SO this is his excuse

[Gato_Solo]

for being fired/resigning? Perhaps he should've taken that reading comprehension class before he took the job...

Since CNN changed the wordage...

Kansas University religious studies professor Paul Mirecki reported he was beaten by two men about 6:40 a.m. today on a roadside in rural Douglas County. In a series of interviews late this afternoon, Mirecki said the men who beat him were making references to the controversy that has propelled him into the headlines in recent weeks.

Funny how the department head of Religious Studies is suddenly masked by CNN. The title he resigned from was there when I linked it...

 

[ekahs retsam]

Two unknown assailants beat-up a guy for expressing his religious views in a non-violent way. The two men are trying to not only keep him quite but also insight fear into others who believe as he does.

What a bunch of disgusting patheic cowards...

 

[Gato_Solo]

Two unknown assailants beat-up a guy for expressing his religious views in a non-violent way. The two men are trying to not only keep him quite but also insight fear into others who believe as he does.

What a bunch of disgusting patheic cowards...

Notice, I didn't condone the acts of the assailants. That was truly reprehensible. I do, however, take offense at a person chairing a religious department, speaking out against the very religious aspects he's been hired to teach, and then claiming his right to free expression when he loses some of his prestige for doing so.

 

[A.B.Normal]

He wasn't a Christian Studies Professor ,he was a "religious studies professor".Satanism is a religion if you want it to be ,so is Druidism,doesn't mean you have to support "ALL" religions to study them or be against Fundamentalism.

 

[Gato_Solo]

He wasn't a Christian Studies Professor ,he was a "religious studies professor".Satanism is a religion if you want it to be ,so is Druidism,doesn't mean you have to support "ALL" religions to study them or be against Fundamentalism.

However...simply by being the Chair of the Religious Studies Department would require some belief in some divine being(s), or teaching(s). It also requires tolerance of all religious viewpoints even if they are diametrically opposed to yours. By attacking a particular religion, or religious viewpoint, he forfeitted his neutrality, and, thus, placed his job in jeopardy. In other words...he placed his foot firmly up his own ass.

 

[ekahs retsam]

Notice, I didn't condone the acts of the assailants. That was truly reprehensible. I do, however, take offense at a person chairing a religious department, speaking out against the very religious aspects he's been hired to teach, and then claiming his right to free expression when he loses some of his prestige for doing so.

Perhaps but religion is a debatable topic, their has been as many interpretations of divinity as their have been conflicts of who’s god is better. Religion is only made of three things: mythology, ritual, and belief. If you are studying Greek gods you are studying their mythology if you are studying the saints and profits of Christianity you are still studying mythology. If you have no belief in the rituals and mythology then it is a study of just that rituals and mythologies.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Perhaps but religion is a debatable topic, their has been as many interpretations of divinity as their have been conflicts of who’s god is better. Religion is only made of three things: mythology, ritual, and belief. If you are studying Greek gods you are studying their mythology if you are studying the saints and profits of Christianity you are still studying mythology. If you have no belief in the rituals and mythology then it is a study of just that rituals and mythologies.

You're okay up til that point. Now he went further, by openly attacking a religious group, i.e. fundamentalist Christians. He lost his neutrality on the subject at that point, and is no longer credible as a department head. If you notice...he's still allowed to teach.

 

[ekahs retsam]

You're okay up til that point. Now he went further, by openly attacking a religious group, i.e. fundamentalist Christians. He lost his neutrality on the subject at that point, and is no longer credible as a department head. If you notice...he's still allowed to teach.

I'm not seeing evidence of an attack here. He tough a class entitled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies." He is simply presenting the story of creation as it is in creationism and intelligent design as the state education system allows him to do. Only he is presenting it as a mythology, which it is. He could just of easily taught the same thing about ancient Egypt.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I'm not seeing evidence of an attack here. He tough a class entitled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies." He is simply presenting the story of creation as it is in creationism and intelligent design as the state education system allows him to do. Only he is presenting it as a mythology, which it is. He could just of easily taught the same thing about ancient Egypt.

Did you even read the link?

The class was canceled last week after e-mails surfaced in which Mirecki mocked religious conservatives as "fundies" and said a course describing intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face." He has apologized for those comments.

This is the part that ruins his credibility...the part you either refuse to see, or refuse to admit. He openly attacked a belief system by mocking it's members. If he would've taught the course without mocking people, he would've been okay. Once he started the derision, he was no longer fit to be the chair.

 

[ekahs retsam]

Did you even read the link?

This is the part that ruins his credibility...the part you either refuse to see, or refuse to admit. He openly attacked a belief system by mocking it's members. If he would've taught the course without mocking people, he would've been okay. Once he started the derision, he was no longer fit to be the chair.

It doesn't say where those e-mails came from, they are probably personal. He may very well think that fundies are nuts, i know i do too. But that doesn't mean I couldn't teach a religious history class. Nor should I or anyone else be attacked for thinking so.

 

[Gato_Solo]

It doesn't say where those e-mails came from, they are probably personal. He may very well think that fundies are nuts, i know i do too. But that doesn't mean I couldn't teach a religious history class. Nor should I or anyone else be attacked for thinking so.

1. It doesn't matter where those e-mails came from. He wrote them, and he's not denying that fact.

2. He's there to teach religious studies, not express personal prejudices and promote religious discrimination.

3. He's not being denied a teaching position. He's being denied chairmanship of a department. How many times must that be said until it sinks in?

 

[ekahs retsam]

1. It doesn't matter where those e-mails came from. He wrote them, and he's not denying that fact.

2. He's there to teach religious studies, not express personal prejudices and promote religious discrimination.

3. He's not being denied a teaching position. He's being denied chairmanship of a department. How many times must that be said until it sinks in?

#1. It maters immensely where those alleged e-mails came from because his personal feeling regarding this subject are of no consequence to his professional career. I could say I hate white people and people with green eyes but that doesn’t prove anything about me professionally if I say it at home or in a non-work related environment.

#2. You and no one you know have taken the class so you do not know anything about the lectures or curriculum of the class. Saying, “He's there to teach religious studies, not express personal prejudices and promote religious discrimination.” may be unfounded because no real evidence has been shown to support this claim. No student, who was actually in the class, has come forward expressing disdain for the class or the instructor.

#3 You are correct he was not been asked to stop teaching the reason for this is because no actual wrong doing has been committed in the classroom. If it had is ass would have been canned already under the media pressure. The only thing the university could do was take away his standing in the pecking order.

 

[Gato_Solo]

#1. It maters immensely where those alleged e-mails came from because his personal feeling regarding this subject are of no consequence to his professional career. I could say I hate white people and people with green eyes but that doesn’t prove anything about me professionally if I say it at home or in a non-work related environment.

It does if you're job is the study of such people.

#2. You and no one you know have taken the class so you do not know anything about the lectures or curriculum of the class. Saying, “He's there to teach religious studies, not express personal prejudices and promote religious discrimination.” may be unfounded because no real evidence has been shown to support this claim. No student, who was actually in the class, has come forward expressing disdain for the class or the instructor.

Doesn't matter. He said it in a series of e-mails to his peers, and doesn't dispute it. In doing so, he incurred the wrath of his peers. A much more career-ending move.

#3 You are correct he was not been asked to stop teaching the reason for this is because no actual wrong doing has been committed in the classroom. If it had is ass would have been canned already under the media pressure. The only thing the university could do was take away his standing in the pecking order.

Correct. And the University is correct in doing so. His wrong-doing had nothing to do with his teaching credentials, but everything to do with his credibility with his peers...who were the ones who initiated the action against him.