The Mirecki Show
by MikeGeneWhile Krauze has already offered some keen observations about this, I simply cannot resist further commenting on the article about Mirecki's class. I don't know about anyone else, but as I see it, both sides of this debate come across as children having tantrums. So break out the popcorn and have a seat.
First we have KU's Provost trying to calm people with bureaucratic platitudes:
KU Provost David Shulenburger said Wednesday he regretted the words used in the e-mail, but he backed the professor and the course, maintaining it would be taught in a professional manner like all other courses.
One would hope there are assessment mechanisms in place for determining whether the class will be "taught in a professional manner." Normally, this would not be an issue, but Mirecki's e-mail raises several red flags.
Consider what the LJWorld.com article reports:
"The fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category "˜mythology,'" Mirecki wrote.
He signed the note "Doing my part (to upset) the religious right, Evil Dr. P."
When asked about his reaction to the outrage voiced by conservatives, Mirecki said: "A lot of people are mad about what's going on in Kansas, and I'm one of them."
In my opinion, we now have reason to think three very questionable elments are involved in the development of this course.
First, Mirecki says he is mad. Since when do you develop a course as an outlet for your anger?
Secondly, it looks like the motivation for developing the course is purely political. That is, the course itself has become a political statement.
Thirdly, it looks like Mirecki developed this course in order to offend the "religious right." "“ "Doing my part (to upset) the religious right."
Sorry, but when it looks like someone seeks to develop a course as an outlet for their anger, as a political statement, and as an attempt to offend a group of people, I'm not sure the Provost's words are going to cut it. Because of this, we need some form of objective measurement developed independently of Mirecki's course for determing if it is "taught in a professional manner."
On the other hand, Mirecki's critics come across as incredibly shrill:
"This man is a hateful man," said state Sen. Kay O'Connor, R-Olathe. "Are we supposed to be using tax dollars to promote hatred?"
That's ridiculous. To cast creationism and ID as "mythology" is NOT hate. The guy truly believes ID is mythology and is mad because he views the "religious right" as having illigetimately monkeyed with the public school curriculum. While his class shows that he is no better than the "religious right" he rages against, this does not qualify as hate.
John Altevogt, a conservative columnist and activist in Kansas City, said the e-mail was the source of the latest controversy over the course.
"Absent this memo, there would be no controversy," Altevogt said. "He says he's trying to offend us. The entire tenor of this thing just reeks of religious bigotry."
Hogwash. Anti-religious bigotry can be seen in the writings of Richard Dawkins. It's not a criticism of ID or creationism or religion that qualifies. It's the attempt to portray relgious people as child abusers and worse than sexual molestors that is bigotry. The claim is not only demonstrably wrong, but seeks to propagate an image that works to inflict harm on another group of people. Developing a class that seeks to portray ID as mythology may be ignorant and politically-motivated, but it's extremely hard to make the case that it is bigotry.
She asked if Mirecki is allowed to teach his hatred, why can't others teach what they see as the truth.
"He wants me to say "˜thank you' by giving more money," O'Connor said. "Who is the ignoramus here? Who is the uninformed one here? The professor with the degree or this high school graduate?"
It looks to me like O'Connor is the ignoramus (well, maybe they both are). Teaching that ID is mythology is hatred?! I think not.
Finally, the most alarming comment of all is this:
Brownlee said she was watching to see how the university handled the e-mail.
"We have to set a standard that it's not culturally acceptable to mock Christianity in America," she said.
It's not culturally acceptable to mock Christianity in America?! Why does that sound so much like the Islamofacists who bully people into not mocking Islam or Mohammed? Sorry, Ms. Brownlee, it is culturally acceptable to mock Christianity in America. Just as it is culturally acceptable to mock politicians who write science standards, villiage atheists who think they are so smart, and Dr.Mirecki and his ill-conceived course.
In the end, what's most interesting about all of this is the way the Brownlee's and Mirecki's feed off each other.
UPDATE: Over on the ARN forum, Leonard makes a very good point:
For the person attuned to it, a 'myth' is a deeply rich story whose power over listeners/readers transcends even literal truth (ie in a sense it doesn't even MATTER whether it is 'historically true' or not). Yet, as you go through the utterances of the professor embedded in the story of the OP, you discover that he is defining 'myth' and contrasting it with 'science' in such a way as to disparage the former and elevate the latter. His elevation of 'science' tells us that he has bought into certain myths that have sprung up around Darwin, Darwinism, etc.
When Merlicki tells us his decision to label ID as mythology was intended as a "slap in their big fat face," it does indeed argue his use of the term is not as the Provost claims it to be.
November 25th, 2005 at 2:06 am
John Altevogt said it wreaks of bigotry. I would have sided with him unless you had said something, Mike. You seem more perceptive on these issues than I……
I see the class as actually furthering ID on the campus rather than hindering it. I support Mirecki's right have this class. I actully commend his honesty in titling the class with the word mythology, as it broadcasts his views and intentions, versus some sort of stealth….
I have many atheist friends (the JMU Freethinkers were the ones who actually helped me get in the journal, Nature), and I can often sense an atheist who has some compassion on a Christian versus one who has a degree of malice. Equating ID with mythology does not constitute religious bigotry (lot's of TE's equate ID with mythology), but I don't get warm feelings about Mirecki. I will however reserve judgement….
You may be right, I would not have perceived it unless perhaps you said something. Brownlee does give hints of suggesting some sort of sanctions for mocking Christians, and if that is how you perceive it, then Brownlees words do concern me.
I would hope Brownlee didn't mean it the way you perceived it, but again, you may be right. As a Christian, I think government promoted Christianity is a bad idea….
There is an issue however of what religion courses can be offered in a state funded school. I don't have a lot of problem with courses at a state school on hinduism, bhuddism, etc. At the universities I'm familiar with, it's custormary for a hindu to teach about hinduism, bhudism by a bhudist, islam by a muslim…. The rather curious thing however is we see lots of atheists and non-Christians teaching Christianity.
So with that in mind, I would hope that an IDist will teach ID in the philosophy and religion department. I would hope Brownlee and friends don't try to sanction Mirecki, but rather find a way to hire and IDist/creationist to teach a course in response to Mirecki. Having both classes on campus would be far more desireable (in terms of outcomes I would want to see) than simply shutting Mirecki down. I would hope the legislatures authorize money for more discussion, not less….
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 25, 2005 @ 2:06 am
November 25th, 2005 at 6:07 am
Mike, I don't think it is fair to compare Brownlee's statement to Islamofacists. Christians are not going around throwing people in jail for criticizing them. No one's head is cut off or stoned to death for blasphemy. In fact it is Mirecki's constitutional right to mock and lie about Christianity all day long. Consider it from Brownlee's side which is my side, isn't it natural for me to feel offended that someone is trying to mock me for my sincere personal belief? Isn't it also natural for Brownlee to rebuff this type of attitude? If Mirecki thinks that it is intellectually ridiculous for Christians to support ID then go ahead mock what we purport to be supporting. However, his mockery is not isolated to Christian support of ID, but Christian fundamentalism period. He said,
His objective is to mock fundamentalists and not ID. He thinks that it is "nice" to "slap the big fat face of the fundies". My guess is that even without ID Mirecki will still be against Christian fundamentalists and would not hesitate to "slap our big fat face".
While I assume Mirecki and Christian fundamentalists have different worldviews, does that justify his animosity to use a public institution of learning to mock his opponents? Is this a justify action in a pluralistic society that promotes tolerance? As I said Mirecki certainly have the right to say and mock all he wants. All I think Brownlee is doing is to protest that this is not ethically acceptable. Regardless if anyone agrees or disagrees with her view, I don't think it was unreasonable for her to make that point.
Comment by teleologist — November 25, 2005 @ 6:07 am
November 25th, 2005 at 10:03 am
Teleologist,
The problem with Brownlee's statement is that is comes across as a threat. She is going to watch the developments with the e-mail and declares it is not acceptable to mock Christianity in America. Heck, there are professors all over the internet mocking Christianity in all sorts of forums! I'd hate to see anyone try to ban such activity. And yes, she is not promising to cut-off any heads and I am sure she would be strongly opposed to that. But this whole attitude of declaring that mocking Christianity is off-limits does indeed remind me of the Islamofacists who, in this case, appear to differ in degree, not kind.
There is nothing wrong with criticizing, or even mocking, Mericki for his foolish decision to rip away at his own credibility. But declaring his internet comments as not acceptable in our country?
Comment by MikeGene — November 25, 2005 @ 10:03 am
November 25th, 2005 at 10:12 am
Sal:
This is a point that resonates. As an undergrad, I recall a course about Islam that was taught by a Muslim. He was not all that subtle in using his course to promote Islam, even teaching that women in Saudi Arabia have it better than women in America. Then there was a class on the Bible that was taught by an atheist. He was not so subtle in his ridicule of many parts of the Bible.
The University likes to study everything and everyone but itself. It would be nice to see a study that would move beyond the anecdotes and determine if the custom we perceive is widespread.
Comment by MikeGene — November 25, 2005 @ 10:12 am
November 25th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
MikeGene, are you a christian? Are you a scientist?
Comment by Benjii — November 25, 2005 @ 12:45 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 8:15 pm
It is irrelevant whether Mike is a Christian or not. I think he is expressing a certain amount of fear for religious zealots. I share the fear. History shows us invariably that people will distort and use any system of power whether it be religion, political or philosophical to take away the freedom and harm others. I just disagree that what Brownlee is doing rises to the same kind as Islamofacists. However, I respect Mike and like Sal would give him the deference that I might be in error.
Comment by teleologist — November 25, 2005 @ 8:15 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 8:51 pm
True, but I'm still curious to find out if he's a christian or not?
Comment by Benjii — November 25, 2005 @ 8:51 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 9:17 pm
Benjii,
It's difficult for me to answer that question because I'm afraid either answer will give a false impression. I used to be a Christian, but I'm not sure any word or label captures what I am right now. If I answer your question "˜no,' that implies I have rejected Christianity when this is not the case. If I answer your question "˜yes,' that implies I live, think, and behave as a Christian when I'm afraid I do not. What makes it worse is that the context of this discussion would make it look like I am trying to resolve my "issues" with arguments about design and God's existence. Nothing could be further from the truth. The "issues" for me are personal and are not appropriate for public forums so I hope you can understand why I cannot discuss these. And ID, if anything, serves as a distraction from my state.
Anyway, I was planning to talk about myself and how I became entangled with this whole debate around the holidays. We'll see.
Comment by MikeGene — November 25, 2005 @ 9:17 pm
November 25th, 2005 at 11:11 pm
Sounds great Mike. I don't want to offend you by any means. I was only curious. If you wish not to disclose that information, then I can understand. I most certainly do respect your wishes.
Regards,
Benjii
Comment by Benjii — November 25, 2005 @ 11:11 pm