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.
In fact, I predicted this over 2 hours ago.
Cro Magnum Man
1, August 25, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Well don’t worry guys.
I am sure Patty or someone will post some nice lengthy diatribes and toss out some personal insults to distract from your embarrassment here this evening.
And fortunately for you, it usually works
And there you go. Fish recipes from Jack and Julia Child.
See Jill?
Whenever cornered guys like Gyges don’t admit their mistakes, but instead turn to distractions, as I predicted they would.
And with help from his apparent friend patty here, seems to be well on his way to burying his embarrassment at being beaten in a debate.
What did I predict? Oh yea, some lengthy diatribe, to bury his embarrassment.
And there it is.
Fish stories. Random chatter designed to bury his clock cleaning.
Sometime you’ll have to give me your recipe for eating crow.
It must be good since you obviously enjoy it so much.
That’s campfire style! I agree, if you just pull them out of the water, but it takes about an hour to cook’ em that way.
How big are they?
Patty,
Thanks for the suggestion, but it’s a sin to do more with wild trout than to wrap them whole in Tinfoil with a little a bacon (or butter), some lemon juice and a couple slices of onion. Pair that with a Biere De Gaurde or a good wit beer and we’re talking some seriously good eating. Of course if they’re small enough you can give dip them in a little cornmeal batter and fry them up. And I generally keep my freezer stocked with a couple of good smoked trout for when we have company I really like.
Not at all, Gyges, perhaps I am just more observant in some matters.
I know I am envious of your day’s catch – here’s an easy one pan recipe for Trout Almondine, but I would just broil it well with olive oil, S&P. Maybe, on the side, a caper sauce made with butter, lemon, a little flour, fish stock or sauce (to taste), and some parsley.
http://www.recipezaar.com/45886
Bon Appetit!
Jill, thanks, but the names “Cro Magnum Man”.
CRoMM for short, as I have thus been dubbed.
Not “Cro Magnon” as patty suggested, and not anything else.
I likewise would like to hear whatever you have to say. You’re a nice girl with a keen mind and it’s a pleasure to debate with you.
As for being civil, I am certainly being so I think. That I used sarcasm to make a point should not be construed as meanness but merely what it is. A little fun to make a point.
I came to this blog because I assumed it would be a place for real debate by quick witted legal minds, not a chat room for a small click social club trying to always “play nice” with each other. I don’t use profanity in my comments nor do I just blindly attack someone.
I “debate”, and when I defeat my opponents position I expect my opponent to admit it, or produce data to show otherwise. Not walk off sulking, and mumbling subtle insults and vague generalities and seeking solice in the comfort of likeminded individuals while speaking ill of me in the 3rd person, which is what I’ve seen here tonite.
I mean come on. Isn’t this a place for debate? I didn’t start this one. Gyges presented a position claiming to counter mine. I defeated his position, clearly illuminated a fallacy of it, then recieved the “superior than thou” attitude for my trouble. I also defeated Michael Spindells attempts to refute me, and caught him in not only a completely fabricated strawman, but an out and out lie once I exposed his strawman.
These are not the actions of mature individuals who want to debate. Nor is crying about it when someone uses a little saracasm to make a point. After all, they did it too, like saying things like “stop drinking the coffee” or whatever it was Micheal said when trying to paint me as ignorant for pointing out what he actually said.
I will always be respectful to those who are respectful to me, but sarcasm to prove a point is not being disrespectful.
Lying to try and refute a fact, is.
Bartlebee,
I am certain it is you. You have a lot to offer. Please let’s all work together to make this a good experience for everyone on the blog. I want to hear what you have to say. I did and do hate the personal attacks by you and others against you. It made the blog ugly and hateful. I don’t want things to deteriorate like last time. We should all pull together as best as possible. No one has to pretend to like anyone, but being civil towards one another is a reasonable request so let’s just aim for that.
Jill
Fact. Atheism is a “Belief System”.
Of course, if I had started out by saying something so untenable as “There is no suggested course of action like in organized religion, no system of morals, no basic tenet. , and then had someone actually have to read me the dictionary to demonstrate the “basic tenet” of atheism, then I’d want to distract from it too.
I’d be quite embarrassed.
—
atheism
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University
—-
As I said, you rested my case.
It’s funny to watch you however apologize for “debating” in a “BLOG” that supposedly is for legal fans and professionals.
It appears I came for hardball, or at least a little softball, and all I found was T-Ball.
Ahh that’s it Gyges. Turn to distraction, talk about me in the third person, and dismiss he who just cleaned your clock without actually saying anything.
Patty,
So am I just particularly slow in figuring that out? I blame it on being distracted trying to figure out how to cook my fresh caught cut-throat trout for dinner (I decided on Welsh Style).
Mike,
Thank you for the kind words.
The Lawyers,
I was serious about my earlier question. For the sake of argument could this sort of representation of Christ (or any religious figure) be considered parody of a public figure? I know that it’s not all that relevant to this issue, and I remember reading here that you can’t sue someone for libel or slander of the dead, but as a thought experiment, would that argument hold water?
Well don’t worry guys.
I am sure Patty or someone will post some nice lengthy diatribes and toss out some personal insults to distract from your embarrassment here this evening.
And fortunately for you, it usually works.
This is pretty typical of debates with atheists.
They invariably resort to strawmen, red herrings, diversions, and ultimately, lies.
You lied Michael. You DID say I said that.
Which I didn’t.
Then, when caught on it, you lied, claiming you did’nt.
Which shows that you “A-THEISTS” aren’t much better than the “THEISTS”, in defending your untenable positions.
So you claim “Michael”, I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”
But here we see you saying just that;
where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins
So you’re now defending a straw argument, with a “lie”?
That’s your response?
Michael Spindell
I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”
😐
Really? Sure you don’t want to retract that?
—
Michael Spindell
1, August 25, 2008 at 7:32 pm
CroMM,
However, where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins.
——–
😐
Here, one more time.
You say now;
I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”
….and here’s what you really said.
However, where we part company is in your insistence that ALL atheists represent the belief systems of O’Hare and more lately Dawkins.
Don’t tell me, Bartleby is back…
And it’s ‘Cro-Magnon’ – the informal word once used by scientists to refer to the people who were living alongside Neanderthals at the end of the last ice age (ca. 35,000-10,000 years ago).
mespo727272
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.
Amen.
😐
ooops, I mean,… correct-a-mundo.
Cromm,
“Sraw Man” debating is ignoring someone’s point and picking out an argument that wasn’t being made. I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.” My point was that you were characterizing particular people with representing the belief systems of organized Atheism. I used O’Hare and Dawkins as examples of aggressive, prosylytising atheists, not as leaders of some Atheist cult. You certainly understood ttat, you’re smart enough, but you chose to ignore it because you’re having too much fun “debating” all comers tonight. we’re all entitled to our little pleasures, even at the risk of becoming pompous bores. Good night and maybe you should cut down on the coffee.
Michael Spindell
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
Aww come on Mikey. You don’t really have such sensitive feelings that a little ribbing hurts you so much?
I thought you guys were like.. “lawyers” and legal scholars and students and such.
I’ve never seen such a sensitive bunch of legal afficianado’s, particularly ones who are so opposed (or afraid) of a little open debate.