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.
Once again, let me REITERATE my position, so no red herrings sour the flavor.
ATHEISM is a “BELIEF SYSTEM”, just like the religions it exists to dismiss.
There is little difference between the two, save one group likes to wear funny hats.
😀
CroMM,
LJM has the meaning of what I said correct. I didn’t have any secret or other meaning. I feel you are quite angry with many of us who have actually agreed with you in many respects. I am going to bow out of any more postings with you on this issue as I feel I cannot bridge the gap. This is not said with meaness.
Observe as Gyges still strains with his red herrings and strawdogs. Observe.
CroMM
“Both atheism and most fundamental religions share one thing in common.
“You’re the one who brought Fundamentalists up. I was
Note that Gyges proceeded to debate “CREATIONIST THEORY” yet what “I” said, was a much broader, general terminology, “FUNDAMENTAL RELIGIONS”.
Yet he drew on this to go into a debate on the ridiculousness of the 6000 year creation period, something I never contested.
It was a general term gyges. FUNDAMENTAL RELGIONs, which I could easily have just said “RELIGIONS”. There was no underlying discussion on creationism suggested or intended.
That was your RED HERRING.
“I think one of the coolest things about America and our Constitution is that people are expected to be able to deal with ideas and concepts they find disrespectful, without requiring government protection from these ideas. It implies that we are adults, emotionally strong and mature enough to handle bad words and insulting ideas”
OK LJM, So why is Jesus or Christianity the most popular target??? I don’t believe I’ve heard anything on the news about questionable pictures of Buddha.
I have a close relationship with Jesus – He is more than just someone I read about. Although He is much greater than I and does not need me to defend Him, I will indeed speak up on His behalf.
If someone said or implied something disrespectful or untrue about a dear loved one, wouldn’t you want to defend?
By the way, I apologize for saying that people who don’t believe in Jesus are prideful and need to get over themselves. That was disrespectful on my part.
LJM
I don’t think Jill was saying she hadn’t met atheists with beliefs, but rather that she hadn’t met atheists who try to convert others to atheism.
I know what Jill was saying LJ. I read it. It was a strawman because I never said ONE WORD about atheists “converting” people to atheism.
My entire premise has been the same since I started this discussion, that is, that A-theism, like Theism, is a BELIEF SYSTEM.
Which it is.
And no one so far has said anything that refutes that fact. Although some of them are having a difficult time coming to grips with that reality.
Probably be easier for them if I wasn’t such a dick about it, lol.
I don’t usually include quotes in my posts (I figure it would do people good to read the idea in context), but I think in this case
Res ipsa loquitur.
CroMM
“Both atheism and most fundamental religions share one thing in common. A predisposition to shut out facts, logic or evidence, in light of a pre-supposed set of beliefs, that may or may not be founded in reality. Atheism is as closed minded a belief system as is most fundamental theology, and therefore should be taken, parden the pun, “with a grain of salt”.”
Me
“You’re the one who brought Fundamentalists up. I was challenging your comparison, not saying you’re one.”
CroMM,
“I was condemning fundamentalism, and not comparing atheism with fundamentalism in particular.
So debating their doctrines, doctrines which I have already dismissed in this and other threads, seems to be a red herring.
Why you’d argue with me something that I never professed, is thus in doubt.”
And as for “changing meanings” Jill, your last post was one big strawman.
Here.
Jill said…
“You are probably correct to say some atheists try to “convert” others into unbelief.
I never once used the word “convert”, nor even implied anything about atheists “converting” others to their “unbelief” (which is a form of belief).
Never. Never said it. Not once.
Yet here, you put the word “convert” in quotes, attribute it to me, as if I said it, and then accuse me of ‘changing’ your meaning.
I didn’t. Thats a strawman and a fabrication.
I quoted you warmly and accurately.
You in turn invented a quote, and attributed it to me.
I don’t think Jill was saying she hadn’t met atheists with beliefs, but rather that she hadn’t met atheists who try to convert others to atheism.
CroMM,
You seem to want to rant at us about Atheism. I want to have a conservation that’s a give and take of ideas. I admit you’re right about the atheist organizations, and have elaborated on arguments that you’ve disagreed with. You’ve dismissed anything I’ve had to say with an attitude of “of course you say that you’re one of THEM.” I have made no attacks on your beliefs (I knew from the get go you weren’t a Fundi, your earlier comments on the history of the Gospels gave you away. I don’t really care what you believe, I’d have had this argument with an Atheist). You tell me that due to the nature of what I believe I’m closed minded and deluded.
You have to ask yourself, which one of us comes across as the one who feels the need to dismiss and refute others beliefs.
No Jill, I just drilled down to the meat of it.
You say you “haven’t met those kinds of atheists”, which implies to anyone with an IQ higher than a blackjack hand, that they are a rarity.
It’s like Hilary Clinton saying “I don’t have any personal information to conclude Obama is a Muslim”.
It’s a crafted sentence, designed to diminish the fact at hand.
The fact that atheists have beliefs is not a rarity, your meeting them or not is thus moot.
Atheism is a belief system. Thats the fact.
And so far, no one here has admitted, or refuted that fact. Because it’s a hard fact for the atheist to admit.
CroMM,
You left out an important part of what I was trying to say. It really does change the meaning. Here is my full quote.
“You are probably correct to say some atheists try to “convert” others into unbelief. I personally have not met those kinds of atheists, but I don’t think this is inherently implausible.”
If I ever did start a church, it’s ornament would be a question mark, and it’s priests would wear Frank Gorshin’s old body suit from the Batman series.
We wouldn’t have very many answers, but we sure would have some damn good questions.
Gyges
You’re the one who brought Fundamentalists up. I was challenging your comparison, not saying you’re one.
I was condemning fundamentalism, and not comparing atheism with fundamentalism in particular.
So debating their doctrines, doctrines which I have already dismissed in this and other threads, seems to be a red herring.
Why you’d argue with me something that I never professed, is thus in doubt.
I can say however, that everytime I challenge atheism in a blog, the same responses come back.
Like clockwork.
LJM said…
I think it has some of the same trappings, but not all. There is nothing inherent in the beliefs expressed by the American Atheists that suggests non-Atheists should or will be punished for their beliefs.
That they have “differening” beliefs is not in question, nor did I suggest otherwise.
The “trappings” I made it clear I was referring to are the trappings of close minded doctrines based not in reality, but personal beliefs.
That they posses DIFFERENT beliefs, was never in doubt.
See the fact is, A-THEISTS, are not much different at the end of the day, than the THEISTS.
One is the anti-thesis of the other and both profess their own unfounded beliefs, as fact, and dismiss any realities that do not coincide with their doctrines.
Which is why I have little time for either.
Like it or not, atheism is indeed a belief system with the same trappings of close minded dogma taught by the religionists.
I think it has some of the same trappings, but not all. There is nothing inherent in the beliefs expressed by the American Atheists that suggests non-Atheists should or will be punished for their beliefs.
CroMM,
You’re the one who brought Fundamentalists up. I was challenging your comparison, not saying you’re one. If I had wanted to call you a Fundamentalist, I would have put the words “like you” somewhere in that sentence. But again, you’re right I’m the one that makes assumptions about people because they disagree with me.
Also, I just want you to remember, true atheists would never put cream in their oats.
Gyges
I think we’re talking about different things here. You’re talking about atheist organizations. I’m talking about atheists as people
See?
There it is. The invariable “strains at logic” trying to find a way to correlate reality with your own beliefs.
Organizations of atheists, last time I checked, were made up by “people”. Atheist people.
And as I accurately predicted above, your attempts to produce “your personal beliefs” to dismiss the largest groups of atheists, offical belief systems recorded by the US Supreme Court and not one but FIVE mainstream dictionarys, confirms your own belief system and how it warps your ability to interpret reality.
And like I said, religionists do the same thing when presented with facts that do not meet with their own belief systems.
They invariably say “nuh uh”, thats not what I believe. Or “I dont’ care what the dictionary says, I know what I know”.
These statements, and all akin to them, are the bastions of self delusion brought on by belief systems.
Atheism is a belief system. Regardless of your “personal beliefs”.
How do you think it would be taken if Muhammed or Buddha or Krishna were represented in a way that was not respected or accepted by the followers?
I think one of the coolest things about America and our Constitution is that people are expected to be able to deal with ideas and concepts they find disrespectful, without requiring government protection from these ideas. It implies that we are adults, emotionally strong and mature enough to handle bad words and insulting ideas.
Jill said…
I personally have not met those kinds of atheists, but I don’t think this is inherently implausible
Well since they are the largest organized Atheist sect in the country, your not having “met” them takes a back seat to their existence.
Not to mention a US Supreme Court case which recorded an offical list of beliefs produced by an atheist group bringing suit against the public schools.
Also, I might also point out that I produced not one, but FIVE major dictionary definitions defining atheism as a “BELIEF SYSTEM”, including Websters, and Princetons “Wordnet”, so while you may have not met this particular sect of atheism, you hopefully have met the dictionary at one time or another.