Religious Fanatics Send Death Threats To College Professor Due To Perceived Offense

reply to post by xedocodex


So, a professor has his students stomp on the name of Jesus, one student refuses to do it and is suspended for speaking up because the professor feels "threatened", and everybody is wondering why people are sending him angry emails and death threats?

I'm not condoning what those people are doing, and I'm not condoning what the professor did. But I fail to see why everybody is so shocked to find out that when you disrespect a religion in that manner, and then suspend a student for objecting to it, that you'll end up with a backlash against you.

How about this: I'll go to a busy market in Iran, write "Muhammed" on it, and start stepping on it. I'm sure nobody will do anything to me.

reply to post by Bleeeeep

Also, the OP reads, "only one student in the course had an objection". Which says to me, they all stepped on the napkin except for one kid, possibly the student addressed in the topic.

Actually, the Professor only recalls one student actually stepping on the paper. Most didn't and he was fine with it.

He said he saw at least one student who did step on the paper, and talked about not feeling much of a connection to Jesus. But he said most didn't, and that was fine with him. No students, he said, were forced to do anything.

The student that got in trouble didn't get in trouble because he refused to step on the paper...he got in trouble because he too physically threatened the professor.

And it really sounds like you are condoning all these threats because they dared to commit "blasphemy" against the God you have choosen to worship. That is no better than a Muslim condoning suicide bombers.

That is to say, of course what the student did, and person who made the threat did, was wrong. That goes without saying - but it is not nearly as bad as what the professor, and whomever wrote the lesson plan, did.

WOW...just wow.

So a simple intellectual exercise is worse than threatening to kill someone???

Your mind seems to be warped by being over religious.

reply to post by FollowTheWhiteRabbit

So, a professor has his students stomp on the name of Jesus, one student refuses to do it and is suspended for speaking up because the professor feels "threatened", and everybody is wondering why people are sending him angry emails and death threats?

No...you seem to have swallowed the Fox News version of the story.

Many people didn't step on the paper with the name "Jesus" on it. That is the entire point of the exercise.

And the student was suspended because he himself threatened to hit the professor after class...nothing to do with the exercise.

But you seem to think that death threats are justified in some cases if someone dis-respects your religion.

So...tell me how that is any different than Muslims cutting peoples heads off for the same perceived dis-respect???

I'm not condoning what those people are doing, and I'm not condoning what the professor did. But I fail to see why everybody is so shocked to find out that when you disrespect a religion in that manner, and then suspend a student for objecting to it, that you'll end up with a backlash against you.

How about this: I'll go to a busy market in Iran, write "Muhammed" on it, and start stepping on it. I'm sure nobody will do anything to me.

Yes...you kind of are condoning it...well...at least for Christians...you seem to have a problem with Muslims doing it.

Doesn't Jesus teach a little something about turning the other cheek??? But hey...if Muslims do it...I guess that means Christians should be able to do it too. That is basically your argument...they do it...so don't be surprised when Christians do it.

How about this...how about you condemn when ANYONE does it???

And please...stop getting your news from Fox News.

reply to post by xedocodex


The reaction is due to it being blasphemous. Think man.

Moreover, if they weren't trying to involve the students in blasphemy, he would have wrote it on a piece of paper, showed it to the class, and then dropped it, and hovered his foot above the paper for a reaction.

They were deliberately trying to make the students blasphemy by even involving a religious God.

If he simply wanted to show symbolism, he could have used countless pictures of innocent looking people or nonreligious, but highly regarded, people, as a sample to defame/disrespect, and he would have gotten the "results he wanted."

For example, he could have used a picture of his wife or even just writing "your mother is a dirty [bleeeeep]" on the chalk/white board. He could have poked holes in the picture and/or drew a face on the board with vulgar pictures beside it or something. Either of those would have gotten the same reaction that he could use for a learning aid.

Symbolism is not limited to religion, so his apparent lack of respect to a religious figure is at best, lazy thinking, and at worst, malicious intent to corrupt. The lesson plan however, is absolutely malicious. Whomever wrote it, must have known better.

The reason you are having trouble understanding it is because you do not know religion. If you did, you would realize it is worse to blasphemy someone's God, than it is to disrespect their family.

reply to post by Bleeeeep

The reaction is due to it being blasphemous. Think man.

Blasphemous by who's definition?

Would it be blasphemous if the name "Vishnu" was written on the paper? How about "Jupiter"?

This is the whole point of the exercise...I think you would benefit from it, because you are clearly stuck in your narrow view of thinking.

And it doesn't matter...nothing justifies the reaction. For you to try to defend it is just as disgusting as those giving the death threats.

The reason you are having trouble understanding it is because you do not know religion. If you did, you would realize it is worse to blasphemy someone's God, than it is to disrespect their family.

No, I don't know that kind of fanatical religion...I actually think that type of fanatical religion is a mental illness.

If the things fanatics do were down without invoking some sort of God...they would be labeled insane and put in a mental hospital.

Here is the problem...YOU are more concerned about symbols than you are about God. Do you honestly think God, which in your belief system is the creator of the entire Universe, is concerned about the English version of the name of his prophet/son???

Your thinking scares me...it seriously does. Your thinking is exactly what is wrong with religion in the world. You are seriously no better than the Muslims beheading people because the think their special symbol was disrespected.

Stop worshiping symbols...focus on the concept...not the physical representations of them. Maybe you will become a better "Christian" if you would actually follow Christs teachings.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
The reason you are having trouble understanding it is because you do not know religion. If you did, you would realize it is worse to blasphemy someone's God, than it is to disrespect their family.

I don't know about the others here, but I certainly know religion.

I know how childish it is, how it preys on the fears of humans. How it blackmails people into believing because "If you don't believe you will burn forever."

I know how quickly the followers of religions are insulted when their fairy tales are challenged by critical thinking. I know how they are so afraid of their own gods (or is it their own self?) that they often have no problem with killing someone if this person insulted their beliefs long and/or strongly enough.

I know people well enough, to realize that it's always about them and their feelings. God (if one exists) wouldn't give a rat's ass about somebody stepping on a piece of paper with (allegedly) his name on it. It's always about people. God doesn't care who lives in Jerusalem. It's people who claimed it to be holy and went on crusades.

You seem to think that symbols are the only important thing. I agree - but let's just call them ideas. You apparetly got the idea that stepping on a piece of paper with Jesus' name on it is blasphemy. I say: You are just brainwashed by christianity to believe this.

He said he saw at least one student who did step on the paper, and talked about not feeling much of a connection to Jesus. But he said most didn't, and that was fine with him. No students, he said, were forced to do anything.

I didn't see this in the OP, so I was wrong on the assumption that most students stepped on the paper; however, my error speaks only to the good virtue of the students - not yours.

You're trying to paint the student as someone wicked for speaking out against a wicked principle - a principle that most of the students seem to share. (blasphemy is not okay.)

And it really sounds like you are condoning all these threats because they dared to commit "blasphemy" against the God you have choosen to worship. That is no better than a Muslim condoning suicide bombers.

I have already said that I do not condone the behavior. However, I do understand their minds, and I find their anger to be a lot less wicked than the actions of the professor and the lesson planner.

When someone loves something with all their heart, they will fight for it; and you cannot look at just anger when you are trying to understand revelatory actions. You need to look at what caused the anger to see if their anger is unjust.

With that said, let me iterate so I am not misunderstood: I do not condone threats or harm to others, and I really do not condone deliberate wickedness done to the innocent in order to corrupt them. The later is far more wicked than the former.

WOW...just wow.

So a simple intellectual exercise is worse than threatening to kill someone???

Your mind seems to be warped by being over religious.

I think you do not understand religion, the mind, or our reality; and you should know that you are asking me to pick the wickeder of two evils. My pick:

The corruption of innocents is far worse.

To the religious, the eternal soul is more sacred than it's temporary body. Corruption of flesh is less offensive than corruption of mind. Corruption of mind destroys body and soul. It is very very serious to the religious person. Acts against one's mind is like being tortured, whereas acts against the body is just a fight.

It's a difficult thing to understand for the irreligious, I know. Think like it is the highest evil to corrupt someone's mind, because it will send them to eternal damnation. Maybe it will help if you think of it like screwing with someone's psyche, in a such a way, as to send them to a torturous insane asylum for eternity?

I do not condone violence - and I really do not condone corruption of innocents.

reply to post by xedocodex


You really need to read about religions, and psychology, so you can understand what you're complaining about. (Some critical thinking and reading comprehension wouldn't hurt either.)

What you're doing is like someone complaining about a dish that you have never tasted, nor smelled, nor seen. You have only heard of it through a critics defamatory piece on the dish.

reply to post by Xenoglossy


How the heck can you speak for a God you do not believe exists? You are projecting - it's as simple as that. God doesn't abide to how you wish, so you think him to be some fairy tale? It's ridiculous.

In America Christian fanatics are downright scary they have bombed more places than any terrorist organization in the US not to mention the people that have been chained and drug behind trucks to their death. They are scary.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep

To the religious, the eternal soul is more sacred than it's temporary body. Corruption of flesh is less offensive than corruption of mind. Corruption of mind destroys body and soul. It is very very serious to the religious person. Acts against one's mind is like being tortured, whereas acts against the body is just a fight.

It's a difficult thing to understand for the irreligious, I know. Think like it is the highest evil to corrupt someone's mind, because it will send them to eternal damnation. Maybe it will help if you think of it like screwing with someone's psyche, in a such a way, as to send them to a torturous insane asylum for eternity?

I do not condone violence - and I really do not condone corruption of innocents.

I hope you realize that all of the things I quoted are just ideas floating around your head with no evidence to support them in the real world.

The fact that you happen to share those ideas with millions of people doesn't say a thing about whether they are even remotely true. Millions of people in Nazi-Germany believed that Hitler was right about killing all the jews. Conviction is a poor substitute for proof and evidence and an even worse substitute for morals and ethics.

That's exactly why religious groups are so prone to producing absolutely insane fanatics.

The guy is a liar. Where is the proof of these threats?

First thing i would have done is raised my hand and asked the teacher "whose picture are we permitted to step on?"

"Can we step on the principals picture?...because i just so happen to have this full page print of the principal"

"Can we step on the picture of a dead president?

I think i know how well that would have gone over.

Now that i look back on things i understand why i stared out the window in class for a full year.

That said, it is best to take things in stride.

Originally posted by Malcher
First thing i would have done is raised my hand and asked the teacher "whose picture are we permitted to step on?"

"Can we step on the principals picture?...because i just so happen to have this full page print of the principal"

"Can we step on the picture of a dead president?

I think i know how well that would have gone over.

Now that i look back on things i understand why i stared out the window in class for a full year.

You are missing the point. It's not about whose picture you WANT to step on. It's about whose picture (or name) you DON'T WANT to step on - and why?

If you don't want to step on a picture of Jesus, or Mohammed, or Santa Claus - ask yourself, why do I have these reservations? Is this because this picture is somehow special? Because the person is somehow special? Or is it because you have been brainwashed to believe in the importance of certain people and/or ideas?

You have never met Jesus. Jesus is exactly as real to you as Napoleon is. But if you were raised christian, you probably think that Jesus is somehow more real. Your parents wouldn't have told you to pray to some insignificant dead guy, right?

The tragedy or religios upbringing is that when we are children, we believe in everything our parents tell us. Little do we know (at that moment) that they have no clue about the important issues, as well.

Originally posted by Xenoglossy

Originally posted by Malcher
First thing i would have done is raised my hand and asked the teacher "whose picture are we permitted to step on?"

"Can we step on the principals picture?...because i just so happen to have this full page print of the principal"

"Can we step on the picture of a dead president?

I think i know how well that would have gone over.

Now that i look back on things i understand why i stared out the window in class for a full year.

You are missing the point. It's not about whose picture you WANT to step on. It's about whose picture (or name) you DON'T WANT to step on - and why?

If you don't want to step on a picture of Jesus, or Mohammed, or Santa Claus - ask yourself, why do I have these reservations? Is this because this picture is somehow special? Because the person is somehow special? Or is it because you have been brainwashed to believe in the importance of certain people and/or ideas?

You have never met Jesus. Jesus is exactly as real to you as Napoleon is. But if you were raised christian, you probably think that Jesus is somehow more real. Your parents wouldn't have told you to pray to some insignificant dead guy, right?

The tragedy or religios upbringing is that when we are children, we believe in everything our parents tell us. Little do we know (at that moment) that they have no clue about the important issues, as well.

Yes but now you are making excuses and trying to justify stepping on one image or name and not another.

The question i ask is can you at least understand why some people would not want to step on a name or image? Do you have to know someone personally? There is no question that Christians believe Jesus was\is real.

I still would need more convincing on why i could not step on the principals image or name or maybe i would bring a picture of Ronald Reagan or Che Guevara to step on. Would this piss some people off?

I still say i would have called the bluff and perhaps even as a child or student i would have but then that may have caused teachers to become violent.

reply to post by Xenoglossy


First off, Godwin's law.

Second, you are equating that you cannot understand, therefor, it is impossible. You see everyone who believes in God, as people who rely solely on faith; but I do not have faith that God exists - I know he exists. There is too much corroborating evidence that correlates to the bible and Yahweh, for his existence to be, "just faith based." However, I do rely on faith to accept that what he says is true.

If you allow yourself to have enough faith to seek, I'm pretty sure you'll see too. That's not a guarantee, mind you - that's just wishful thinking. And I do understand your doubt and rebut, but I can't save you. That's between you and God.

I can't tell whether this thread was designed to condemn Christians (Christians do monstrous things.) or excuse Islamic terrorists (Muslims are no worse than Christians are, so get off their backs.). I expect both, especially since the OP is so intent on saying that people who disagree with him are making excuses for Christians.

To attempt to strengthen the case that Christians are at least as dangerous as Muslims, abortion clinics have been brought up. I was curious about that so I went to the website for the National Abortion Federation. They list reports of violence against abortion related people and property throughout the US and Canada. They report that, since 1997, there have been four deaths caused by three people (Roeder, Kopp, and Rudolph). That's terrible, of course, but it's invisible compared with non-Christian terrorism in the last 15 years.

Shouldn't we take a quick look at Islamic terrorism as well?

Sunni extremists committed almost 60 percent of all worldwide terrorist attacks. These attacks caused approximately 70 percent of terrorism-related deaths, a significant increase from the almost 62 percent in 2009.

Of the remaining attacks, secular, political, or anarchist groups accounted for almost 16 percent of the total, roughly the same proportion as in 2009. Christian extremist attacks fell sharply from 1,052 in 2009 to 321 in 2010.

www.state.gov...
In 2010 there were 11,604 terrorist attacks. Given that, the percentage conducted by Christian groups was 2.8%

And if you like playing with numbers, the Pew research center estimates that Christians are 32% of the world and Muslims are 23%. With Muslim terrorist attacks occurring about 20 times as frequently as those committed by Christian groups, and with Muslims being about 2/3 as populous as Christians, the rate of terrorist attacks by Muslims is about 30 times greater.

Arguing that Christians are as prone to terrorist methods as Muslims, is advocating an unbelievable proposition and weakens the case of the presenter.

I am intrigued by this.

It is turning into a Christianity vs Islam thread, yet nobody has pointed out the simple fact that the professor only felt safe enough to try this with one of their deities...

That should tell everybody here everything they need to know about each religion right off the bat.

Originally posted by charles1952
I can't tell whether this thread was designed to condemn Christians (Christians do monstrous things.) or excuse Islamic terrorists (Muslims are no worse than Christians are, so get off their backs.).

From what I see, the most damning is Fox News for spinning the story into something it wasn't, removing context, and trying to rile up their demographic regardless of truth in journalism.

also known as a typical Tuesday at fox news.

They could've just done the Christian thing and forgave him, right?