LJWorld.com

AA (Anonymous) says…

What the KU Vice Chancellor David Shulenburger said on the KU website on 22/11:
–––
At KU, we instruct our teachers to create a classroom environment that encourages intellectual inquiry and civil discussion that helps students master the subject matter. This religious studies course will be held up to the same standard. All views will be respected and rights to freedom of expression will be fully observed. This university welcomes students of all religious faiths and prides itself on maintaining a climate of openness and tolerance.
––— Emphasize: “civil, respect, openness, tolerance…”

Mirecki's email has undercovered his strategy, made a mockery of the KU statement and backfired into “THE nice slap in the big fat face” of KU.

Good luck for the future Mr Mirecki - who's going to be the laughingstock now?

ksbearsfan (Anonymous) says…

A point that is being missed is that this does not just involve Christianity. He is mocking all religions that support a higher being. Whatever happened to religious freedom. The freedom to worship and belive without being mocked in public places such as a university? I support both creationism and evolution being taught along with the faults of both. And as for proof, I have yet to see absolute proof that evolution is 100 percent accurate as well as the Big Bang theory.

Shardwurm (Anonymous) says…

My daughter is a senior trying to decide where to attend college. Think this will influence our decision?

Yep.

What other courses are taught in this manner?

Barclay (Anonymous) says…

I'll bet a year's legislative funding that the Provost will never okay a class called, “The Koran, Paradise and other Middle East Mythologies.”

Mr_Christopher (Anonymous) says…

Shardwurm, your daughter might want to look into Bob Jones University instead. They teach Intelligent Design form a different perspective and they embrace diversity as well.

That or Jerry Falwell's college. Christian Colleges have a long tradition of embracing diversity while setting an example for tollerance.

I bet NO one at Bob Jones has ever made a snippy comment about secular humanists or those who accept evolution. No way!

Best of luck to you both!

Kookamooka (Anonymous) says…

I like Paul. He is right. The “right” are wrong. It's pretty simple.

rtwngr (Anonymous) says…

Wendt, you should be careful when referring to historical fallacies. Within the last decade, as a result of more open relations with Russia, several things have come to light from the cold war after WWII. One of those things is McCarthy was right about communists in the United States. Where McCarthy erred was his tactics and the fervor it generated. As it turns out there were paid informants all over the country and they existed at almost every level of government. There were communist sympathizers in the media that were complicit with the Kremlin. These facts were gleaned from documents turned over during the Clinton administration.

ive_got_my_ascot_n_my_dickie (Anonymous) says…

“this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category ‘mythology,’”
=======
I knew from the start that Mirecki used the term “mythology” simply to infuriate the fundamentalist nuts. How old is this guy? Twelve? He's acting just as childish and intolerant as the Kansas B of E and the other religious wackos. How can anyone expect to get legitimate, unbiased information from his classroom if he has such a hateful attitude toward the topic? It would be like Kay O'Connor teaching a class on evolution. Mirecki may have the material to put together an interesting class, but his behavior in this matter is an embarassment. Sad, really.

Dani (Anonymous) says…

ksbearsfan said: Whatever happened to religious freedom. The freedom to worship and belive without being mocked in public places such as a university?

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects you from religious discrimination by the government, and guarantees that the government cannot discriminate against you. The free exercise clause of the First Amendment means that the government can't criminally charge you for something because it is religious and they can't deny you a job because of your religion (be it Christian, Buddhist or Athiest). However, it does not protect religious beliefs from being mocked by private individuals. I, or Dr. Mirecki, or anyone else, can believe whatever we want and we have every right to vocalize our beliefs, just like Christians do because of another little provision in the First Amendment commonly known as “free speech.”

I'm all for religion. I believe in God. I pray. But I don't feel the need to shout it from the rooftops or infuse my beliefs into any kind of public setting. My beliefs have never been mocked and I suspect it's because I don't.

As a counter-question to ksbrearsfan, or anyone else, when did religion leave churches and private homes and enter places like public schools and universities?

ksbearsfan (Anonymous) says…

Excellent point, from the start it had the feel that the only reason for this is to infuriate people. Can you really expect to get an unbiased lecture on intelligent design from this guy?? And the use of the word mythology is a blatent attempt to tick people off. Can you imagine going up to a person and asking them how that myth of a religion they pracitce is going for them? They would be insulted. What a double standard this is setting.

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Mirecki says: “Mirecki said he wrote the message in a private e-mail and that an outsider had accessed the listserv.

“They had been reading my e-mails all along,” he said. “Where are the ethics in that, I ask.””

Rule number one in the world of the internet: Do not put anythinhg in an email you wouldn't want to see published in a newspaper.

Guess this brilliant academecian let his giant ego overcome his common sense.

Now who is the IDIOT?

Spareme (Anonymous) says…

Don't you just love the hypocrisy of Kay O’Connor?

She claims Merecki is hateful, but where was she when Pat Robertson was telling the town of Dover that God will not help them should they encounter a disaster. Now that's HATE. She's calling Merecki an ignoramus, I'd consider that pretty hateful.

These conservatives claim that God is some how on their side and that God will abandon anyone that disagrees with them.

God does not waste his energy on politics, nor does he turn his back on those who disagree with your politics.

Religion belongs in a religions study class and NOT in science class.

Senator O'Connor you profess to be a Catholic so why don't you listen to what the Vatican said, Intelligent Design is NOT science!

I disagree with Kay but I don't hate her. Too bad these conservatives can't practice in their daily lives the religion they preach to the rest of us.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

Proponents of ID/Creationism have shown that they don't understand the meaning of “theory” in the context of science, and they have now demonstrated their ignorance of the meaning of “myth” and “mythology” in the context of religious studies.

That just shows that if you want to live your life based on a credo of superstition, you need to embrace ignorance.

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

And the argument continues…. My idea vs. Your idea. Neither with any use or application.
“The secular progressives are Nazi's.” “The fundies are wacko's.”
How far will this get before people calm down and use their head instead of their emotion? Will someone get violent before the fog of war lifts? I sure hope not, but this is getting stranger all the time.
Prof Mirecki is using university resources ( and thus my tax $) to support a lie. He lied about his intentions. This questions his and the university's intellectual integrity. Doctors Milecki and Shulenburger should submit resignations on the basis of the lie and the support of it.
At least an investigation should be started into the apparent falsehoods being told by these two.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

I'm glad that you have a cool head about this, Devo, and are merely demanding that these people to resign because they have staked out positions different from your own.

ive_got_my_ascot_n_my_dickie (Anonymous) says…

just_another,

Mirecki's quote shows that his use of the word “mythology” was to insult people. If that's the case, apparently even HE doesn't even know the meaning of the word.

“this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category ‘mythology,’”

I think Mirecki needs to forget the sour grapes and seek counseling to help him get over his anger. Kay O'Connor and the Kansas B of E should seek counseling as well.

pcsdrewboy (Anonymous) says…

State Sen. Karin Brownlee, R-Olathe, said the comments concerned her.“His intent to make a mockery of Christian beliefs is inappropriate,” she said.

Whoa, hold a sec here. I thought the whole point of Intelligent Design (as espoused by its' biggest propenents, at least) was purely an areligious theory, not tied to Christianity at all?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

It would appear that Mirecki is angry, as are many, at the improper injection of religion into the teaching of science, but the choice of the word “mythology” is entirely appropriate for this class. He shouldn't have to change the long-standing accepted usage of word just to satisfy the ignorance of those who might be unreasonably offended.

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Yer right, Bozo. The profs positions are opposite mine. I think lying is wrong, they don't. Where are you regarding lying, Bozo?

greyhawk (Anonymous) says…

KBF “Can you really expect to get an unbiased lecture on intelligent design from this guy?? ”

I should hope not! To be a professor is most literally to profess…..to do any less is a great disservice to the students (and/or their parents) paying ridiculous amounts of tuition and hoping to learn something. Don't forget that these are college students, the vast majority of whom are over 18, adults, able to enter contracts, get married, join the armed forces and risk their lives at the whim of a president and a willowy Congress, and presumably have the intellectual skills to evaluate ideas presented to them in class. Or have admissions standards fallen such that we now have to protect students from ideas?

Prof. Mirecki's internet posting was ill-advised and his language choice most regrettable. But, it's a fact he made the posting. Big deal.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

I applaud Dr. Mirecki for the thoughts in his email. I am happy they are being made public.

It is time to tell the truth about the Kansas Taliban and to confront them head-on.

As to those deciding against KU for their childrens' educations: this is what you should be doing. If you don't like what is taught at KU, by all means don't send your children there. Bob Jones University, Mid-America Nazarene, or some other madrasa is more appropriate for you anyway.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

His intentions are to explore creation myths, including ID/creationism, which is a topic of great local, national and international interest. That he is aware of how this will offend its proponents doesn't make him dishonest. That he chose not to (intentionally) make public comments about that likelihood showed merely that he didn't wish to inflame the debate any more than necessary. Posting his very accurate comments about the likely reaction on a listserve was not a very internet-savvy thing to do.

KansasPerson (Anonymous) says…

There is something I'm not following about this and I hope someone can set me straight.

The professor says that his comments were in a private email, but elsewhere in the article it says that his comments were in a post to a listserv.

So, two possible scenarios: (1) Professor sent someone a private email with these comments, and that recipient then forwarded the comments to a listserv. Or, (2) Professor wrote the comments directly to the listserv.

On the listserv I sometimes read, it's not private like an email would be. Yes, you have to register for it, but it's not like it's hard to do. Basically anything on a listserv is out in the public eye — or so it has always seemed to me. But he's saying that the fundamentalists have been “reading his email all along” and that it's not ethical.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

Some listserve's are intended to be very private. I don't know about this one in particular, but it sounds like someone with access didn't respect the privacy Mirecki had expected. Different people will judge the “ethics” of that choice differently.

memoirs_of_a_sleepwalker (Anonymous) says…

Critical thinking: the other Kansas/ national deficit.

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

In this age, everyone should be aware that there is no such thing as online privacy.

Sue and Tim, I know who you are…

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Here's my suggestion to Shalenbuger for digging KU out of the mess he has gotten the university into:

Change the venue of the class. Make it a no-credit symposium, open to the public, free of charge, held in the evenings at the Dole center. Let us see for ourselves how Mirecki conducts himself and this class.

ksmattfish (Anonymous) says…

I got an idea. Go to church and teach your BS, err… ID there.

I don't pee in your church, please don't pee in my child's education.

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

“'His intent to make a mockery of Christian beliefs is inappropriate,' Karin Brownlee said.”

What Christian belief involves hocus-pocus? Such an assertion insults all Christians. I realize that fundamentalists aren't “book learnin'” types but if they were to produce the equivalent of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which theological point does evolution conflict with? God created life out of his wisdom, from his free will, and evolution was his mechanism. To look down upon evolution, if to look down on God's own creation, and so also God.

“Kay O’Connor said. 'Who is the ignoramus here? Who is the uninformed one here? The professor with the degree or this high school graduate?'” Oh Kay! Why do you keep asking questions that are self-answering?

Horace (Anonymous) says…

Your attitude appears to be very unprofessional Prof. Mirecki. As a former student who thoroughly enjoyed your Intro to the Bible class I'm embarassed and disappointed. Using your class to grind political axes is not what higher education is about.

OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…

As much as I find Dr. P's words offensive, I also realize that on a weekly basis I'm writing private e-mails to others that would offend some if made public. We need to keep this in context: someone leaked a private e-mail into the public forum. It's possible for some to have polarized views in public, but to keep those views out of their professional life. Hard and uncommon, but possible.

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus said: “That he chose not to (intentionally) make public comments about that likelihood showed merely that he didn't wish to inflame the debate any more than necessary”.
So why didn't he include evolution in the title? There's plenty of mythology, history, and philosophy in each branch of science. I'm sure there are mythologies in evolution just as there are in physics (e.g. ether). Whose side of the debate didn't he want to inflame?

Questioning conservative (religious, economic, and moral) philosophies is popular in the university today. It has been for a long time. Fine. But why can't we touch Marxism, Ecology, Evolution, etc. These topics are off limits as far as testing is concerned. They are sacred and canonical. Evolution can't be wrong, can it? Lots of really smart people believe it, right? It's very thoughtful, erudite, evidentiary. Ah, evidentiary science, the abstract, the profound, the nuanced.
Gotta love this argument of dogma vs. godma. These types of arguments have been around forever. I thought that the university profs had learned that there is never a denouement to these things.
Show some fecundity, evolutionists. Or join the long line of religious zealots who insist on their ideas as truth. Truth, ha, ha ,ha.

ralphsantos (Anonymous) says…

I have to commend OldEnuf2BYurDad for his capacity to register his understandable sense of offense while not descending into pointless vitriol or calumny. If only such levelheadedness were more common…

playnwrite (Anonymous) says…

This isn't a good development to anyone who has been hoping that this issue would go away (mostly) by the B of E reactionaries being voted out in the next election. Now a professor has responded to the corruption of high school education by corrupting higher education. What else can it be called when a class has been designed as a “slap in the face” to a particular constituency? The waters are muddied, the reactionaries have a legitimate issue and can now use this as a campaign issue. Perhaps a prerequisite to teaching this class should be having to pay to sit through a semester of a class designed as a slap in the face to your favorite belief.

TomPaine (Anonymous) says…

Yes, let's talk about the possible hidden agendas of those in public employment, and the sentiments they express in the semi-privacy of their affiliations outside work.

Every week of the year, there are KU faculty and state legislators and officials who go to gathering places where we unbelievers, those with the audacity to trust our reason over self-annointed authorities, our basic decency over Bronze Age barbarity, are slandered and disrespected in the most bigoted, ritualized way. Not just our intelligence is called into question, but our very worthiness to exist - and the standard doctrine these Sunday conspirators espouse is that anyone who fails to buy into their say-so is deservedly doomed to eternal misery of the worst kind. The public airways, including the local public access channel on cable, are full of the same disgusting, inhuman message day and night - as repugnant a doctrine as anything ever espoused by the vilest people in history.

Well, here's a message to those majority bigots who are now so offended at having their retrograde worldview called out in the halls of higher learning: Humanity will not be mocked in America! (Responding to sentiments of Karin Brownlee, theocrat from Olathe)

As to the mole on the listserv who made it his or her mission to pass on Mirecki's plan to tick off the fundy bullies - by simply telling the truth about ID's historical roots in very old mythologies - that skulking, cowardly, tattletale tactic is a prime example of what we may expect, should religion once again gain control over government. As the Great Agnostic, Robert Ingersoll warned us, in his 1890 prediction:

“There would be laws against blasphemy, laws against the publication of honest thoughts, laws against carrying books and papers in the mails in which this constitutional God should be attacked. Our land would be filled with theological spies, with religious eavesdroppers, and all the snakes and reptiles of the lowest natures, in this sunshine of religious authority, would uncoil and crawl.”

I'd say the shoe fits, if reptiles wore shoes.

ive_got_my_ascot_n_my_dickie (Anonymous) says…

Why isn't there a class called “The Myth of Islam”?

Oh, that's right….it would be politically incorrect.

ralphsantos (Anonymous) says…

devobrun,

describing “ether” as mythology in physics is wrong. It's an artifactual concept from an obsolete conception of the world. Calling it myth implies that there is a substantial body of physicists who believe in it today. That's not the case.

I can't speak for Marxism, but as far as ecology or evolution go, to say those subjects are sacred or untouchable not only is profoundly wrong, but bespeaks a profound ignorance of the matter. It ignores the active study going on in both fields, as well as alternative theories like punctuated equilibrium in the case of evolution.

Furthermore, I can't help but think that many ID proponents regard scientific theory as some kind of soap bubble, which suddenly disappears into nothingness with a single pinprick. There is such a thing as scientific theories being supported by evidence. Newtonian mechanics is an obsolete theory. It breaks down when objects are at the atomic scale, or when you're travelling near the speed of light, and it assumes space is flat. Does that mean I can jump off of the Empire State Building and not get killed? No, I will still accelerate at 9.8 meters per second per second until I die when I hit the pavement. Evolution isn't as robust or precise a theory as Newtonian mechanics, but to point at the gaps in the fossil record while ignoring the bulk of all the data for which the premise of natural selection does provide a good explanation is a remarkable feat of rhetorical selectivity.

On the other hand, what can one test or predict in Intelligent Design? Can one make a prediction about existing phenomena? Can one describe how the action of an intelligent agent can be compared against a prediction to determine the validity of the premise of ID? Does it say anything about how the unnamed intelligent agent does what it does?

I suppose that it must look like dogma if one refuses to engage the subject matter at all. However, it still remains that ID proponents try to pass the stuff off as scientific theory while not providing anything which bears much of a resemblance to scientific theory. If an ID proponent would invoke a little Karl Popper and state some kind of test that would convince them that ID isn't valid, we might get away from “dogma vs. dogma” and have something which begins to resemble a scientific debate.

kuhusker (Anonymous) says…

File this under “uninsted irony:”

“This man is a hateful man,” said state Sen. Kay O’Connor, R-Olathe. “Are we supposed to be using tax dollars to promote hatred?”

Senator O'Conner was one of the leading proponents of a state constitutional amendment in Kansas which banned same-sex marriages and civil unions.

kuhusker (Anonymous) says…

File this under “unintentional irony:”

“This man is a hateful man,” said state Sen. Kay O’Connor, R-Olathe. “Are we supposed to be using tax dollars to promote hatred?”

Senator O'Conner was one of the leading proponents of a state constitutional amendment in Kansas which banned same-sex marriages and civil unions.

Daisymae (Anonymous) says…

The religous right is the most dangerous group of individuals on earth. In their narrow, twisted logic they can justify any means to meet their ends. This includes blowing up legal abortion clinics and invading countries on a lie. Their beliefs are no more archaic than the muslim fanatics they so profess to hate.

ive_got_my_ascot_n_my_dickie (Anonymous) says…

Must all teachers espouse the views they are teaching?
=========
No, but they should be objective. Could you imagine Fred Phelps teaching “Queer Theory?” (That's an actual course at OSU. Felps doesn't teach it.)

OldEnuf2BYurDad (Anonymous) says…

Daisy:

You don't think your associating all on the “right” with terrorism isn't narrow-minded? Are you so radically lacking insight that you actually think that those of us who lean to the right are ALL making bombs in our basements to toss at abortion clinics? Do you think that being a conservative or religious makes us all supporters of all of Bush's policies?

That's how it always is. It seems that it's always the pot who is first to call a kettle black.

John1945 (Anonymous) says…

Mirecki's e-mail wasn't private. That's absolutely as blatantly false as most of the other statements made by the Mirecki and the Provost's office. Mirecki wrote it and posted it directly onto a *public* forum. Go see for yourselves.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kusoma-dis…

If you've already got a yahoo account you can go right in, if not, just sign up for one and then go right in. You'll also find one where he talks about having his disciples from his little hate-group go forth to message boards like this one and fill them up with his bile.

I wonder how many of those posting today are independent thinkers posting for themselves and how many are Mirecki's sheep? The mole comment above is quite common on there.

How Orwellian:

public = private
hate = value neutral
silliness = serious scholarship
lies = truth

a center designed to be a haven for religious students run by an atheist who clearly appears to hate the people the center is supposed to shelter, and all obviously empowered by a Chancellor who's as hateful as the faculty clown who brought KU's environment of religious hostility to our attention. Look at the postings above if you don't think so. Look at them any day faith is discussed on this forum, but I suppose this is private also.

Godot (Anonymous) says…

“We need to keep this in context: someone leaked a private e-mail into the public forum. ”

If you believe that your emails are private, you are living dangerously.

Mirecki never meant for this subject to be private. He is the one who “leaked” the new class to the press, and who blatantly lied about the objective of the class and his motive for teaching it. Someone had documentation that revealed the lie. What is unethical about setting the record straight and exposing Mirecki's unethical behavior?

tanzer (Anonymous) says…

1. I am glad he made that remark. He has academic freedom to say what he wants in class. He also has a right to have a personal opinion about the reactions of the right. And it was a pretty accurate observation on his part.
2. The list serve requires approval by the group leader before you can read. Not a completely public forum in that respect.
3. I hope he provides both the class and a public forum. I will be sure to attend!

zzgoeb (Anonymous) says…

The professor's words may seem offensive, but a salient point here comes from the so-called “Christians.” Without going to a concordance, I can paraphrase two of the most important things the young rabbi said, that seem perfect for this situation. He reminded us to “turn the other cheek”, along with “loving our enemies”; seems like the exact opposite of O'Connor, et als reactions. Also, he said “render what is God's, to God, and what is Ceasar's to Ceasar”. This speaks loudly about what religion as science vs philosophy is, and the idea that the conservatives will “be the boss” as taxpayers and how KU and all education is funded.

The young rabbi also wasn't really supportive of the rich and powerful Pharacies(sp?). Perhaps “good Christians” should try to be more “Christ-like” when coming to the forum, what a university is; a place to discuss ideas.

Also when religion becomes a political faction, can it really still be tax-exempt? Hmmm?

BOE (Anonymous) says…

ralphsantos:

” I have to commend OldEnuf2BYurDad for his capacity to register his understandable sense of offense while not descending into pointless vitriol or calumny. If only such levelheadedness were more common… ”

Seconded.

John1945 (Anonymous) says…

Posted by tanzer (anonymous) on November 24, 2005 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

-snip-

2. The list serve requires approval by the group leader before you can read. Not a completely public forum in that respect.
––––––––––-
Yahoo groups have no requirement that a gruppenfuhrer approve who can read the posts, but thank you for bleating out Mirecki's (deceitful) response. Now back to the flock.

ralphsantos (Anonymous) says…

zzgoeb,

It's worth pointing out that the young rabbi's words are equally applicable to both sides of the debate. I think this is exemplified by DaisyMae's post. Her feelings may be genuine and heartfelt, and in fact I share a bit of her concern in that I'm convinced there are some powerful neocons out there doing some reprehensible and dangerous things, but even if that is the case I can't support her rhetorical tactics.

Broad, unqualified demonization of the opposition might give vent to strong emotions, but all it does is cause opponents and more open-minded individuals to tune you out, and it often does little to convince anyone of anything because one usually ends up misrepresenting the nature of the opposition, the nature of the issue at hand, or both. Not that a hollering match once in a while isn't fun, but it never helps to keep a debate moving forward, but instead just lets things slide into the sort of polarization and mud-slinging we all moan about when we look at politics these days.

For the many of us who gripe about how politics is so polarized and negative and wonder why civil discussion has pretty much disappeared need look no further than this stream of posts to understand why: we let it happen. And the answer to fixing it is to simply not let it happen: work at being civil, arguing to the issues, respecting all participants in an argument.

Mad props to that young rabbi.

Calliope877 (Anonymous) says…

First of all, I'm so sick of this “left-wing” “right-wing” crap! Throwing labels at eachother contributes little to the discussion, so someone please explain to me what good it does because I honestly don't see the point?

Second of all, I don't see how calling creationism and ID “myths” is so deceitful and wrong. Essentially, and mind you this is solely MY opinion, all religions have a creation myth that shouldn't be taken literally. Ancient people thought alot differently than we do. They translated their perceptions of the world around them into metaphors. And since science was relatively new or mostly non-existant, they used these metaphors to explain how the world around them was created. I'm not implying that these people were completely ignorant, it's no small feat to concoct stories that have stayed with us for thousands of years. And I think to completely discredit them would be stupid because these views helped to shape the world we're living in today (both good and bad).

So basically, I think it's a good idea to present these ideas as mythologies, nor do I think that by doing so discredits or mocks any of the religions that may be discussed. I don't think Mereki has a political ax to grind by doing this. The only people implying a political agenda are some of the people posting on this board.

I agree that he wasn't very tactful with word choice in his email, but I don't think he expected this email to become public. I agree that he was very naive for thinking that anything on the internet could remain private.

John1945 (Anonymous) says…

Posted by observer (anonymous) on November 24, 2005 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John, it does require approval to read, messages do not have to be approved if you're a member, But you must be a member to raed. Typical mis-information from right wing
––––––––-
Again, this is completely misleading. Anyone with a Yahoo account can go read that group's postings anytime they want without anyone's permission.

However, this is exactly how you can anticipate that this course will be taught. If they won't tell the truth about Mirecki's intent, his misuse of terminology, or even the nature of where he posts his message (as if it somehow rationalized his bigoted and childish attacks on people of faith) how can anyone trust him to utter one honest word in the classroom?

Again, anyone who reads this can go read Mirecki at;

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kusoma-dis…

Go ahead, test it, see if one of Mirecki's acolyte's stops you and you'll have an idea of observer's integrity. Check message 1674, then look a little farther where he gives folks like observer their marching orders.

Let me ask again, how many of the messages above were posted by independent thinkers and how many were posted by Mirecki's narrow-minded acolytes?

Calliope877 (Anonymous) says…

I've never met Mirecki, so I think I may fall into the “independent thinker” category.

Calliope877 (Anonymous) says…

John1945,

I tried the link you provided, I have a yahoo account, and I'd have to actually join the group before I could read any of the postings.

Densmore (Anonymous) says…

(1) The best scientific evidence at this juncture strongly supports the theory of evolution.
(2) ID requires a belief in the supernatural and thus should not be discussed in a science class.
(3) There should be courses available in other disciplines that address ID.
(4) Mirecki is not the person who should lead a study of ID for reasons which are all too obvious today.

Folks, this is just sickening and I am personally p/o'd. Yesterday, “ive_got_my_ascot_n_my_dickie,” spoke up against the use of the term “Mythologies” in the course title and suspected that this was an intentional “up yours” to the religious right. A few others supported him/her, but for the most part, my fellow liberals attacked his/her posts, despite the fact that “ascot” made it clear that he/she believed in evolution and not in ID. If liberals and moderate republicans want to gain the moral high ground, we better cut this cr@p out and start being intellectually honest. Why shoot our collective selves in the foot by supporting this jerk Mirecki? This liberal alumnus wants him out of there.

Calliope877 (Anonymous) says…

John1945,

So did you join the “Open-minded Atheists & Agnostics” forum? It's okay to admit it, you know? Just curious.:)

DaREEKKU (Anonymous) says…

I want to take that class!!!! I've been dying to read a good piece of fiction lately. That's the beauty of university! We can do whatever the hell we want, and I'm loving every minute of it! I'm just that much more inspired to become a professor and do stuff just like this to get people pissed off and questioning because that is what education is all about. They've already perverted my school system with magical myths of creationism, I'll be damned if they will take university. Have fun trying in vain to get the course removed!

Densmore (Anonymous) says…

Observer:

Your cr@p about ethics is ridiculous. You want to talk about ethics? How about the “ethics” of having a guy who wants only to play political spitball? The University of Kansas should not participate in a pissin' contest. ID cannot and will not find its way into a true scientific forum. We don't need to pre-wire a course to preserve evolution as the only viable scientific explanation of our existence.

Did I mention that I am one p/o'd liberal alumnus?