Speak out against creationism, get beat up

[Number Six]

This is really creepy. The professor at the U of Kansas that was going to start a class about mythology and include creationism in it was beaten up.

http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/living/education/13337930.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

 

[fishbob]

From the article:

State Sen. Kay O'Connor, a Mirecki critic, said there is no excuse for someone physically assaulting the professor -- regardless of their politics.

"I have zero tolerance for thugs," she said. "There is never an excuse to behave in such a manner. This was just thugs. They used a flimsy excuse, if they had one, to behave as thugs. They can talk about the ID (intelligent design) course if they want to, but that's not an excuse."

Senator Kay says thugs did it. Senator Kay says you can't blame ID.

 

[Mark]

Ah, religion...bringer of peace to the world.

 

[Kerberos]

From the article:

Senator Kay says thugs did it. Senator Kay says you can't blame ID.

Well he's right, you can blame ID for being irrational, but no one is responsible for the behavior of other people just because they agree with them. I'm sure there are people out there who have used violence for causes I support.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Kay is not correct, ID proponents are violent by nature, politically violent. They cater to the ignorant and feed off of fear (they are attacking christianity). The message of ID is violent thus violent acts done by people who support them is, in part, due to ID.

 

[fishbob]

Well he's right, you can blame ID for being irrational, but no one is responsible for the behavior of other people just because they agree with them. I'm sure there are people out there who have used violence for causes I support.

She.

Senator Kay is making the first apologist statement regarding this incident.

You can blame ID, because ID requires deliberate ignorance and blind obediance to authority. ID attracts people with those attributes, and sets them on the rest of us.

 

[Kerberos]

She.

Senator Kay is making the first apologist statement regarding this incident.

Are you reading the same quote I am? She clearly says it's not acceptable to beat people up.

You can blame ID, because ID requires deliberate ignorance and blind obediance to authority. ID attracts people with those attributes, and sets them on the rest of us.

Sure ID is an idiotic pseudo-science, and I can and will blame them for that. I see nothing in ID that promotes violence though. In fact we don't even know the attacker were proponents of ID. They could very well be supporters of undisgiused creationism.

 

[Skeptic]

From the article:

Senator Kay says thugs did it. Senator Kay says you can't blame ID.

Well, she's obviously right, isn't she?

 

[fishbob]

Well, she's obviously right, isn't she?

No. See post #6.

 

[rikzilla]

Ah, religion...bringer of peace to the world.

Yeah, the peace of the grave....

 

[jj]

Is there any reason this isn't being treated as homegrown terrorism?

 

[Mark]

Is there any reason this isn't being treated as homegrown terrorism?

Christians blowing up abortion clinics, killing doctors, murdering gays, and beating up professors, are not terrorism. Only Muslims can commit terrorism.

Duh.

 

[bob_kark]

Is there any reason this isn't being treated as homegrown terrorism?

Well, I'm sure there are a multitude of reasons. One that comes to mind is that this was not a terrorist act. No one blew up the professor, shot the professor, set a roadside bomb that the professor triggered, mailed the professor Anthrax or used any biological or chemical attacks against the professor. In fact, I really don't remember the last time a terrorist just beat up someone, that would be a welcome change really. I would say that calling this a hate crime would be a bit extreme, but at least it would be somewhat logical. Where did you come up with terrorism exactly?

 

[jj]

I would say that calling this a hate crime would be a bit extreme, but at least it would be somewhat logical. Where did you come up with terrorism exactly?

Threat of bodily harm intended to deter the teaching of a class.

It's a form of extortion, clearly, at the very least. When does extortion in the name of political gain become terrorism?

 

[punchdrunk]

Where did you come up with terrorism exactly?

Jocko. I'm encouraged they can find something to agree upon.

 

[corplinx]

Threat of bodily harm intended to deter the teaching of a class.

The class as it was proposed was already crap-canned I think. The reason this guy got on the radar was he made some not-so-nice comments about "fundies" that he wanted to give "a big slap in the face" with his course.

Its not as if this guy was beaten up for trying to teach mythology. He was beaten up for being an arrogant condescending prick. In rural states, this is not uncommon.

 

[Mark]

The class as it was proposed was already crap-canned I think. The reason this guy got on the radar was he made some not-so-nice comments about "fundies" that he wanted to give "a big slap in the face" with his course.

Its not as if this guy was beaten up for trying to teach mythology. He was beaten up for being an arrogant condescending prick. In rural states, this is not uncommon.

Hmmm. When is the last time a skeptic physically assaulted a Christian? Just wondering.

 

[Grammatron]

Hmmm. When is the last time a skeptic physically assaulted a Christian? Just wondering.

When did those become mutually exclusive?

 

[Mark]

When did those become mutually exclusive?

Never. Still a valid question, though. Substitute agnostic for skeptic if that seems better.

 

[Kerberos]

When did those become mutually exclusive?

About 2000 years ago, when they invented Christianity and made a doctrin that contains several blatantly illogical beliefs. Truth be told there are properly very few people who are logical in all areas, and a Christian could be otherwise skeptical, but I don't think it's unfair to say that Christianity is somewhat inconsistent with skepticism.