Appearance of “Gay Jesus” Causes Uproar In Ohio

The good people of Elyria, Ohio are in an uproar with the appearance of a school poster featuring a “Gay Jesus.” The poster was the work of a student atheist group at Lorain County Community College and the students are now facing allegations of violating school prohibitions of insulting a religious faith.

I can actually claim the distinction of visiting Elyria repeatedly as lead counsel in the espionage case of Petty Office Danny King, who returned to Elyria after we won the case. Nice town. Nice people. But it appears that this poster has caused something of an uproar over freedom of speech versus respect for the religion of others.

The poster was made as part of Club Awareness Week, along with many other displays advertising student-run extracurricular organizations. If they weren’t before, people are certainly aware of the atheist club now. Activists for Atheism at LCCC have been swamped with complaints and notified that the poster violates a rather sweeping school policy: “Harassing any person(s) verbally, in writing, by graphic illustration, or physically, including any abuse, defamatory comments, signs or signals intended to mock or ridicule race, religion, age, sex, color, disability, sexual orientation, or national or ethnic origin” is not allowed.

That is a remarkably broad prohibition, particularly in an academic setting where students are supposed to engage in free and passionate debates.
The poster is referencing a passage of the so-called Secret Gospel of Mark — found inscribed in a letter by Greek historian Clement of Alexandria. One section suggests that after Jesus resurrected a man from the dead, he had an intimate relationship with him.

The controversial passages falls between verses 34 and 35 of Mark 10:

And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me.’ But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.

It is viewed as entirely false and outrageous by many Christians. In the meantime, the school will have to decide whether such debates are part of the academic experience or should be banned as offensive to religious sensibilities. I tend to favor free speech and leave the merits to such debates to the students and faculty to hash out.

For the full story, click here.

279 thoughts on “Appearance of “Gay Jesus” Causes Uproar In Ohio”

  1. But go ahead Patty. Tell us all again, with your A-THEIST BELIEFS and DOGMA, how all of the Dictionary’s, including the one you produced, are wrong, and you’re right.

    —-

    Atheism

    (AY-thee-iz-uhm) Denial that there is a God. 1

    The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Copyright © 2002

    —-

    atheism

    noun [U]
    the belief that God does not exist

    Cambridge Dictionary of American English © Cambridge University Press 2008.

    —-

    Atheism
    A”the*ism (#), n. [Cf. F. athéisme. See Atheist.]

    1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being

    Webster’s Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition

    —-

    atheism
    noun
    Absence of belief in the existence of God or deity, gods.

    Disbelief in the existence of God or deity, gods.

    Etymology: athéisme, from athée “atheist” < (polytonic, ) (atheós) “godless” < (polytonic, á-) a-Prefix_5, (a-) “without”, + (theos) “deity, god”.

    AllWords Dictionary.Com\Wiktionary.org

    —-

    atheism
    A’THEISM, n. The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being

    Webster’s Dictionary , 1828 edition
    —-

    Atheism

    1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

    Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1912 edition

    —-

    atheism [‘ei?iiz?m] noun

    the belief that there is no God

    Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary, © 2000-2006

    —-

    atheism

    noun
    1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God

    WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

    ——

    atheism

    (´th-z´´m) (KEY) , denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved.

    The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-07

    —-

    ATHEISM (from Gr. a-, privative, and O€6, God), literally a system of belief which denies the existence of God.

    Encyclopedia Britannica

    —-
    a-the-ism

    Pronunciation e thi ih zEm

    Definition 1. the belief that there is no God.

    Wordsmyth.com ©2002 Wordsmyth

    —-

    atheism

    the absolute denial of the existence of God or any other gods. — atheist, n.

    -Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc

    —-

    atheism

    n atheism [ˈeiθiizəm]

    the belief that there is no God.


    Password English Learner’s Dictionary © 1986-2008

    —-

    a•the•ism (th-zm)
    n.
    1.
    a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
    b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000

    —-

    atheism [aith-ee-iz-zum]
    Noun

    the belief that there is no God
    [Greek a- without + theos god]

    Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

    —-

    Go ahead.

    Make my day.

  2. Patty said;

    Define ‘GOD’…!

    – right here, right now, successfully, to everyones satisfaction, then, you may declare ‘Victory’

    As I accurately predicted yesterday, the A-THEIST, when confronted with the facts, folds into a ball of insults, tirades, name calling, and denying proven fact.

    I also predicted you would try and paint your opponent, as a THEIST, even though that opponent has said time and time again, that they are neither A-THEIST, or THEIST.

    So like your friend, Mike Spindell, who has likewise demonstrated an amazing ability to invent lies and strawmen, you now present your STRAW ARGUMENT, asking someone who doesn’t beleive, to define god.

    I don’t need to define god patty, for unlike you, I do not cling to childish belief systems, like THEISM, or A-THEISM.

    You however, need to demonstrate your proof, that this god that the THEISTS claim exists, does not.

    And in abscence of that proof, your A-THEISM is relegated to the realm of BELIEF SYSTEMS.

    Just like the THEISTS.

    Just like every DICTIONARY out there tells you.

    Whether you’re literate enough to comprehend, or not.

  3. Patty said…

    No, not everyone – just you, ape.

    I am more than capable of presenting and defending my arguments
    – not to worry

    Really?

    Because your “argument” which you repeated over, claimed A-THEISM was NOT a doctrine
    \belief system, which I have demonstrated that it is, by posting not one, but practically every dictionary defintion there is, including Cambridge, Password Learners, not one but THREE editions of Websters, American Heritage, Princetons Wordnet, Collins, and others. I even threw in Encylopedia Brittanica, and the Columbia Encylopedia.

    They all say you are wrong.

    In fact, your own definition, which you posted from the Oxford Dictionary, ALSO defined A-THEISM as a DOCTRINE, lol.

    Your own dictionary proved you wrong.

    And your response to being proven wrong, was to cry to the blog host to my comments, insulting me, and name calling, as you did once more above.

    Clearly you are not capable of “defending your positions”.

    But you certainly are capable, of defending mine.

    In fact, you yourself produced

  4. “So Patty now is imploring the bloghost to enforce other bloggers to quote her entire posts, instead of excerpts, as is done in all blogging, debating, literature and legal reference, because apparently patty is not capable of defending her own untenable positions, so now she is making childish demands of the blog host.”

    *********

    No, not everyone – just you, ape.

    I am more than capable of presenting and defending my arguments
    – not to worry.

    What I observe and so equally object to are your blatent, obsessive, personal, attention ‘seeking’ behaviors as evidenced by your scrupulously attracted focused selection of only the lesser, dubious, points presented rather than displaying any voluntary consideration of a broader, more worldly view, having been offered as wider, more open, ‘possibilities’…

    I can only assume this is the reason you were invited OUT of
    Seminary school.

    You are positively not inspired. NOT ‘inspirational’.

    Possibly positivley uninspirable – in your own mind.

    That’s pretty sad.

    Not only can you not ‘define’ God, I dare say you’ve had and continue to have difficulty getting your own head around the whole concept of ‘Faith’ – the meaning, or lack of it, in your own life.

    At the risk of sounding flip, ‘I doubt it was the Lord callin’ you ‘that’ day, boy – sorry’…

    ——-

    This is, essentially, a Constitutional Law blog.

    Well, essentially, a Law blog, anyway.

    Not a religious blog – ALTHOUGH, we do get off track an talk about religion … And a FAIR AMOUNT!!! Lately…

    However, Bartlebee, aka Cromag’, please know, whatever you need to address personaly in your own life, you would likely be far better served in some variety of an Out-Patient Counseling setting and/or, frankly, a non-threatening, psychiatric, In-Patient Medical facility.

    Unfortunately, that would mean NOT here.

    The majority of people in the group, here, are not trained in psychology and are not sufficiently familiar with you or your issues to provide the support you so obviously need.

    If you don’t believe me, try this:

    Define ‘GOD’…!

    – right here, right now, successfully, to everyones satisfaction, then, you may declare ‘Victory’!

    OR, more likely,

    Dial your local Crisis Line 1-800- ***- ****

    AND if that doesn’t work, call 911…
    … and ask for a ‘ Green Slip ‘ ie in VA, I think 😉

    Good Luck!

    p.s. If I were you, at least for now, I would RUN away fast
    – from religion!

  5. Did you not say this, inventing a STRAW MAN when confounded with the facts?


    where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins

    And then, did you not say this, responding to that STRAWMAN, by lying, and denying you ever said it?

    I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”

    These are not hard questions Michael, and I doubt anyone other than us and maybe your friend patty is reading this.

    But everytime I post these, and you ignore them, coming back with more insults and ridicule over my being here (which is laughable since you too are “here”), you are merely illuminating your own shame at being caught lying, then lying to deny your first lie.

    Instead of silly kids games, how about simply admitting your lies to me, and then your insults trying to cover up your lies?

    Then you could have that “last word” you apparently covet so dearly.

  6. Coming back in the day after being caught lying, into a dead thread and leaving insults and name calling, without admitting to your lies, hardly places you in some lofty position over me.

    Instead it shows your immaturity, and dishonesty, in being unable to admit you lied, got caught lying, then lied some more to deny being caught.

    Apparently because you’re not big enough to actually debate, and lose a debate, like a gentleman.

    If you produce a fact, or position that defeats something I have purported, then you will find I will graciously admit defeat and move on.

    You however, having been unable to produce a reasonable argument for your untenable position, resorted to fabricating a position for me, and then when caught on it, turned to lies.

    When those lies were exposed, you turned to silly juvenile babbling, and insulting me with your friend patty, who likewise has little debating skills to offer.

    If you would like the “last word” as you have thus implied, then by all means take it.

    Simply admit to your lies, strawmen and juvenile attempts to distract from them, and I’ll be happy to permit you the dubious honor you seek, of “the last word”.

  7. As for the “last word”, is that your purpose here?

    To “get the last word”?

    I see.

    Well, the last word is usually reserved for the person who has been proven correct.

    But I will be happy to give you “the last word” if you like, as soon as you admit to your repeated lies.

    And admit, to your now playing silly juvenile games and spouting babble, to try and conceal those lies.

  8. Oh I’m sorry Micheal. Were you not aware that it is you who is “trapped” in this thread?

    Trapped by your lies, which you still have yet to own up too?

    Or did you think that somehow your coming back in, and responding, did not constitute your presence here as well?

  9. crommy,
    You’re going to be trapped in this thread forever, since you lack the willpower to allow anyone else the last word, no matter how silly that word may be.

  10. Before climbing on your high horse, “or rocking horse”, and “lecturing” me some more while calling me names, I suggest you first admit to your lies.

    Once more, I’ll repost them, and continue to do so until we can help you to come to terms with them.

    Here they are again.

    First your strawman;


    where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins

    Then, your lie, denying your every saying the above;

    I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”

    Please admit, and apologize for lying about me, then lying about lying about me, prior to any more haughty lectures or name calling.

    Thank you.

  11. I’m sorry Michael, did you need a diaper change or something?

    Nyah Nyah Nyah?

    Told me what?

    You’ve yet to admit to your lie, perhaps you are slipping into some sort of repressed infantle state, where you now merely want to babble, to conceal the fact you got caught in a lie?

  12. Instead of calling me names Mike, and lying some more, how about you own up to the LIES you already got caught in?

    I’m sorry it bothers you that you lied, and got caught, but the fact is you did.

    So instead of throwing a babies tantrum, how about growing up, and admitting that you lied, then got caught lying, and lied about that?

    Here. In case you missed your lie.

    First, you STRAWMAN, where you invented something I never said.

    where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins

    Then, your LIE, trying to deny your first lie;

    I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”

    Please own up to that before calling me any more names.

  13. So Patty now is imploring the bloghost to enforce other bloggers to quote her entire posts, instead of excerpts, as is done in all blogging, debating, literature and legal reference, because apparently patty is not capable of defending her own untenable positions, so now she is making childish demands of the blog host.

    Of course no one takes such things seriously, as if someone was forced to post an entire comment when they are merely addressing one statement within the comment, that would help the person being “outed” with misinformation a way to conceal their deceit.

    Patty is clearly off her meds, or something, and has other motives her than debate.

    She first started by calling me names, and demanding I leave or something, then “TRIED” to debate, got her butt handed to her, and now is crying to the bloghost to censor anyone daring to show her silliness in all it’s glory.

    And of course Michael Spindell, too little apparently to admit when he is caught lying, has returned with more insults and name calling, but not one shred of honesty to admit he got caught, LYING.

    What a fascinating and rich belief system, you A-THEISTS have there.

  14. MICHAEL’S STRAWMAN:


    where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins

    MICHAEL LYING about his STRAWMAN:

    I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”

    Poor Michael. No room for “wiggle”.

  15. “Well apparently I’m worth something, as you keep coming back for more.”

    Actually crommy, I drop by once and a while to post a short message. Your pathology is such, that you can’t resist responding and that keeps you somewhat contained on this thread. Busy here, keeps you from contaminating the other threads with your obsessive drivel.

    You are so regular in the proliferation of your vituperation, that it gives me pause to wonder if you aren’t a person, but actually some sort
    of sophisticated computer program. That speculation is meaningless though, because in any event you’ve become a bore.

  16. Micheal Spindell said…

    You’re not worth the effort, because you are unable to learn from experience, or capable of any self insight.

    Well apparently I’m worth something, as you keep coming back for more.

    And if by “effort” you mean more Strawmen and LIES, then I assure I promise to “learn” something from your LYING.

    Just as I did in your first lies, that you have yet to admit to, or apologize for.

    So, allow me to help you into manhood, by showing you your LIES again. So you can recant them, as I know such an erudite and honest person as you profess to be, would want to do.

    First, you created your STRAWMAN, claiming I purported that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins, something I never said, hence, a STRAWMAN you created.

    Observe. Here is Micheal Spindell, “SPINNING” his Strawman.


    where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins

    Then, when BUSTED on this STRAWMAN (polite word for LIE), you lied outright, denying you ever said the statement above!

    Here is Micheal Spindell, DENYING he ever said the statement we have permanently recorded above.

    I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”

    So we see, that Micheal Spindell, not only invented a STRAWMAN, but he LIED after being caught with the strawman, and has since denied ever lying about it.

    Just like the republicans do.

    Micheal Spindell, instead of personal attacks and insults that have nothing to do with the debate that you lost, what you need to do is admit that you;

    A. CREATED A STRAW ARGUMENT

    B. LIED ABOUT EVER SAYING WHAT YOU SAID

    C. CONTINUE TO LIE ABOUT NOT LYING

    When you can mature enough to do the above, then we can further the debate if you like.

    But not until you admit your LIES.

    The LIES I have reposted again, for your peruse.

  17. As I accurately predicted, Patty and Michael have returned the facts I have laid out, including dictionary defintions from pretty much every known source, including Enclopedias, references, etc, with nothing but personal insults.

    Patty is off on her own little tantrum about something or other, lableing insults, but providing no counter argument.

    And she claims I am the one “not debating”.

    No Patty, YOU are the one who is not “debating”, but instead resorting to personal attacks, when your untenable position crumbles in the face of the facts I have presented.

    And of course we have Michael Spindell, caught producing straw arguments, then LYING about it, then spending the rest of his time lying about his lie, and launching personal insults.

    So, all I can do is respond by resubmitting the facts.

    They can sit with their personal insults, because apparently that’s all these two have got.

    FACT: A-THEISM is a BELIEF SYSTEM.

    FACT: A-THEISM, like THEISM, relies on an UNTENABLE position to sell it’s BELIEF SYSTEM

    FACT: A-THEISTS, when confronted with fact, turn to personal insult and fabrication, as Patty and Michael have proven here in this debate.

  18. Wow crommy,
    I got four comments following my rather brief paragraph. I must be hitting close to home in that somewhere inside you know the truth about yourself and it isn’t pretty. You claim you never insult anyone, but it would take hours of pouring through your inane comments to find the literally hundreds of direct insults you’ve made towards everyone. You’re not worth the effort, because you are unable to learn from experience, or capable of any self insight.

Comments are closed.