Regards,

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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,

The fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face

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.

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.

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….

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.

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