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.
Michael Spindell
Cromm,
There you go again
There I go again what?
The inability to formulate ones argument into words usually is an indicator of a flawed argument.
If you have something specific to refute, then refute it.
But just making random general “nuh uh’s” doesn’t cut it.
You have to… you know…. “say something”, if you want to demonstrate something is wrong.
LJM:
“You can be a Christian without following the rules and guidelines set by a variety of Christian organizations. The same is true for atheists.”
************
I find this a perplexing statement. How can one be a member of a belief system and not adhere to all or most of its tenets. It’s like saying I am an agnostic but I believe in deity that sent his Son on a suicide mission to Earth and founded a religion but I am still an agnostic. Words are not infinitely malleable. They must mean something and this mushy brand of thinking gives credence to those who are Christian in name only, not wanting to burden themselves with teachings with which they, nor any other rational person, would agree.
But feel free, either of you, to produce the branch or sect of atheism, that does believe in god, and thereby refute the proof I’ve provided here this evening on the “basic tenet” of atheism.
Until then, my position stands unchallenged.
Atheism IS a belief that a god or gods do not exist.
And THAT is their basic tenet.
Their “doctrine”.
Cromm,
There you go again.
Rcampbell,
You too.
The shame is that I’ve read a lot of stuff from you guys and I’m sure you both are smart enough to disagree without sarcasm. Although, truth be told, I’ve been guilty of it too.
Michael Spindell
However, where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins.
Another straw argument.
I never said that “ALL” atheists repredsent the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins. I never even used those words.
I referenced http://www.ATHEIST.org, which encompasses the largest group of organized atheism in the US. I referenced a US Supreme Court case where a group of atheists sued the public school system and pronounced their “beliefs” to the world.
I referenced the dictionary as demonstrating the common basic “tenet” of atheism, that is, “the belief that there is no god”.
And not one, but FIVE Dictionarys.
So please control your straw horses, lol, when coming at me with critique. I never said what you claimed I said, thus that is a strawman.
I’m sorry RC Cambell. I was not “defining” atheism for you.
The dictionary was.
Perhaps you think I’m the dictionary?
CroMM,
You have me perplexed. Here i was enjoying your rendition of the real Jesus, with which I happen to agree. In the midst of it you become obsessed in a diatribe with Gyges and Jill about atheism as a belief system and I also somewhat agree with you there.
However, where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins. I do think many atheists simply don’t believe in the God concept and could care less what others think, as long as it doesn’t impinge on them. O’Hare I admired, at least in her fight to take religion out of schools. Dawkins strikes me as a pedantic jerk, famous for The Selfish Gene, which was a biological attempt to emulate B.F.Skinner mechanization of humanity. I personally find aggressive atheists as tiring as aggressive fundamentalists.
That being said I have had many dialogs on religion with both Jill and Gyges in the past few months. I have found neither to be either dogmatic, affronting, nor partisans of a “straw man debating style.”
They are lucid, intelligent and fun in my experience. This despite the fact that I have characterized myself as a Deist Jew.
Now please understand, I am profoundly uninterested in proselytizing my spiritual beliefs and there is no organization that speaks for me.
In fact paraphrasing Groucho: I wouldn’t want to be a member of any organization that would have me. Do I have a belief system, you’re damned right I do. However, it is unique to me. In that sense I am quite willing to believe that Gyges and Jill have belief systems unique to them. I would venture to think that your belief system is likewise iconoclastic.
Since I do agree with much of what you state, perhaps you might listen to me on this point. While you no doubt take joy in debate and do it with great skill, in this debate you veered into the personal and in doing so diminished the thrust of your arguments.
Cro-man
You’re in absolutely no position to define atheism for me or anyone else. That a group of people call themselves an atheists’ organization is one thing. But for you to then presume it speaks for the vast majority of atheists who specically reject such organizations associated with a belief system demonstrates your inability to think beyond the one demensional confines of your religious indoctrination.
Since you have no clue of which you speak, I humbly request you demonstrate that fact no more.
Hence, a common tenet.
😐
You rest my case.
Gyges says
There is no suggested course of action like in organized religion, no system of morals, no basic tenet.
But the facts say;
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary
Gyges said.
It became clear that you’d had YOUR debate before, so read into my posts what you expected me to say, and answered accordingly
No. I’ve “debated” the topic before, and heard from all sides.
And invariably the atheist side produces the same tired, logicless arguments that you tried to sell today.
As for reading “into”, I read nothing but what you said.
I quoted you warmly and accurately and I responded to your specific claims.
And I’ll be happy to do it again.
Here’s what you said.
Gyges
1, August 25, 2008 at 4:16 pm
CroMM,
Your comparison between Atheism and organized religions falls short on a few levels: There’s no central figure in Atheism, you don’t have to accept the teachings of _____ to be an Atheist. Most Atheists I know weren’t “converted” or “raised in the faith,” they came to the realization on their own that they didn’t believe in a god. There is no suggested course of action like in organized religion, no system of morals, no basic tenet.
Sorry Gyge, this response is in some cases vague and applies as easily to religion as it does athesim, and the rest is patently false.
Let’s take your summary last statement “no basic tenet”.
This is just as false as it could be.
Of COURSE atheism has a common tenet.
Of course it does. I demonstrated that time and time again.
A “tenet” is by definition, a principle, dogma or doctrine that a group believes or maintains.
The one common tenet of atheism, is that god or gods do not exist.
Period.
There is no gray area there. I demonstrated that.
Hell I showed you not one, but FIVE dictionaries, included Websters and Princetons Wordnet, that clearly define athesim as a “Doctrine or Belief” that there is no god.
Yet your founding argument, claimed otherwise.
And I proved that. There’s no ambiguity here.
You made claims about atheism that were patently false. Your red herrings to the opposite notwithstanding. I proved your statement was false, and instead of admitting that, you’re playing some sort of “disinterested 3rd party” superiority card now, instead of owning up to being proven wrong.
You say atheism does not have a common tenet.
But the facts say. and prove, that it does.
Gyges
It was pointless because we were arguing different things. I was arguing that the comparison to organized religions is only valid only to a certain point because it doesn’t a single source, or group of tenets, or scriptures to refer to for moral guidance
Yea, and I proved that was wrong, in that;
A. Neither does religion (the thousands of various religions use a wide variety of sources, tenent, scriptures, etc for moral guidance)
B. Like religion, Atheism does form into groups, have tenets, beliefs, and one common tenet, for moral guidance.
So perhaps you mean it was pointless for you to try debate a position that was not founded in reality?
CroMM,
It was pointless because we were arguing different things. I was arguing that the comparison to organized religions is only valid only to a certain point because it doesn’t a single source, or group of tenets, or scriptures to refer to for moral guidance. You were arguing that since there are atheist groups out there with their own definition of atheism it was an system of beliefs. It became clear that you’d had YOUR debate before, so read into my posts what you expected me to say, and answered accordingly. There was some other side stuff going on (by the way, I still don’t understand why you’re hung up on the belief\disbelief thing, I said you were right), but that’s the gist of it.
I found some of what you had to say interesting, but this isn’t the forum for a religious debate. Religious debates tend to get ugly, even when the people starting them are relatively polite. So since you know how this argument ends, and I don’t want a track mud all through Prof. Turley’s newly cleaned living-room, I’m done. I only post this because I figure it’s rude of me just to “walk away” from a conversation with no explanation. I may be a Godless commie with monkeys for cousins, but I’m a polite Godless Commie with monkeys for cousins.
By the way Gyge, you didn’t need to tell me you were an atheist. You tipped your hand there when you tried to sell the tired old atheist dogma that a “dis-belief a god exists” is somehow different than a “belief that a god does not exist”.
This is a common dogma pushed by atheists that strains logic and actually reeks of the spiritual, (something mystical about non belief that is not possessed by belief in the opposite), when actually it’s simply a misuse of the English language.
It’s one atheists have written extensively on, and many base their entire faith in their “disbelief” on to try and distinguish themselves from the Theists.
Of course, anyone with a literacy level higher than grade school understands that there is no difference if I say “I don’t believe a god exists” or “I believe god doesn’t exist”.
It’s the same thing.
Just like if I say “I believe you are incorrect” , or say “I dis-believe you are correct”.
There is no difference. Except to those who’s “beliefs” supercede reality, or literacy.
Gyges
Well I’m done too. By sticking to your guns and dismissing all arguments that go against your preconceived notion of how Atheists dismiss all arguments that go against their preconceived notions you’ve gotten me to stop arguing with you. You probably think you’ve won. Congrats
What “arguments”?
You haven’t made any yet, other than trying to sidetrack my position into a debate on creationism.
What arguments have you made?
Your first statements, as atheism not being a belief, I produced ample evidence to refute.
I produced offical Dictionary defintions from not one, but FIVE dictionarys. I produced “Articles of Belief” from the largest Atheist group in the United States, I even produced a US Supreme Court case where a list of atheist beliefs is recorded permanently in the court records.
Is this how you act when being proven wrong?
To get mad, insult the other blogger as being “pointless” and stomp of implying some kind of undemonstrated superiority?
You started out by saying ;
There is no suggested course of action like in organized religion, no system of morals, no basic tenet.
I proved this false.
In fact, I blew it out of the water, proving atheism is indeed a “System of Beliefs”, much like the religions it seeks to discredit.
I also disproved this original statement of yours;
There was no “Formation” of Atheism, just various people being willing to say “I don’t believe in a god.” As a side note you’ll note, nothing about that says that we need to refute others belief in a god.
I demonstrated irrefutably that A-THEISTS, like THEISTS, do indeed “form”, and do indeed “REFUTE GOD”.
I proved this repeatedly.
And instead of admitting it, you sulk off, muttering about how “pointless” a debate with me is on the topic?
😐
No doubt it is pointless for you, as you can neither win the debate, nor admit when you’ve lost.
GetReal,
I think Jesus is the most popular target for a few reasons. Christianity is the most popular religion in the world and so many, many more people have had experiences with it, both good and bad. There are, unfortunately, a lot of “Christians” in the world who are much less humble than you. They judge and condemn and even strive to limit the positive experiences of others based on their interpretation of Scripture. Combine that with the fact that we live in a country where people are used to expressing themselves with less fear of government intervention, and you get lots of folks who say crazy, even obnoxious things about other people’s faith (or lack thereof). I don’t think it’s great that people say things like that, but I do think it’s great that they have the freedom to do so.
And I think you absolutely, positively should speak up when you feel someone has disrespected your beliefs or misunderstood the Gospels. That’s what it’s all about.
CroMM,
Well I’m done too. By sticking to your guns and dismissing all arguments that go against your preconceived notion of how Atheists dismiss all arguments that go against their preconceived notions you’ve gotten me to stop arguing with you. You probably think you’ve won. Congrats.
Everyone else,
Sorry for getting involved in another pointless debate, at least this time I had to good sense to leave before it got nasty.
The Lawyers,
Could you argue that this picture falls under the category of parody of a public figure (like in Hustler Magazine V Falwell)?
Ron said…
A liberal interpretation of the life-style of Jesus could easily claim JC was gay.
That would be an extremely “liberal” interpretation, as I pointed out in my first few comments.
So liberal in fact, that it would require throwing out the canon, the gnostics, the apocrypha, and our knowledge of the Law of Moses.
Jesus was not “gay”. He may have been a snappy dresser, and unusally friendly, but he was married to a woman, most likely had kids, and did all the things a typical Rabbi of the time did.
Jill
I feel you are quite angry with many of us who have actually agreed with you in many respects
Another red herring.
Please don’t fall back on the tired blogger strawman of confusing CLARITY with being “angry”.
I am not angry, in fact, I’m having a good time.
I enjoy serious debate, and all of you have been respectful and pleasant to debate with.
In fact, Gyges is probably the most benevolant atheist I have ever debated on the topic.
Where are these atheists harassing or mocking Christians? The quote from Mark is no more unbelievable than hundreds of other passages of other gospels, that the “panties-in-a-wod” Christians would think are positively true, according to their interpretation of their bible. A liberal interpretation of the life-style of Jesus could easily claim JC was gay. And so what! Does that make him a bad guy? Only if your interpretation of the thousands of years old scriptures leads you to that negative conclusion. This type of insight will provoke the more progressive Christian to think seriously about the issue. The others? There’s no hope for them anyway. As a transplanted Ohioan, living in Alabama for many years, I commend these LCCC students for taking a provocative debate topic to the next level. I would add that these students would be run out of town on a rail if they attempted this stunt in the heart of Dixie.