Religious protesters sometimes bring out the worst in students (Photo by 13 Stoploss)
Here are a couple of curious stories about one-time SOCCCD denizens.
KATHIE HODGE:
He’ll be taking over the job from current President Kathleen Hodge—who, you’ll recall, was the Chancellor of the SOCCCD during a stormy period eight or nine years ago.
According to the Hornet, “Hodge will be relieved from her duties as president and will start her new career of Vice Chancellor of Instruction of the NOCCCD to work on the development of a new Education and Facilities Master Plan after the six years she served as FC president.”
Gosh, they make it sound like a death sentence.
JESS CRAIG:
Meanwhile, over at Orange Coast College, Jess Craig, the VP of Student Services—he used to do that at IVC—was placed on paid administrative leave by the Coast Community College District board. That happened last week. (Jess Craig put on leave.)
What’s that all about? Didn’t Craig recently announce his plans to retire at the end of the year? Yup.
It gets worse. According to yesterday’s Coast Report,
In addition to the administrative leave, sources said the district has launched an investigation into complaints about Craig apparently voiced by students. Those complaints were sent to the district board but the exact reason for the investigation hasn’t been released.There’ve been lots of strange exits going on over there in the past year or so. Have any of them been explained? Don't think so.
UNPOPULAR RELIGIOUS PROTESTS:
Earnest right-wing religious protesters are making the rounds these days. According to today's Fullerton College Hornet, “Members of the non-profit group, Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, appeared once again on … campus on Monday.” (Removed group repeats its ranting)
They brought their big posters—you know, the ones with graphic photos. And, as their moniker implies, they make a big point of comparing abortions in this country to the Holocaust.
Naturally, this pisses some people off.
SADDLEBACK COLLEGE:
A right-wing, sign-wielding regular has been showing up at our colleges (in the SOCCCD) again (Students clash with religious demonstrator). According to the Saddleback College Lariat, in-your-face demonstrator Paul Mitchell is back with his obnoxious sign (“girly-men” are going to hell, sex is bad) and bombastic rants, instigating unfortunate scenes:
A crowd surrounded Mitchell as he stood on the quad. Several students began heckling Mitchell as he spoke, interrupting his speech on how alcohol and sexual relations were sinful. At one point a student, Jeff Deppe, 20, undecided, jumped up beside Mitchell and held up his binder, which featured a large photograph of marijuana on the cover. … The crowd continued to jeer Mitchell and cheer Deppe as Deppe shouted, “smoke weed!”I love the detail: “undecided.”
But something tells me that Deppe and his friends are, well, louts.
IVC:
A similar scene unfolded today at IVC. At about noon, I walked near the vast grassy zone in front of the Student Services Building and spotted Mitchell, his big nasty sign, and a crowd of jeering students.
It didn’t feel right. I walked over and witnessed a semi-ugly scene of students jeering and taunting the guy. Pretty soon, students were jumping up next to him for photographs. I gave 'em a death stare.
I talked to an administrator hoping to get a cop out there to keep things cool. I don’t know what happened next.
I've gotta say, the slightly mob-like quality of the student crowd was much uglier than Mitchell’s buffoonish routine. (I know: some of these kids just want to counter Mitchell's rhetoric, and perhaps they don't realize how dicey these confrontations can be.)
Hey, even Mitchell has a right to tell us what really matters to him. These kids don’t seem to understand that.
That’s not good. That's not good at all.
All photos by 13 Stoploss/Jason, Sept. '08. For more, see Paul at IVC and Paul at PCC
I'll take liberty, please.
20 comments:
Why does this guy bother? He's not making any converts, that's for sure.
I suspect that he "bothers" because he has deep moral convictions and has the courage to express them, in hopes that he may reach someone out there.
That's why these confrontations bother the hell out of me, too. First, there's the simple lack of compassion--whether this guy is just misguided or (possibly) mentally disturbed, he deserves at least the kindness of leaving him alone to speak his mind.
Then, there's the lack of appreciation for the First Amendment.
Mostly, what I hate is that people don't think about intregrity (acting according to one's beliefs so that one's life is "whole") and moral courage (putting oneself out there even when it's extremely unpleasant and might even subject one to harrassment or violence. Even if one's views seem goofy or downright nuts, one can have integrity and courage--and those virtues are to be respected and admired. (Possible exception, of course: when one's acts are extremely harmful to others--and this guy's don't seem to fit that description.)
If students learn nothing else in college, they should get *that* clear.
MAH
Hear! Hear! Good job MAH - nicely put.
ES
No doubt Mitchell is sincere, but if you were to experience his rants, you'd be less sympathetic, I think. Mitchell seems to seek the loutish response he gets, as though every jeer is another brownie point toward a heavenly reward.
He seems to be a man who loves a crowd, particularly around him. Besides, he has campus security there to protect him.
He shouldn't need security, and anyone can avoid his rants for the most part by just walking on by. If he's just after the reactions for "brownie points", then not letting him get any by not jeering at him would send him packing.
ES
Yes, Deppe has decided: he will be a stupid jerk.
Are people still pissed at Hodge for cancelling commencement a couple of years ago?
MAH's excellent response ovecame my intitial take on this fellow, in that I'm just really tired of religious zealots shoving their dogma down our throats. I'd rather they all just shuffle off to Barstow or some other hellhole where like minded denizens reside.
But, after more thought, I would say that the best approach is just to simply ignore them. I will agree with some of the others here that Mitchell loves getting under peoples' skin. Disinterest would be about the worst reaction for him to endure.
No religious zealots ever shove their dogma down my throat, so I'm not sure how that happens to anyone around here. I don't go to church, and no one can make me, so I don't listen to sermons. If I happen to read something written by a zealot, I either finish reading it just to see where it goes, or I don't, if it bugs me too much. For people waving signs and preaching on corners, I don't provide an audience, and they do not prevent me from going about my business. The worst they can do is tell me that all my choices are "sins", and they can tell me that I'm personally in need of "saving", and that I'm going to hell unless I repent and change. So what if they say that. I'm not going to tell them they're wrong - I think they probably are, and I live accordingly, but I'm not going to take issue with them. I certainly won't shout at them like an anti-religious zealot! Zealotry causes misery.
One man's "zealot" is another man's moral hero. Recall that abolitionists were described as zealots, as were sufferagettes.
This particular fellow likes to get in the face of students, shout at them. IT is possible, of course, just to ignore him, to walk on by. But it is also natural to want to respond to such a person.
"No religious zealots ever shove their dogma down my throat, so I'm not sure how that happens to anyone around here."
I would suggest looking at legislation, both Federal and state, and local ordinances, that are often pushed by religious zealotry. Like, for instance, mandating the teaching of intelligent design. Or denying contraceptives to 17 year old girls. Or denying funding for organizations that may, gasp, be involved with alternatives to pregnancy. Or denying fundamental freedoms to homosexuals. If you want some real horrors, look to Saudi Arabia, but we have plenty of it here.
I can go on and on, my naive friend, but I hope the point is made.
I don't think your target poster is naive, 2:09. Religious zealots shouting on corners probably have less power than just about anyone.
These odious measures ARE related to religious zealotry, yes; but they are passed into law by bodies of legislators who are not doing their jobs well or who are bullied into voting for measures they don't even support (embarrassingly, for the sake of votes), or who would like to erase the line between church and state. Now, THAT is a dangerous thing, I agree.
But this lone fellow who shouts on campuses is not that dangerous thing.
MAH
I've always disagreed with the oft quoted bit: "I just hate when they try to force religion down my throat."
Often it's just an exaggeration, Mitchell isn't forcing anything (yeah, maybe someone is forcing legislation, but Mitchell ain't that guy). So, instead, this seems an insecure response to an idea they want to appear to know, but don't really fully understand (maybe the insecurity is not that well thought out, and so instead, erupts as an impulse; "Fuck that guy"). At the heart of the matter, I feel people give too much credence to their own ideas, language, whatever, no matter how shitty (I am quite guilty of this). I figure, a thought should be able to enter your mind, be processed and go just as easily as it came (I'm being colloquial). But, we seem a lousy species at this, I think, and we seem to tire of battles of justification (e.g. I have a memorized response I simply recite in defense of my vegetarianism, or as another e.g. just simply getting peeved and justifying with a stick). Being a beast is so much easier; until you can't sleep at night.
I really like Mitchell, but just as I have said everything above about the audience, the same can be said about the showman. I'd argue that Mitchell is taking his ideas far too seriously, especially if he is offended by the people about him. But then again, he has openly defined himself as an evangelist... and well, that's just what they do. Though, it should be noted that there is stating your position and then, insulting passer-bys. He has a right to state his ideas, and I defend him for that, but trying to rile people up is just plain stupid, and I do not defend him for that.
tired as hell, but hadda write BS
PS. MAH/Chunk can we call "religions" metaphysical arguments? And with that is there any reason why one metaphysical idea is better than another? I'm thinking of science how one theory might be bested by another based on its satisfying empirical fact, but I can't seem to summon up any thoughts on how one religion or theory or whatever is better than another, unless we argue over the "safety" of them, i.e. which seems most probable, or determine logical consistency. I have no clue about metaphysics. Nor do I know if my classification is necessary (unless there is a "set of tools" or something that is used to evaluate metaphysical ideas).
Excellent questions, BS. Gotta go work (DAMN!), but will send some thoughts later on.
p.s. What is your "stock" response about your vegetarianism (the one that does not employ a stick, which can be a very tempting one, indeed)? Love to know about these.
MAH
"I've always disagreed with the oft quoted bit: "I just hate when they try to force religion down my throat." "
A good discussion, BS, but this lead in is pretty ambiguous. Are you saying that "they" do not hate forced religiosity? Or are you saying that there are not forces marshalling their powers to engage in heavy forcitude? 'Cause man, they are rolling around out there.
I think MAH is a little off in the 8:37 post; the zealots, of which this Mitchell fellow is one, are definitely part of the problem. Sure, he's not a legislator while on campus, but he's part of a mindset that is interested in only one thing, really--control of the nonbelievers.
I do not deny the existence of the zealots, and I hate to seem like the kind to defend them. I sort of would prefer to act in defense of those who are not zealots without piling them all together in to the religious they. To answer the question specifically: I admit there are the forces out there, but I usually see this argument being put to use in a place it does not belong. I.e. handing out bibles very peacefully is not forcing anything. The word force implies the removing of authority over your own thoughts or feelings. Handing over bibles does NOT do this, but I do think that insulting other people in a public place does begin to take this form. He can hold a sign, argue with people who do that kind of thing, but deliberately seeking to insult, I feel, triggers an innate sense of defense in people that they generally can't control.
Personally I classify via a spectrum of sorts. On the left is the peaceful, personal believers (my family is full of these). On the right, the nuts who lie and bullshit to put forth legislations meant to put religion in places it does not belong. I put our friend Mitchell smack dab in the middle. The guy has a right to his beliefs, and has a right to go out and peddle his ideas or what-have-you. But when I see him calling out people who mind their own business, "Oy, what an idiot," I think.
So just to clarify what I think is important: The word force has a meaning, that meaning implies someone taking control of your thoughts, or feelings. This word really can't be used freely without talking about the responsibility of individuals over their own thoughts and feelings (I admit, some people just get angry at the sign of any opposition) but the normal, intelligent person should (Or so I think) be able to handle opposing points of view, but should not have to tolerate verbal abuse. Mitchell is doing alright by advocating his ideas with a sign in a public place, but is doing bad by verbally abusing those who pass by.
So, maybe I don't really like Mitchell, but I can tolerate him. I dunno if I agree with MAH when I say he has guts, or whatever though. It's easy to be an angry lout, way harder to hold your composure and to use your intellect. MAH hasn't seen this man at work though, he is positively a narrow minded asshole.
- A REALLY tired human BS
PS
MAH, what classes are you teaching this quarter/semester? Im taking an upper division Intro to Logic course and a Philosophy of Physics (Geometry and Spacetime which I am infatuated with, for now) course.
Note, if I seem way more verbose, blame school. It awakens something.
An excellent response, especially considering the tired factor, BS.
Hi, BS. That IS an excellent response that you have written--nice work. And you are probably right that I might change some of my opinions of this guy if I saw him in obnoxious action. Yet I always wonder if assholes of that ilk are genuinely mentally handicapped or emotionally unbalanced. Maybe that's horribly insulting to his beliefs--yet who would seek out harassment and abuse (by dishing out his own harassment and abuse) if they were not a bit unbalanced? I dunno. Maybe he is, in fact, a mentally intact asshole. But I have to doubt it.
As for me, I'm teaching a First Year seminar this semester titled "Humans and Other Animals" (devoted to the subject of animal minds and animal ethics), as well as Environmental Ethics and our Senior Seminar.... Unfortunately, I am way far away in the Inland Empire (such an absurd and wonderful moniker for this region). How I would love to have you in a class!
Enjoy UCI to the hilt, BS--including those wonderful eucalyptus and other trees in that inner park.
MAH
"a mentally intact asshole"
--Excellent phrase. And so useful.
I'm such a know-it-all, you wouldn't want me anywhere near your class! I planned my summer such that all personal projects ended the day school started. Now the only focus left in my life is school, and I think that is how it should be.
And yeah, I share your wonder regarding the assholes of the ilk: They have to have some sort of mental handicap, or somethin. Chunk warned me not to psychologize at one point on this blog, but I was going off about the emotionally unbalanced thing.
Enjoys the "greenery" at UCI more than anything else. BS
Post a Comment