This is utterly disgusting. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
As were the professor's comments concerning "fundies"...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Sure. They should have spoken out against him. Not beaten him senseless.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I don't think either party involved is very intelligent. I mean
"He wrote it would be a “nice slap” in the “big fat face” of fundamentalists."
is an extremely dumb thing to write. Obviously beating him up was an extremely dumb thing to do too, and those guys obviously aren't very bright. But maybe they knocked some sense into him Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Excuse me. You people are seriously equating something written on a private email list among people of similar beliefs, with no thought that it would be read by the people insulted, with actual, physical violence? Intelligence is not the point! Respect for other people's right to free speech and freedom from harm is!
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
As unimpressed as I am with Professor Mirecki's despicable and bigoted comments, it is absolutely wrong to attack him physically.
There is a small part of me saying, I wonder if this incident is a hoax. It wouldn't be the first time something like that has happened. But we'll see how the police investigation turns out. He probably did get beaten.
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
First: I whole heartedly condemn the attacks on him, if they were done by people seeking revenge for his comments. (If, by some slight chance, the attack was staged, I wish they would have hit him harder)
Second: Don't equate the "right to free speech," with a blank check to spew bigoted and insulting speech. Nobody contends that he should be sent to jail for what he said, but that still doesn't make his comment justified. And the fact that he said them behind the backs of the people he was attacking does not in anyway justify his statements. The lack of civility in academia is astounding, not to mention the fact that these kind of statements call into question a professor's ability and willingness to provide an intelligent, balanced, and educational classroom and environment.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The part of me wondering if this is a hoax isn't that small. But I trust we'll find out.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sigh... let me see if I can put this in perspective. Suppose I become aware that some creationist is chortling to his friends that his latest article, or lawsuit, or whatever, is a nice slap in the face of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy. Incensed at being thus insulted, I set out to beat him up, and knock a couple of his teeth out. Would there then be this kind of sneaking understanding of my point of view? Would there be suggestions that my victim had perhaps faked the assault?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerto: Second: Don't equate the "right to free speech," with a blank check to spew bigoted and insulting speech.
You are seriously suggesting that 'free speech' means 'up to the point where the local vigilante squad goes after you'?
About the balanced classroom discussion, I wonder if you guys are perhaps unaware that comrade Mirecki is professor of religious studies. It's hardly a case of some liberal atheist screwball going out of his way to annoy the fundies.
Incidentally, he has apparently apologised for the email - a private statement not intended for publication - and still his opponents are not appeased : In this article, a State Senator is quoted as saying "I’m surprised that something more severe isn’t happening to this teacher who obviously has a hatred for Christians." Talk about your unbiased support for free speech! What's next, issue of hunting licences for those dam' liberals?
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Aerto: Second: Don't equate the "right to free speech," with a blank check to spew bigoted and insulting speech.
You are seriously suggesting that 'free speech' means 'up to the point where the local vigilante squad goes after you'?
About the balanced classroom discussion, I wonder if you guys are perhaps unaware that comrade Mirecki is professor of religious studies. It's hardly a case of some liberal atheist screwball going out of his way to annoy the fundies.
Incidentally, he has apparently apologised for the email - a private statement not intended for publication - and still his opponents are not appeased : In this article, a State Senator is quoted as saying "I’m surprised that something more severe isn’t happening to this teacher who obviously has a hatred for Christians." Talk about your unbiased support for free speech! What's next, issue of hunting licences for those dam' liberals?
No, I am not and did not suggest any such thing. I condemn the attacks, but I can also condemn the speech without approving the attacks. There are, or used to be, such things as civility and respect. These concepts, not a vigilante squad, should have "restrained" the speech of this professor and all people, especially those working in academia.
Also, the fact that a professor is one of religious studies does not in anyway indicate what his personal political and religious beliefs are. At the University I attended, the professors in the religious studies department were just as liberal as the rest of the university and about half of them did not believe in any religion. Besides, regardless of his beliefs, what he said was wrong. (And if the unnamed Senator you mentioned intended to suggest that something bad (i.e. death) should happen to the professor, that too is wrong).
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The professor has problems with what he sees as extremists in a group, extremists that even members of that group have spoken against. It does not follow that he hates the group.
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Sigh... let me see if I can put this in perspective. Suppose I become aware that some creationist is chortling to his friends that his latest article, or lawsuit, or whatever, is a nice slap in the face of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy. Incensed at being thus insulted, I set out to beat him up, and knock a couple of his teeth out. Would there then be this kind of sneaking understanding of my point of view? Would there be suggestions that my victim had perhaps faked the assault?
No, I would condemn your attacks and I would also condemn the hypothetical person's statements villifying the other side as disrespectful, unnecessary, and uncivil. Just as I am doing in this, actual, case.
And, by the way, I'm sure there would be suggestions, by people who don't like his views, that the victim had faked his assault. Conspiracy theories are fun and people love to see them everywhere. I don't really think the professor beat the crap out of himself (brings to mind Jim Carrey and "Liar, Liar"). The mention in my post was one of my weak attempts at humor. I really should stop, but I just can't seem to figure out that I'm not funny. Oh well.
[ December 06, 2005, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: Aerto ]
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Oh, wow, there sure are a lot of idiots in the world. Sorry this happened to Mirecki. Glad he came out of it no worse than he did.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Interesting ... Mirecki said something hurtful to other spiritually and mentally but not physicall and others responded by hurting him physically and (i'd assume) mentally, but not spiritually. No thoughts or opinions on the subject I'm going to post here, but I think its interesting.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sticks and stones will...?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Also, as KoM has previously pointed out, he didn't say something hurtful "to" fundamentalist christians. His comments, while rude and not terribly bright, were on a mailing list and not intended for publication. The particularly stupid things about his making those comments is that he should have known they would get out, and that they resulted in the class he was so proud of getting canceled.
No, the comments were neither nice nor necessary, but there is a world of difference between insulting somebody and severely beating somebody.
The unintelligent part that struck me about the article though, was the "getting out of his car" part. If a pickup truck you don't recognize is tailgaiting you and pulls over behind you when you pull off to the side of the road you keep your doors locked, the window only open a crack, and your foot ready to hit the gas.
--Enigmatic
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That is not stupidity, but trust in the value of civilisation. In this case, misguided trust.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Enigmatic, that's straying dangerously close to the "he was stupid so he deserved what he got" defense...
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Enigmatic, that's straying dangerously close to the "he was stupid so he deserved what he got" defense...
I really don't think Enigmatic was going that way. Maybe up to "stupid" for doing that, but not farther.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: That is not stupidity, but trust in the value of civilization. In this case, misguided trust.
Hmm, is it so? I mean, would you get out if that happened to you? "Trust" is ok, but I don't see the need for "blind trust" in this case.
And no, by this I'm not saying he deserved it. Just that I hope he learned a lesson from this for his own good, and I'm sorry he wasn't careful enough to avoid the situation altogether.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm sorry, but even if the man shouted his comments from the street corner using a 1000 watt bull horn, beating him up is not the proper response.
And saying that in some way this was "to be expected" is to admit that the group he was talking about includes people who are so lacking in Christian values, and so unconcerned with the law, that we should all just fear them and their violent ways.
Ultimately, the fact is that Prof. M. broke no laws and said some rather pointed things about a vaguely defined group of people in our society, and in particular about one way to counter their influence in society as he sees it.
There are numerous responses to this that are legal, ethical, and work well in a Christian framework. Beating him up is not one of them.
As for the professor's intelligence, I'd have to say I'm less than impressed on several fronts, of which I'll mention just two: 1) As Enigmatic said already, his off-hand comments ended up generating such a controversy that his course was cancelled. IMHO, the university probably had to make a choice between going ahead with this elective course and providing added security, dealing with the press and no-doubt a flood of mail, etc. and simply cancelling it and spending their limited resources on providing the education that students are paying them to deliver.
It'd be nice if they could've taken a more courageous stand, but it also would be nice if they could encourage their professors to consider the broader implications when they are in a position to do the university good or ill.
2) Getting out of the car...well, that was dumb. When you are being followed, drive to the nearest police station and THEN get out of your car. If it is more urgent than that, you go to a public place.
If the people who are following you are good, law abiding citizens, they will not mind this behavior. If they mean you harm, then you at least have a chance at getting some help.
Situational awareness people! There's trust, and then there's just plain lack of common sense.
Does that mean I think he "deserved it?" No! Of course not! And saying that he lacked common sense is not anywhere near (let alone dangerously close to) saying he deserved it.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well said, Bob. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks KarlEd Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
While the attack was disgusting (and obviously not productive), that doesn't mean the comments weren't also disgusting.
It sounds like it would be pretty inaccurate to claim the email was private. It was a mass email to students by a professor at their university, regarding a course he was teaching. As such, he should have realized it would be public, and might very well end up being read by 'fundies'. Regardless, it is a bad idea in general to try and insult people behind their backs - as anyone who went through middle school should have learned.
And 'free speech' does not mean that saying wrongful things ceases being wrongful. It simply means the government can't stop you from saying it.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I agree his email comments were disgusting, but violence was too harsh a reaction.
Which puts me right in the place where I'm sure most of you expected I'd come down on this. I guess I'm predictable. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: As were the professor's comments concerning "fundies"...
Good God! That justifies beating someone up!?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Which puts me right in the place where I'm sure most of you expected I'd come down on this. I guess I'm predictable.
Yep, you good and kind people are all alike Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I agree his email comments were disgusting, but violence was too harsh a reaction.
Out of interest, how disgusting would his comments have to have been in order for violence to be an appropriate reaction?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:. I guess I'm predictable.
I knew you'd say that.
Guys, I know Paul Mirecki. I took a number of classes from him, and have socialized with him a tiny bit. He's a very, very bright guy. He is also a good hearted person who is a lot of fun to interact with. What he *isn't*, I think, is terribly wise. Both his comments to the KU listserve and his decision to get out of his car when approached by a couple of strangers who had previously been tailgating him on a deserted country road were foolish.
Will B, you say that you think it likely that this was a hoax. Would tell me what you think Mirecki's motive would be for doing such a thing? I'd love to hear it.
I felt like the story as reported in the article didn't quite add up, but I attribute that to the reporter not having the complete story rather than to the attack's having been staged.
Tresopax, there's one thing that I'd like you to clarify. Do you feel that a beating is justified in response to the comments the Mirecki made?
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
Constitutionally, this guy has a right to show everyone how much of a idiot he may or may not be.
Fortunately what these criminals did to him is not a proteced right in this country.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The reason I'm suspicious is that we have no suspects, and there have been several faked "hate crime" reports over the past couple of years.
It's hard to justify that people have a responsibility to believe reports without confirmation or evidence.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Will B, you say that you think it likely that this was a hoax. Would tell me what you think Mirecki's motive would be for doing such a thing? I'd love to hear it.
To make his opponents look like a bunch of ignorant, violent cretins?
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
quote:Out of interest, how disgusting would his comments have to have been in order for violence to be an appropriate reaction?
O please, Tom. You know Belle better than this. Do you expect her to actually answer this kind of question?
BTW, how long since you stopped beating your wife?
I don't think ANYONE in this thread (or the board, for that matter) thinks that the response of these two morons (and I mean complete and total morons whose ability to answer ideas they don't even comprehend is simply to hit the person speaking them) is in any way justified.
Now, there are some who feel that he was being callously derisive of people's beliefs (imagine if the situation was reversed and a politician sent a 'private email' mentioning some action that would 'slap the face of Islamic fundies'. There would be a huge reaction and you know it.)
But no one says (or even hinted) that there is ANY REASON to respond to words with violence. And it's wrong of you to imply (with your innocent sounding question) that Belle might think there is a point when there is. You know her better than that.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tresopax, there's one thing that I'd like you to clarify. Do you feel that a beating is justified in response to the comments the Mirecki made?
No. Not even slightly justified.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Enigmatic, that's straying dangerously close to the "he was stupid so he deserved what he got" defense...
Only if you're reading much more into what I wrote than what I actually wrote. I said nothing about deserve and nothing defending his attackers. If I say "You should look both ways before crossing the street" that does not imply "You deserve to get hit by a car if you don't."
"Unwise" would have been a more accurate term for getting out of the car than "stupid," admittedly. Also, that's an easy judgement for us to make in hindsight. I'd just wanted to point out that reading the article's description of events my initial reaction was "What was he thinking? Stay in the car and drive away as soon as they get out of theirs!" But perhaps his teennage years didn't include as much time actively trying to avoid getting beat up as mine did, so he may not know that.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:The reason I'm suspicious is that we have no suspects, and there have been several faked "hate crime" reports over the past couple of years.
Well, there are no suspects because the attack took place in an isolated area, and the victim didn't get a good look at his accusers. Does it really seem that odd that, given that, that they wouldn't yet know who had done it? Hopefully somebody will brag about it to their friends, and either be overeheard or turned in by those friends. Otherwise I think that they're unlikely to ever catch the pair.
What difference does it make if there have been faked attacks in the past? There have been false allegations of rape in the past too, but if I hear that a woman has been raped my first thought isn't that she's making it up.
quote:It's hard to justify that people have a responsibility to believe reports without confirmation or evidence.
Is this the approach you generally take, when you hear of something? It isn't uncommon for it to take a while for a suspect to emerge. If you read in your local paper that a house down the street from you was broken into, do you immediately assume, until it is proven otherwise, that more than likely the owner of the house staged the break-in for whatever reason? That does happen occasionally, after all.
Part of the reason that I believe Mirecki is because I personally know him, and don't feel from what I've observed of him that staging an attack like this is something that he would do, of course, but I also don't see anything that would make an unbiased person think that he had fabricated the attack.
Porter, you wrote, in response to my question as to what his motive would be for faking an attack on himself
quote:"To make his opponents look like a bunch of ignorant, violent cretins? ".
That is plausible, but it seems to me that he has so much more to lose than to gain from doing such a thing as to make it unlikely that he would do something like this based on such a desire. This guy is a tenured professor, head of his department for the moment, author of a number of books and articles, some of them groundbreaking. He is internationally known and respected in his field. I can't see him risking all of that just to make his opponents look bad, and I'd be more than willing to bet that he feels that even before the attack his opponents had managed that nicely themselves.*
*Note that I'm not saying that this is the case. I'm saying that I think that Mirecki feels this way.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Tresopax, there's one thing that I'd like you to clarify. Do you feel that a beating is justified in response to the comments the Mirecki made?
No. Not even slightly justified.
Good. It sounded to me from your initial post, and its juxtaposition with the thread's initial post, as though you did feel this way, but from what I knew of you it didn't make sense that you'd feel that way. I just wanted to make sure.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But no one says (or even hinted) that there is ANY REASON to respond to words with violence. And it's wrong of you to imply (with your innocent sounding question) that Belle might think there is a point when there is. You know her better than that.
Absolutely. And what I was subtly trying to point out is that it's completely unnecessary to observe how inflammatory he may or may not have been if you're really going to condemn the attack as being inexcusable in any case. And if it's excusable in some cases, you should say so.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It's justifiable if he says Serenity isn't the best science fiction movie of all time.
But mokes like this guy don't watch sci-fi movies, probably.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Ok, I see your point, Tom. And I'm sorry for jumping down your throat.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Porter, you wrote, in response to my question as to what his motive would be for faking an attack on himself
quote:"To make his opponents look like a bunch of ignorant, violent cretins? ".
That is plausible, but it seems to me that he has so much more to lose than to gain from doing such a thing as to make it unlikely that he would do something like this based on such a desire. This guy is a tenured professor, head of his department for the moment, author of a number of books and articles, some of them groundbreaking. He is internationally known and respected in his field. I can't see him risking all of that just to make his opponents look bad, and I'd be more than willing to bet that he feels that even before the attack his opponents had managed that nicely themselves.*
I don't think he faked it, but you were asking what possible motive he could have had for faking it, so I provided an obvious one.
Besides, no matter how vile your opponents have acted, they can always act worse.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Absolutely. And what I was subtly trying to point out is that it's completely unnecessary to observe how inflammatory he may or may not have been if you're really going to condemn the attack as being inexcusable in any case. And if it's excusable in some cases, you should say so.
That's exactly what I've been wondering while reading this thread.
My gut tells me that there is a line you can cross, verbally, to invite a response, physically. I guess that's not very civilized of me, and I've shrugged off a lot of things in my short life. But I really do feel there is sometimes justification for physical reactions to verbal abuse.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Of course, in this case, by their actions, they are making themselves as CINOs (Christians in Name Only).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Oh great! 'Cuz I'm pretty sure that Jesus advocated beating people up when they were insulting! This kind of stuff makes me crazy!
Posted by Celebrindal (Member # 8466) on :
"But I really do feel there is sometimes justification for physical reactions to verbal abuse."
Like threats? Please clarify...
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'm not sure if I can.
I just have seen people swing at someone who I felt had crossed the line, and I felt the swing was justified. Not in the legal sense, of course. But I didn't feel that they were in the wrong. Even though they swung, they didn't initiate the fight.
I don't want to get specific, because it's very subjective. There are a lot of liberties that people who know me take (with jokes and stuff) that I wouldn't stand for from a stranger. And vice versa. There are things that wouldn't bother me from someone I didn't know that would be over the line from a friend.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:I don't think he faked it, but you were asking what possible motive he could have had for faking it, so I provided an obvious one.
Oh, yeah, I understood that, and acknowledged that it was a plausible motive for a person to do this. After saying so, though, I felt like I needed to go on to explain why I didn't think that this would have been a motive of Mirecki's.
quote:Besides, no matter how vile your opponents have acted, they can always act worse.
True.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
If someone does something I find offensive and then gets beaten up for it, I wouldn't say, "Well, what he did was really offensive. And the beating thing was wrong, too." That's clearly an attempt to at least implicitly blame the victim.
If you want to criticize the guy, criticize him. But not in the context of condemning the beating. That should be condemned without qualification. If you want to add criticism of the victim separately, fine, but that's not what I saw here.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Celebrindal: "But I really do feel there is sometimes justification for physical reactions to verbal abuse." Like threats? Please clarify...
Ok, I'll take the bait so that everyone can jump on me. If I was somewhere with my wife and someone got in her face and said some truly vile things, I would probably have a physical reaction. I know intellectually that there are other responses like walking away, etc. But to be perfectly honest, that is a situation in which words might move me to physical force. Now everyone can tell me how unChristian and uncivilized I am.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If you know you're unChristian, why do you accept it? Shouldn't your religion be suggesting to you that you change this about yourself?
I understand that many of things that Christ asked his followers to do are hard and that people have problesm living up to them, but I've never gotten how the idea that they are hard, so you don't have to aspire to them is responsible.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you are free from any repercussions FROM the speech – I would hope those repercussions wouldn’t involve physical violence, but not everyone in this world is as rational and reasonable as a hatracker…
I have to agree with Boa, I could see where certain things could be said, that would evoke an immediate, physical reaction that could include violence. We’re not always rational, reasonable, or especially Christian in the heat of the moment. But what these people did seemed to be premeditated - there is no justification.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, it does mean freedom from repercussions in those cases where the repercussions are themselves illegal. Comrade Mirecki is not immune from having people send nasty emails attacking him as an Evil Atheist Conspirator; he is immune from being physically attacked, same as everyone else.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Is it illegal to attack him? Yes. Can it happen anyway? Yes. I'm not saying these people did a good thing. I'm not saying he deserved it. I'm in fact saying it was a bad thing, he didn't deserve it, and they deserve a nice long prison sentence. I'm just saying sometimes there are repercussions we didn't plan on. And some of them are illegal.
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Actually, it does mean freedom from repercussions in those cases where the repercussions are themselves illegal. Comrade Mirecki is not immune from having people send nasty emails attacking him as an Evil Atheist Conspirator; he is immune from being physically attacked, same as everyone else.
Yes, but he is immune from physical attack for the same reasons everyone else is immune from physical attack: such physical attacks are against the law independent of any speech. In other words, Mirecki's immunity comes from law other than the freedom of speech.
But just to clarify, when you say "freedom of speech" do you mean the right guaranteed under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which, of course, applies only to the government, or do you mean a more broad freedom of speech founded in a natural right of man? I find that people often abuse the former by applying it in situations where it has no applicabilty.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I was meaning the 1st Ammendment... I don't really believe in any "natural" rights of man
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If you know you're unChristian, why do you accept it? Shouldn't your religion be suggesting to you that you change this about yourself?
I understand that many of things that Christ asked his followers to do are hard and that people have problesm living up to them, but I've never gotten how the idea that they are hard, so you don't have to aspire to them is responsible.
I didn't say that I felt it would be unChristian, only that others would accuse me of being so. Squicky, from your other posts (esp in the Hatrack Theists thread) it seems that as a nonbeliever, you have grabbed one concept from Christianity and attempted to derive an entire code of ethics from that one principle. Your frequent barbs at Christians about not living up to your notions of what being a disciple entails merely underscore your lack of understanding.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Bao--
Calling Christians (or other religious types) on their hypocrisy doesn't make one a non-believer.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Let's not make this a theist vs. atheist thread.. we have enough of those at the moment
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
According to my concept of Christianity (and I am a believer) the thugs who beat up the professor acted in a way that was spectacularly un-Christian.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Bao, I don't know that you could call me a nonbeliever. I believe in Jesus' message pretty much. I think it's beautiful, though difficult. I don't have much of a belief in Christians or that they follow this message though.
I also don't know that you can say that I lack understanding. I believe, though I may be wrong, that I've established myself as one of the people who knows the most about Christianity here. I also used to be a pretty devout Catholic and my understanding of the religion hasn't really changed since them, though my path is somewhat different.
You may not want to include things like "Love your enemies." in your version of Christianity, but I don't think saying that when I say you should follow the words that Jesus said, I'm displaying a lack of understanding is something you want to be doing. But I've been wrong before.
From my perspective love of others isn't just one principle. It's the foundational principle of Jesus' message and what he said was the highest commandment. When your version of Christianity has you going away from that, it's a pretty good sign that you're perverting it.
edited to make it less confrontational.
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
"Love your neighbor" is actually "a" foundational principle, not "the" principle. Loving God would probably also be considered a foundation of the Christian faith, I do believe. Jesus said loving your neighbor was the second, loving God was the first. See Mark 12:28-31.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The second is like onto the first.
quote:Whatsoever you do to the least of them, that you do onto me.
They are the same thing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Amen
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
Those quotes don't mean they are the same thing. Saying something is "like" another does not make it the same. It simply means that they are of equal, or nearly equal, importance. Don't get me wrong, I agree that loving you neighbor is an incredibly important part of the Christian faith, but loving your God is also and can't be skimmed over in a discussion of the faith.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
How does it say that it is nearly equal? If you're going to go with that interpretation, where does the nearly come from?
edit: I'm not trying to gloss over the "Love God with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole mind." part of the commandment. I'm trying to guard against treating of the two as separate.
Also, can I throw out Luke's take on it (Luke 10:27):
quote:He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Oooh, math questions! Maybe we can quantify this....
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I get that you don't want to include things like "Love your enemies." in your version of Christianity,
I missed this in Bao's ONE short post on this topic.
In the interest of fairness, this is what he said:
quote:If I was somewhere with my wife and someone got in her face and said some truly vile things, I would probably have a physical reaction. I know intellectually that there are other responses like walking away, etc. But to be perfectly honest, that is a situation in which words might move me to physical force. Now everyone can tell me how unChristian and uncivilized I am.
I don't think you'd be unChristian, or uncivilized. It might be a sin, and it might not be.
Remember, Jesus (the Prince of Peace, according to Christian belief) whipped people for mucking around in the Temple.
quote: Here's a hint, love of others isn't just one principle. It's the foundational principle of Jesus' message and what he said was the highest commandment.
Actually, love of God is what Christ said was the greatest commandment. I'm astounded by how often people forget this.
quote: When your version of Christianity has you going away from that, it's a pretty good sign that you're perverting it.
Bao wasn't preaching against lovingkindness. He wasn't making a doctrinal statement.
You are twisting his intentions to support your arguments, Squicky. Knock it off.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Thanks, Scott!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Remember, Jesus (the Prince of Peace, according to Christian belief) whipped people for mucking around in the Temple.
Are you Jesus? Is Bao? Jesus never said that this is something you should do or that this is an example that you should follow. What he did say was in fact not to do things like this.
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
"One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (NIV, Mark 12:28-31).
I treat these two commandments as two halves of a whole. They are each important in their own right, but only reach their true potential when they are together. I agree that we should not consider one without remembering the other, but I was reading your earlier post to state that the only part of the command that matter was the second. With further clarification, perhaps we are in agreement.
One could make the argument that Jesus, by saying that the second is love thy neighbor, is implying that it is of lesser value, though nearly equal because it is mentioned in the same breath as the first. Also, they are separate because it is possible to do one without doing the other. (i.e. I can love my neighbor and treat him appropriately, but fail to love my God by acting in a manner that is contrary to His teachings but that does not demonstrate lack of love to my neighbor.) The Luke passage does not in anyway contradict this because it treats them as separate commands as well, hence the semicolon and the word "and."
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Come on, Squicky... this line of discussion is way off topic... can't we all just get along, and go back to bashing the jerks that beat up the professor?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott,
quote:Actually, love of God is what Christ said was the greatest commandment. I'm astounded by how often people forget this.
Depending on which version you read Jesus either made loving your neighbor "like unto" this, which at the weakest reading means equivilent or included loving your neighbor in his answer to what the highest commandment is. So, it's entirely possible that people aren't forgetting it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Here are the scriptures Squick and Aerto are throwing around:
quote:28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
I suppose, then the contention is whether Christ meant 'first' as 'most important' or 'first in sequence given.' From the context, I intepret the word 'first' to mean, 'greatest,' or 'most important.'
Squick quoted his out of context:
quote: Luke 10: 26 26And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
Where the question wasn't what was the greatest commandment, but what one had to do to get eternal life. It's a small difference, but in the interest of clarity, it's good to have them out here.
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
I don't want to derail this thread any further by getting into a discussion of righteous versus sinful anger, but there is a distinction. Perhaps another thread should be started so that this one can be returned, as smitty suggested, to its original purpose.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Darn it Aerto, I was keeping Mark back on purpose. *grumble* People always breaking my shibboleths.
I disagree with your interpretation. There are plenty of ands in the Luke version. That doesn't mean that using your heart, soul, mind, and strength are all different commandments. From my perspective, if you start with the assumption that they are separate, you can make an argument for it, but reading the accounts of that and also considering the other places where Jesus explicitly makes treatment of other people equivilent to treatment of himself, I think my interpretation makes a lot more sense.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Thanks Aerto Let's just hope that those guy repent, turn themselves in, and take their lickin' from the law. That'll make all this a moot point.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't think it will. This is not a case of isolated individuals, but rather of examples of the character of a whole culture.
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
Ultimately, of course, treating the commands as one or as separate is not all that important since nobody, save one, has or can satisfy them (or it) to the full.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I don't think it will either - they had time to plan this out, and probably feel righteous about it. That's the bad part.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Which is why I feel that emphasizing the primary nature of the command to love you neighbors is an important part of this conversation. They feel righteous because, in their minds, they've "defended" Christianity. And all they had to do was violate the highest command the Jesus gave for the treatment of others. According to what Jesus said they just went out and beat Jesus, the being they purportedly accept as their personal savior. They defended their team while profaning what, if they were actually devout followers of the religion, would be one of their main guiding principles. And this behavior is what Christianity is to a large number of people.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Maybe off topic I dunno, but when I was a little kid getting in fights at school, my dad used to say if I was getting bothered by someone I should "pop him in the nose." Sound Advice? Funny thing is my dad is an attorney. Well I guess parents make mistakes, but looking back on it, this is a rather HUGE one don't you think. Well I grew up luckily, and don't get into confrontations the way I did as a kid. Talk about instant gratification culture, I wish I was capable of just punching people I didn't like these days, it would be an effective temporary solution to many dilemas, of course it would quickly seperate me from any professional attachments whatsoever.
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Which is why I feel that emphasizing the primary nature of the command to love you neighbors is an important part of this conversation. They feel righteous because, in their minds, they've "defended" Christianity. And all they had to do was violate the highest command the Jesus gave for the treatment of others. They defended their team while profaning what, if they were actually devout followers of the religion, would be one of their main guiding principles. And this behavior is what Christianity is to a large number of people.
Lets not go too far in speculating what was in the minds of the attackers. Perhaps they felt they were "defending Christianity," perhaps they just wanted to beat the crap out of somebody that they knew would get press attention. I think most can agree that it was not a Christian thing to do and I don't really see the proof that a large number of people think this is what Christianity is, but maybe I am missing your point. Are you saying many Christians think this behavior was an appropriate act of faith or are you saying that many non-Christians think that this kind of behavior is what Christianity teaches?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:hey feel righteous because, in their minds, they've "defended" Christianity. And all they had to do was violate the highest command the Jesus gave for the treatment of others. According to what Jesus said they just went out and beat Jesus, the being they purportedly accept as their personal savior. They defended their team while profaning what, if they were actually devout followers of the religion, would be one of their main guiding principles.
Actually, all that the article says of the men's motives is here:
quote: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.
Nothing there about being fundamentalists; nothing about even being church-goers.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Hatred and violence, more often nonphysical, though there is plenty of physical involved, is actively pushed by many Christian groups. I'd say that many of the people in these guy's culture believe that what they did was right.
You may not see this, but this is out there. For example, Christians statistically expresss a significantly higher level of prejudice and authoritarianism than the average population.
The tactics used by Christian advocacy groups are often disgraceful, even by a much lower standard than those set by Jesus. As I've said on another thread, Pat Robertson is the face for the largest Christian advocacy group and television network. Millions of people follow him.
There are an awful lot of bad Christians out there. This doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of good ones too, but there are an awful lot of bad ones.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I think part of the problem is that people nowadays throw about random statements and accusations because there are no repercussions for their actions. I can make all kind of nasty accusations against Mr. Squicky (not that I would want to, he actually seems pretty all right), and what can he do about it?
Again, not saying the guy should have been beat up, but I'm sure he was expecting some feedback, making inflammatory remarks, even to a "closed" group
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
which is why it wasn't bright to get out of his car!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't actually know what "inflammatory remarks" this guy made, other than regarding having a class teaching creationism as mythology as a slap in the big fat faces of fundamentalists. Not particularly mature, but, I mean, the guy is a science teacher in Kansas. That's gotta be pretty frustrating. Also, leaving aside the insulting tone (which isn't really that bad), what he said is basically correct. Perhaps his other "insulting" statements may be something like "They don't even take what Jesus said seriously.", which these guys pretty much proved is true. And also, he's a science teacher in Kansas.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Ugh, yeah, Kansas isn't even as flat as advertised.
That was random.
Some people DO tend to overreact to comments....
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Hatred and violence, more often nonphysical, though there is plenty of physical involved, is actively pushed by many Christian groups. I'd say that many of the people in these guy's culture believe that what they did was right.
You may not see this, but this is out there. For example, Christians statistically expresss a significantly higher level of prejudice and authoritarianism than the average population.
The tactics used by Christian advocacy groups are often disgraceful, even by a much lower standard than those set by Jesus. As I've said on another thread, Pat Robertson is the face for the largest Christian advocacy group and television network. Millions of people follow him.
There are an awful lot of bad Christians out there. This doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of good ones too, but there are an awful lot of bad ones.
One, if you are you going to cite statistics, please cite where they come from and give me numbers and methodology, otherwise such statistics are virtually useless.
Two, just because someone identifies themselves as Christian doesn't mean they actually are. I truly believe nobody on this earth can possibly know whether another person is Christian because it is not a self-identifying trait, like Republican or Democrat, so stats saying Christians do this (or people of any faith for that matter) or believe that are inherently misleading.
Third, I'm not sure how you can know that people in the attackers' culture think their actions were right. We don't know who the attackers were so how can we possibly know what their "culture" is, let alone what the culture thinks. You are making some Matrix style (over long distances) jumps in logic and presuming more than I think you should.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I think we're getting "Christians", "People trying their very best to be Christian", and "People who aren't Christian but say they are" lumped into one group...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Isn't it interesting that the two commandments Jesus listed as the most important aren't actually part of the 10 Commandments?
If this were a truly Christian nation, we'd have those two statements emblazoned on walls and courthouses, and oh heck, even places of worship.
Raise your hand if you've seen them on public display somewhere...
I don't think I have. Leastwise, I don't recall it.
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
Actually, those two Commandments are a summary of the Ten Commandments. Therefore, Jesus' answer IS the Ten Commandments. All Ten are contained within the two and Jesus' answer was a way to get around an attempted intellectual trap laid by the Pharisees. The Ten Commandments, however, are one of the bases for the modern legal code in most, if not all, western nations. Along with the Code of Hammurabi, etc.
And distinguish between a Christian nation and a Christian state. (Nation being the people, state being the government). Its a distinction that isn't made enough.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Actually, those two Commandments are a summary of the Ten Commandments.
Well...not quite. My understanding is that Jesus said all of the law and the (teaching of?) the Prophets hang on these two. Not JUST the 10 Commandments, but all of it.
I take that to mean that the 10 Commandments follow from these two Commandments. But from what Jesus said, it's more than that.
Matthew 22:40 is my reference for the above.
Mark's treatment of the same story doesn't reference the rest of the law, but reports that the scribe who asked the question got it right in saying that those two are more important than sacrifices and burnt offerings. (see Mark 12:28-34)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Bob-- From what I understand, Jesus taught very few new doctrines. (Some doozy of new ones, but few in number).
Are the 10 commandments more important in Judaism than all the rest of the law?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:the guy is a science teacher in Kansas. That's gotta be pretty frustrating....And also, he's a science teacher in Kansas.
Except that he isn't anything of the sort. He's a professor of religious studies.
In fact, he was the chair of the department until he stepped down from that position this evening (that's not quite the big deal that it sounds like though--department chair is a rotating position in KU's religious studies department, and this year was just Mirecki's turn. Or at least that's the case unless they've changed how they do things since the last time I was in the department, which is possible).
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Are the 10 commandments more important in Judaism than all the rest of the law?
I don't have that answer for you, but I think that the Scripture in question had something to do with Jesus giving an answer to a particular type of person who was questioning him.
Because of a shared culture, it seems often true that Jesus' listeners would've had a more complete understanding of his words. Certainly the writers of the Gospels were assuming some cultural literacy on the part of the people who would read those words.
One possibility is that the sentiment expressed in Mark and Matthew are exactly equivalent -- in one case we hear about the two over-arching commandments being "more important" than all the sacrifices and burnt offerings. In the other case we hear that the entire rest of the law and the prophets flow from (or hang on) these two commandments.
Another possibility is that different versions of the story survived in different groups.
Another possibility is that the writer of Matthew copied Mark (or, I suppose, vice versa) and changed, clarified, or emphasized a few things.
And I'm not even addressing the possibilities that include divine influences on the authors, which for many would be the most important aspect of it all -- that it is ALL God's word, and thus all true.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aerto: One, if you are you going to cite statistics, please cite where they come from and give me numbers and methodology, otherwise such statistics are virtually useless.
Sometimes it's useful to just run a quick Google search to see if you can find statistics on the subject before attacking somebody's claims. The following came up as the second result on a search I ran.
Here's a passage from a research paper:
quote:From: SOCIAL -POLITICAL CONTEXT AND AUTHORITARIAN ATTITUDES: EVIDENCE FROM SEVEN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES by Robert Andersen and Jocelyn AJ Evans --PDF Link
"The results regarding religion are mixed. There is a general pattern that the less religious are least authoritarian. Only for ethnic prejudice is there no discernible relationship with religion. The religious effects are quite strong for moral conservatism and prejudice towards homosexuals and/or AIDS sufferers, where the more one practises their religion, the more authoritarian they are. For example, compared to the nonreligious, the odds of showing prejudice are 1.32, 1.88, and 1.82 times as high for nonpractising Christians, practising Christians and those who practise other religions. Given that the “other” religion category contains a large proportion of non-white respondents, it is not surprising that practising non-Christians are less likely to feel employers should discriminate on the basis of nationality. Concomitantly, Christians—whether practising or not—are least likely to support the hiring of non-nationals, despite being as tolerant of ethnic neighbours as other groups, indicative of a nuance between ideological and pragmatic discrimination. Overall, then, the findings suggest that Christians are typically more authoritarian than those who do not belong to a religion."
I think it does make sense that religious people tend to be more authoritarian and prejudiced than non-religious people. Religious folk, Christians in particular--but they are not alone in this--believe that they know the true way to live, and that discerning between righteous acts and sin is an important thing that they must do every day. I don't think this is necessarily negative, except in instances where it might lead to something such as housing discrimination.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I don't see authoritianism or prejudice as a necessary outcome of believing that I know the right (or true) way to live. Quite the opposite. It is a component of that belief that I not become authoritarian or prejudiced, but a welcoming example.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I pulled up the paper you linked to - it was stunningly biased, and an excellent example of begging the question.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
tern, do you disagree with the World Values Survey that the paper was based on, or merely with the authors' analysis of the data? Surely the topic they try to tackle is hugely complex, but I don't see the stunningness of the bias. Could you explain what you mean?
(And a note: finding this particular paper was the result of a very quick search on Google and probably not the best there is out there. It did present statistics that backed up the claim in this thread though.)
Here is a relevant excerpt from the methodology:
quote:Ethnic-Religious Prejudice is tapped using a set of questions that asked respondents whether or not they would like to have people from particular groups as their neighbours. Respondents were coded 1 if they identified one or more of the following groups: people of a different race, Muslims, and immigrants/foreign workers. Those who do not show prejudice are scored 0.
Prejudice Towards Homosexuals and/or AIDS Sufferers is tapped using the same question as above, with those who claim that they would not like to live next to homosexuals and/or people who have AIDS are scored a 1, while all others are scored 0.
Moral Conservative Attitudes were measured using a three-item additive scale that asked opinions about homosexuality, divorce and suicide. For each individual item, respondents were asked to state where they stood on a 10-point scale (coded0-9) representing “never justifiable” to “always justifiable”. The final scale ranged from 0 to 27, with high scores indicating authoritarian attitudes.
Economic Discriminatory Attitudes is measured from a single item that asked respondents to agree or the statement: “When jobs are scarce, employers should give priority to [national citizen] people over immigrants”. A binary variable was created, coding those who agreed 1, and all other responses 0.
Bob, I would agree with you, although I think that there is a large minority at least within the Christian religion that doesn't. My dad, who is a fervent Catholic once told me that he believes discrimination--at least the base part of it, the recognition of difference--is critical to the way he lives. This is not to say that he would advocate treating a person with whom he disagrees with any less respect than he treats his friends. He just feels that this is an important part of living righteously.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Here's an outtake from the abstract:
quote:Using World Values Survey data on seven European democracies, we explore how authoritarian attitudes often associated with Radical Right party support are related to both individual-level and macro-level influences.
Not exactly nonpartisan. Reading the paper, I generally disagree with their analysis, and I'm skeptical of their data.
It seems to me that they were looking to use any data available to make their point that religous conservatives are authoritatian and intolerant more so than leftists.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
You may not be familiar with the parties they are talking about. Those parties actually are associated with more authoritarian values, and while there is a large amount of variation between them, they all do have a stronger connection with authoritarianism than most.
They aren't making radical claims about these parties, that include nationalist movements as well as outliers such as Germany's Neo-Nazis. They aren't even decrying authoritarianism. The authors are trying to use the survey data available to explain connections between political and religious groups that happen to lean to the far right.
Here's a couple more abstracts (both of these are by the same author, but different from the first), but the results are largely similar.
quote:It seems to me that they were looking to use any data available to make their point that religous conservatives are authoritatian and intolerant more so than leftists.
In fact, every study I found seemed to indicate that fundamentalist religious devotion had no impact on or even a negative correlation to racial prejudice, even though it did somewhat correlate with prejudice against homosexuals.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Realizing that the discussion has completely moved on from the original topic, I nonetheless thought that I'd interject to correct something I said on the last page.
According to the Lawrence Journal World, Mirecki had been the chair of the religious studies program for the past three years, so it would seem that it isn't the rotating position that I thought it was. I'm sure everyone will rest easier now that this correction has been made.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Our department chairs rotate every two years, so YMMV.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Whereas our department chair seems to have a lifetime tenure, until the person in it gets offered a higher administrative position (like Dean of Instruction, etc.).
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato:
quote:Originally posted by Aerto: One, if you are you going to cite statistics, please cite where they come from and give me numbers and methodology, otherwise such statistics are virtually useless.
Sometimes it's useful to just run a quick Google search to see if you can find statistics on the subject before attacking somebody's claims. The following came up as the second result on a search I ran.
This isn't the place to get into a debate about debate, but I think the person making the claim has the responsibility to back up his claim, rather than my having to go and find it. Burden of proof and all that jazz. Besides the fact that if I did go search, I might not find the same info he is basing his claim on and then we would not be debating on the same plane.
Thanks for finding some info though, NATO
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Given the inevitable differences in interpretation of any Biblical passage between different sects of Christianity, I'm not sure there's going to be any consensus on what exactly was meant by saying Love God is the greatest commandment, with Love Thy Neighbor second.
My belief is that the way in which you love God is by loving your neighbor, so the two are essentially one and the same. This goes along with the theme that the way you treat your neighbors is the way your treat God.
Truthfully, I'm not sure how I'd love God in any other way. I can't conceive of Him well enough to really understand and appreciate in the way I do with family members and friends. Some people seem to love Him by loving His name, or His Bible, or His church - but to me that seems a little bit like idol worship. I think God is most reflected in the people He created, rather than His name, His word, or His church. And so, in that sense, loving one's neighbor is related directly to loving God.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Good post, Tres. I really like that last paragraph.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Nice post Tres. Just as an add on though, we are told how we can love God--keep His commandments. Of course since loving your neighbor is the greatest with/after loving God, that helps immensely. However, it does not excuse His followers from failing to keep the rest of His commandments.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Mirecki has now resigned his position as department head.
quote: “Professor Mirecki said he thought it appropriate to step down and did so on the recommendation of his colleagues in the department, and I have accepted his resignation,” Barbara Romzek, interim dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, said Wednesday. “This allows the department to focus on what’s most important — teaching, research and service — and to minimize the distractions of the last couple of weeks.”
However, I found the last part of the article much more entertaining. It seems some of the cities religious leaders got together and issued a statement.
quote: “As religious leaders in the Lawrence community, we condemn the hate and violence escalating around this whole debate as contrary to the message of the Gospel we proclaim,” the statement read.
Excellent.
quote: Peter Luckey, senior pastor of Plymouth, said he wanted the country to know that there were people in Lawrence who were deeply offended by the reported attacks.
Good to know.
quote:Teske, senior pastor of Trinity Lutheran, said he regretted the hurtful things that Mirecki said and also was alarmed at the response.
'Scuse me? He regrets the hurtful things that someone else said? How does that work, exactly?
The truly amusing stuff though is after the article. The part where any idiot in the world can post a comment. Funny, funny stuff.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Seems fairly simple. He wishes it hadn't been said. To wish something hadn't happened is to regret it. It's not always something you did yourself.
Used like this, it's sort of like deplore, but less condemnatory.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Mirecki's story is looking iffier.
Apparently a truck was following him while he was driving at night (6:20 am). So naturally he pulled over, waited for them to stop, got out of his car, and waited to be beaten up (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/07/mirecki_mum_details_beating/ _. The bruises were so severe nobody in his class six hours later noticed anything out of the ordinary (http://townhall.com/opinion/columns/michellemalkin/2005/12/14/178998.html ).
The police are investigating him; he has threatened to sue (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec/10/professor_blasts_ku_sheriffs_investigation/ ).
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
You have to like a columnist like Malkin that manages to be so objective in order to just report the facts in a non-judgemental way that lets the reader make up her own mind.
Nowhere in your first linked article does it say that he waited, or wanted, for them to beat him up, Will. You are twisting the story to make it look like he wanted to get beat up.
What is the purpose of your third article? What is its relevance to the discussion?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You have to like a columnist like Malkin that manages to be so objective in order to just report the facts in a non-judgemental way that lets the reader make up her own mind.
I don't think a columnist is meant to report the facts. Columnists are hired to report their opinion.
quote:You are twisting the story to make it look like he wanted to get beat up.
The NEWS articles he linked to (as opposed to the opinion article) lead one to contemplate the possibility more seriously than when this first appeared. Why wouldn't Mirecki give further information/clarification when asked?
quote:, there was conflicting information about whether Mirecki reported it at the scene or at the hospital. In an interview Monday with the Journal-World, he said he called police from the side of the road, but sheriff’s officials said they were dispatched to the hospital.
Mirecki declined to clarify the discrepancy when asked about it Tuesday outside the sheriff’s office.
“I can; I just don’t want to,” he said.
The discrepancy is easily explained-- he called 911 from the side of the road after being beaten up, but then travelled to the hospital to get medical assistance.
So. . . why did he refuse?
The relevance of the third link is this: Could Mirecki be trying to cover up staging an attack on himself by threatening to sue the police and the school? You know, like a kid who's been caught in a lie: "YOU HATE ME! YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT ME AT ALL! I *HATE* YOU! AAAAAUUUUGHHH! YOU'RE SO MEAN TO ME!"
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I find that saying "AAAAAUUUUGHHH! " in ANY situation improves my chances of getting what I want.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Point of clarification: I didn't mean to imply that Mirecki was beaten, or wanted to be.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: quote:You have to like a columnist like Malkin that manages to be so objective in order to just report the facts in a non-judgemental way that lets the reader make up her own mind.
I don't think a columnist is meant to report the facts. Columnists are hired to report their opinion.
It seems to me that crappy use of rhetoric is still crappy use of rhetoric whether you're a journalist, a poster, or a columnist.
quote: quote:You are twisting the story to make it look like he wanted to get beat up.
The NEWS articles he linked to (as opposed to the opinion article) lead one to contemplate the possibility more seriously than when this first appeared. Why wouldn't Mirecki give further information/clarification when asked?
Why the bold for news? Was Malkin not reporting the news? Why the different, better, standard for 'journalists' but not for 'columnists'? Shouldn't we hold everyone to the same 'good' standard, rather than make allowances for some people to use a 'crappy' standard that does nothing to further the facts, and probably detracts from them by covering them in partisan slime? Why pay attention to Malkin's piece when it's easy to see where her sympathies lie, and that she had probably made up her mind from the beginning?
Or is it that Malkin's use of rhetoric is actually the better way, and the so-called news sources are using crappy rhetoric by not being inflammatory and partisan?
Honestly, I don't mind partisanship, but jebus, let's not spew. At least try and keep it to a low roar rather than go full-on Michael Savage crazy and use every tired bogey-man in the conservative arsenal in one short column.
quote: quote:, there was conflicting information about whether Mirecki reported it at the scene or at the hospital. In an interview Monday with the Journal-World, he said he called police from the side of the road, but sheriff’s officials said they were dispatched to the hospital.
Mirecki declined to clarify the discrepancy when asked about it Tuesday outside the sheriff’s office.
“I can; I just don’t want to,” he said.
The discrepancy is easily explained-- he called 911 from the side of the road after being beaten up, but then travelled to the hospital to get medical assistance.
So. . . why did he refuse?
For reasons that we don't know. You can't assume anything. All we know is what he said. Anything else is sheer speculation.
quote: The relevance of the third link is this: Could Mirecki be trying to cover up staging an attack on himself by threatening to sue the police and the school? You know, like a kid who's been caught in a lie: "YOU HATE ME! YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT ME AT ALL! I *HATE* YOU! AAAAAUUUUGHHH! YOU'RE SO MEAN TO ME!"
Could be. Or it could be exactly as he says and he feels like he's getting shafted. Seems like a pretty silly way of covering up an attack on yourself to prolong the attention on it by suing people for how they respond to that attack.
I'm open to the possibility that Mirecki is making all this up, but it just seems out of character for a university professor to resort to something whose results are going to be so scattershot, rather than just stay in character and use his pen to smear/point the finger of truth at those he hates.
Linking to someone like Malkin doesn't help me to be objective. It makes me want to turtle up and look for reasons for this guy to not be a nutjob.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Let me hedge what I said above. I don't want to say that Malkin's piece shouldn't be ignored, but I do think it should be taken with a huge grain of salt, for the reasons that I gave above. I think partisan news fills a valuable niche in reporting news that no one else will, but we have to be careful with it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I don't want to say that Malkin's piece shouldn't be ignored, but I do think it should be taken with a huge grain of salt, for the reasons that I gave above.
I agree with you. The word NEWS was emphasized to differentiate between Malkin's opinion piece and the factual reporting in the other two links.
Here's how Malkin justifies herself:
quote: Mirecki can't remember where the incident took place, according to local law enforcement, and has offered only the vaguest of suspect descriptions. There are conflicting accounts about Mirecki's physical appearance the day of the attack. While a faculty colleague claimed that "big swollen spots" had "transformed" Mirecki's face, Jesse Plous and Tiffany Jeffers, two of Mirecki's students, told the campus newspaper they didn't notice bruises or scratches when they met for his class six hours after the alleged attack. Lindsay Mayer, another student in the class, "said injuries weren't extremely noticeable." Mirecki did not mention the alleged beating in class.
Now, a week after the alleged attack with the alleged assailants still at large, Mirecki is poised to take both his university and the local sheriff's office to court for their insufficient support and investigation.
Malkin points to these undisputed discrepancies as an indication that something fishy is going on.
I have to agree that she's got a point.
quote:Linking to someone like Malkin doesn't help me to be objective. It makes me want to turtle up and look for reasons for this guy to not be a nutjob.
See, you're not biased at all. . .
quote:Seems like a pretty silly way of covering up an attack on yourself to prolong the attention on it by suing people for how they respond to that attack.
It seems rather silly to me to get out of your car to confront Billy Bob and Joey-- I mean, at this point, you can't really claim that the good Professor is the brightest candle on the chandelier.
And this tactic of claiming victimization by the Authority has been well-used for years. Christian fundamentalist groups use it all the time, incidentally. So does the ACLU. Effects vary, depending on the audience.
At any rate, I'm not judging anything yet. I hope that they catch the folks responsible for beating Mirecki.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: quote: I don't want to say that Malkin's piece shouldn't be ignored, but I do think it should be taken with a huge grain of salt, for the reasons that I gave above.
I agree with you. The word NEWS was emphasized to differentiate between Malkin's opinion piece and the factual reporting in the other two links.
Oh, I got why you capitalized news, I just don't agree that we should hold Malkin to a different standard than 'regular' journalists. I don't agree that she's not a journalist.
edit: And in any case, does it matter whether or not she's a journalist? Who decides who is a journalist and who isn't? The reason why trying to appear to be unbiased and objective when we write isn't because we are journalists, but because it helps others to believe our logic.
quote: Here's how Malkin justifies herself:
quote: Mirecki can't remember where the incident took place, according to local law enforcement, and has offered only the vaguest of suspect descriptions. There are conflicting accounts about Mirecki's physical appearance the day of the attack. While a faculty colleague claimed that "big swollen spots" had "transformed" Mirecki's face, Jesse Plous and Tiffany Jeffers, two of Mirecki's students, told the campus newspaper they didn't notice bruises or scratches when they met for his class six hours after the alleged attack. Lindsay Mayer, another student in the class, "said injuries weren't extremely noticeable." Mirecki did not mention the alleged beating in class.
Now, a week after the alleged attack with the alleged assailants still at large, Mirecki is poised to take both his university and the local sheriff's office to court for their insufficient support and investigation.
Malkin points to these undisputed discrepancies as an indication that something fishy is going on.
I have to agree that she's got a point.
They're undisputed because she didn't report the facts that dispute them, or because they aren't there? That's news she's reporting, dude. Again, why do you trust what she has to say when she is obviously biased? Do you deny that she is?
quote: quote:Linking to someone like Malkin doesn't help me to be objective. It makes me want to turtle up and look for reasons for this guy to not be a nutjob.
[Smile] See, you're not biased at all. . .
I am not sure what you're saying with this. I'm projecting her bias? If she was writing about Mormons and singled them out the way she singles out 'the left', you wouldn't give her credence at all. You would write her off as a Mormon-hater, end of story. The whole point of trying to appear unbiased when covering a story is so people believe that you've taken all the facts into account and aren't just making things up to support what your bias.
Does she do this? No. Her logic sucks. 'This incident is probably false because other unrelated incidents are made up' doesn't cut it. She doesn't cover any other points of view or evidence other than that which supports her assumption. She is practicing terrible journalism.
quote: quote:Seems like a pretty silly way of covering up an attack on yourself to prolong the attention on it by suing people for how they respond to that attack.
It seems rather silly to me to get out of your car to confront Billy Bob and Joey-- I mean, at this point, you can't really claim that the good Professor is the brightest candle on the chandelier. [Smile]
I think my point still stands. This whole exchange just highlights the fact that we don't know and are guessing.
quote:
And this tactic of claiming victimization by the Authority has been well-used for years. Christian fundamentalist groups use it all the time, incidentally. So does the ACLU. Effects vary, depending on the audience.
The Authority would never claim victimization. The Midnighter would never stand for it. He would just kick ass and take names, k?
Anyways, you're guessing. You don't know that that's what he's doing. You have no real evidence for that. People have also sued the cops and whoever for years because they really believed they've been slighted.
quote: At any rate, I'm not judging anything yet. I hope that they catch the folks responsible for beating Mirecki.
For my part, I am open to the idea that the guy is a nut job who hurt himself just to smear religious types.
[ December 15, 2005, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Storm. I don't think she's unbiased. I don't think she SHOULD be unbiased-- she's a columnist, and columnists' jobs are dependent on the ability to express a certain opinion rather than facts.
And as far as I can see, she has adhered to the facts, though obviously she's come to a different conclusion than you.
Has she fabricated anything? Or is the only thing she's guilty of is the expression of opinion in an opinion piece? Such a thing is hardly tirade worthy.
As far as the quality of her column-- meh. It's not Pitts, that's for sure.
This is where you err:
quote:the whole point of trying to appear unbiased when covering a story is so people believe that you've taken all the facts into account and aren't just making things up to support what your bias.
1) Opinion columnists, such as Malkin, do not try to appear unbiased. As I pointed out above, that's not what most readers expect from them. There IS a divide between OP-ED and the front page.
2) What did she fabricate? Certainly nothing about Mirecki-- her fact points match up with what is reported in the two news articles. It's true that she says that the situation is fishy, indicating a judgment-- but that's an easy judgement to make, considering the circumstances. And that's standard operating procedure for columnists.
3) You seem most upset about her (I agree- unsupported in the text of her column) comments regarding the leftist agenda on college campuses.
quote:Anyways, you're guessing. You don't know that that's what he's doing.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
O please, Tom. You know Belle better than this. Do you expect her to actually answer this kind of question?