The University of Kansas made a good move today in canceling the intelligent design class scheduled to be taught by religion department chairman Paul Mirecki. The professor and the course lost credibility with the release of an e-mail in which he mocked fundamentalists and said the class was “a nice slap in their big fat face.”
On Wednesday, conservative activist John Altevogt released several other anti-Christian and unprofessional e-mails allegedly written by Mirecki that were sent to the Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics, a KU student organization that he advises. Some of the e-mails disparage Catholics and the pope. Altevogt also has one e-mail dated April 26, 2005, that he says undermines Mirecki’s claim about being shocked — shocked! — about who was reading his e-mails:
“And whoever is the ‘FUNDY MOLE’ listening in to these emails, I have one comment for you and it rhymes with ’suck you.’ Cheers fellow freakoids, Evil Dr. P.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
22 Comments
The following is a comment from a critic of SOMA on their website (this poster summarizes my concerns about Mirecki):
“By preaching the word of atheism SOMA [Society for Open-Minded Athethists and Agnostics - advised by Mirecki] is going against the element of faith, which may appeal to some but in the long run is a wasted effort. Through this approach SOMA is doing the same thing as the apostle Paul.”
I remember discussions at the Cannabis School of Sociology (joke: there is no such place, and there never was, at any university in Kansas during the 1970’s :-)) there were discussions about the “circular continuum”. An example: Some on the left, like the Weathermen, were fighting the right so hard, and violently, that they were becoming just like them.
My sense is that Mirecki has become just like the Evangelicals he claims to dispise. My argument is that neither he nor his enemies should expect me to support them with my tax dollars.
I posted this on a different thread. I am glad KU cancelled the class. It was becoming a larger embarrassment for them each day.
A poster, whom I believe is Cindy Duckett (remember her?) was expressing displeasure about this whole situation. It is scary, indeed, when Cindy and I are on close to the same page.
Whatta worm.
I can’t believe this guy graduated from Harvard. His sense of humor is puerile.
If you can’t insult the fundamentalists in a witty way, then just don’t bother, dude.
I love it when someone questions Christianity they all called antichristian. I did not see it as an embarrassment to KU. What is an embarrassment is the way some of the conservative legislatures have been acting.
Keith..People question Christianity every day, and there is no problem with that. It is different when someone like Mirecki uses our tax dollars to spew out hate and dissent directed at any single religion or denomination. That is WRONG!
Some people never grow up. Instead of being the responsible figure that his position should entail, Mirecki apparently just wants to be one of the gang. Pretty pathetic. It also doesn’t say a lot for the school, that someone like him was placed in that position.
I am posting this link to the KU SOMA organization. I would invite anyone to look the site over and see what you think about Mirecki’s approach to the subject of Christianity. Certainly there is a lot to question in any religion, but it does not seem to me that Mirecki, et al. are motivated by academic curiosity. Instead, these folks are so rabid in their anti-religious beliefs that I am reminded of reflexive religious fervor — something I oppose paying tax dollars for. I don’t think publicly supported universities are the places to disseminate religous views — something that I think Mirecki and followers are doing.
http://www.ku.edu/~soma/
Mirecki does seem quite immature and you have to wonder what the deal is with that?
Just to be clear, I am not advocating that atheists should be denied religious freedom. I think it would be great if U.S. Headquarters of Atheists paid for the KU group. Just as I don’t pay for Catholics’ setting up student centers, I don’t want to pay for Atheist student activities.
He’s entitled to his opinions, but not when he’s talking about a presumably fair, objective presentation of material, offered by the Universtiy open to ALL students!
And he knew they were listening in!? Nice going, guy! What an immature, self-absorbed dork. And I guess he forgot the old saying: “If you wouldn’t write it and sign it, don’t say it.” (Oh wait. . .he did.)
He gives atheism a bad name.
That being said, I hope they resume the course in the Fall without him.
Steven,I’m not familiar with KU’s funding mechanisms, but if it’s like WSU, any money this student group might be receiving would be on the same terms as, say, the Intervarity Christian Fellowship.
That being said, there is an argument for denying funding to all such groups.
I am sorry. But I think the legislators that are asking KU to appear in Topeka are going overboard. How about discussing how to fund the colleges. Some of the buildings are in major disrepair. But NO we have to attack a guy who is head of an atheist group. I just love the conservatives in Kansas.
I agree that the guy messed up but the whole university should not be held accountable.
Agreed Keith.And let’s remember that this was meant to be PRIVATE email.Conservatives are touting this like it was a public announcement.
Below is an e-mail I sent to the Provost and also to the Chancellor at KU. I am doubting I will get an answer.
“Greetings Dr. Shulenburger,
As a taxpayer, I am opposed to the public support of the dissemination of religious dogma. Likewise, I am opposed to the public support of the dissemination of anti-religious fanaticism.
Can you tell me if any public monies are used in the support of the KU SOMA program?
I appreciate any help you can provide on this subject.”
I, too, think calling KU people before the legislature is going overboard and reminiscent of Susan Wagle grandstanding.
Having said that, as I taxpayer I have an interest in my money not being used by hate groups. Just as I would not want my tax dollars supporting Neo-Nazis, I don’t want my taxes supporting KU’s SOMA. If they are financed privately, power to them — let the little clowns do whatever they want. Just do not ask me to pay for it.
Actually Tracy, the e-mail was posted on the SOMA group’s Yahoo Listserv – a group where you or I could join and read postings.
There is clear evidence based upon posts Mirecki made earlier in the year, that he knew the Listserv was being monitored by what he called “Fundie MOLES”. So, his outrage about his email being private was disingenuous to the extreme.
This Mirecki is a problem and KU, not the legislature, should be dealing with him. I think a sabbatical leave with the expectation that he will find work elsewhere would be a good idea.
Thank you Steven, I stand corrected.I believe in ‘a spirit of non-harmfullness’, and this guy seems to be out of control and lashing out at people if he knew this wasn’t going to be private.Lots of christians do the same thing, and seems he’s in a hate match to the bitter end with some of them. What a waste of brain power from both sides.If we live by an eye for an eye, soon the whole world will be blind.
Whoa, Stevie! “I think a sabbatical leave with the expectation that he will find work elsewhere would be a good idea.”
I sharply part company on this point. The guy may be a little obsessive and have all the tact of a brick through a window, but I haven’t heard of it showing up in his classes.
Let’s not forget that the man is a Harvard-educated, tenured expert in the area of religion, and academic freedom demands we tolerate weirdos of all stripes (my favorite example: the two guys at CUNY, a white guy and a black guy, who proferred competing nutbar theories of racial “superiority”).
Rage,We do disagree. I think there was ample evidence that the planned to have his hate-agenda show up in the class he was proposing.
You’re right; maybe there are reasons to keep him on. I did not see any evidence supporting that position in this whole mess with the ID class.
Brenda Landwehr is threatening to have him before the legislature to threaten the Religion Dept’s funding. I would think that KU would prefer to deal with their boy instead of letting the problems Mirecki created turn into such theater.
As I suspect you are aware, academic freedom, has been eroding for some time now. I have been against that idea, but you what, the behavior of this Mirecki character, has got me re-thinking that position.
Not that much. He’s agreed not to teach the class, and that’s fine with me.
And, yes, I am painfully aware of the attacks on academic freedom (sigh).
I am a KU grad and an academic and would like to correct some misconceptions. First the Department of Religion is an academic department and discipline just like psychology, sociology, chemistry etc. It is not a seminary and prepares people to think about religion, not practice it or evangelize or proselytize one way or the other.
Second, there is no requirement, say, in the Psychology Department that there be a balance between teaching behaviorim and depth psychology. Professors are free to teach their theoretcial approach. It’s the same in the Department of Religion. My own pastor has complained to me that the Harvard School of Religion is populated with atheists. He misses the point: academic departments often tip toward one paradigm or another and then the department changes its theoretical orientation as faculty leave and new faculty are hired.
Third, this professor at KU is the exception and not the rule. I don’t discuss political issues in the classroom. Students really don’t like it and keeps me from achieving my instructional goals. Every University has its loose cannon. This guy is KU’s. It would be nice if we could focus on the broader academic goals at KU and acieving them, and not on this one quirky professor.
The Fundies can dish it out, but they can’t take it. It’s standard practice to ridicule an atheist, a scandal to ridicule a Christian. That doesn’t seem fair to me.
I think it would be helpful to seperate the “tactics” from the “positions” on both sides of this debate.
Abrams/Morris – they are alterning language in the science standards to allow for criticism of the theory of evolution. High-minded and good – right? No, wrong – they are actually trying to subversively allow for the introduction of I.D. into the science classroom – a subject that has no place in any science curriculum.
Whereas . . .
Mirecki – wants to introduce a religion class to study I.D. – noble and academic, right. No, wrong again. Based on the paper trail that he left in open view are the clear facts that he has an agenda to bash evangelicals and advance his political/anti-religious dogma.
My question is, how are the tactics materially different, and how are either strategies helpful to KS and students at all levels of learning?
I think these answers are obvious.
One last comment and then I pledge to leave this dead horse alone.
I think it is interesting that Mirecki (the Harvard trained professor) is adopting the tactics of his purported enemies . . . This makes me want to say to him, “How, very Bush of you.”