 years ago

Wow. Randippidy puts some of my anti-stupidity rants to shame.

Bozo has made the right point. Religious Studies isn't church. You can be of any faith or lack of faith and teach a class about the history of religion, or about the social evolution of various religions. Now, an atheist teaching at a seminary is probably inappropriate. But in the Religious Studies department I think an atheist commands a powerful view.

Grimpeur also hits the nail on the head. This event is just a side issue in a much bigger cultural situation. I don't think ID has the steam to go much farther than it has so I don't see a doomsday threat from it. But still, it's important to show people what is really happening. ID is a Christian fundamentalist trojan horse for breaking down the wall of seperation that protects ALL of us from persecution.

When I see this kind of stuff here in my own town, or my own workplace I always try to argue from a point that people can understand. Most of this town is Baptist. When I hear comments like "They're taking away God from schools" I ask this question: What would you do if your child came home spouting Catholic or Jewish dogma? You want God in schools, but you only one a certain God.

This is the land of the free, not the land of the Baptists.

freethinkinghawk 9 years ago

To answer the last question in this letter, I can't speak for everyone in SOMA, but I can speak for myself. I am more than willing to listen, open-mindedly, to whatever viewpoint anyone might hold. If they can provide me with some reason to change my mind and agree with them, that's what I'll do. Presently, I feel that there is no god, based on the evidence in front of me. But, as a scientifically thinking person, I admit that I don't actually know. There is no proof to negate the existence of god(s), and if something came to show the contrary, I would reconsider my position.

If you feel this is less open-minded than any other position (considering that everyone has opinions, beliefs, etc.), I'm certainly happy to listen.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.