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.
mespo727272
1, August 25, 2008 at 11:59 pm
I guess my point is that atheism is more properly defined as skepticism since its central tenet is that insufficient proof exists on this one topic
Then your point is wrong.
Atheism is not more properly defined as “skepticism since its central tenet is that insufficient proof exists on this one topic”
Atheism is the “belief there is no god”.
It is not the belief that insufficient proof exists and that there “may be” a god.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god, as the dictionary points out, and as the founding tenet of atheism.
That’s why it’s called “A-THEISM”, and not “ALMOST-THEISM”. Because they don’t allow for the possiblity of a god.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Period.
What you believe does not define atheism. The English Language defines the word Atheism for those of us who speak English, and the authoritative reference for the English language, is the dictionary.
And the dictionary therefore does not take a back seat to your personal beliefs. The word means what it means.
As you so aptly stated earlier this evening,
Words are not infinitely malleable..
And that goes for atheism.
The dictionary defines it. The debate ends there.
I guess my point is that atheism is more properly defined as skepticism since its central tenet is that insufficient proof exists on this one topic. That is why I find the word anti-intellectual since is doesn’t categorize persons who disbelieve into any meaningful subset since they may disbelieve for many reasons. Hence my non-astrologer, non-vodooist etc., analogy. To hold that not enough proof exists for a proposition does not seem to be a affirmative position but rather a neutral state awaiting for a proponent to prove the matter.
While it is demonstrably true that the atheist cannot disprove the existence of the deity I see no evidence that he/she is trying to do so. The atheist merely says there is insufficient proof; I cannot prove otherwise; but this proposition is less likely to be true that its negation. Bertrand Russell’s “teapot in orbit” example addresses the point of the inequality of beliefs. That two mutually exclusive propositions cannot be proven to a certainty does not mean that both are equally plausible. See the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
CMM,
Thanks for catching my error.
Please be sure to include the words “sack of” in your definition.
Well gee Russ, not sure. Why don’t you write and ask him?
But I do have a question.
If Olberman, who seems rather well proportioned for his size is a “fat bloated woodtick”, what exactly does that make the rotundish parasite calling itself Rush Limpbaugh?
Do you suppose fat bloated woodtick keith olbermann believes in God, and if he does, what God does he believe in?
mespo727272
Why is there a word for people like most of us who do not believe in things without sufficient evidence?
Because you label yourself thus.
I don’t necessarily “believe” in God.
I don’t disbelieve either.
Why?
Because there isn’t sufficent data on the subject for me to make such a declaration of belief.
If you don’t like being called an atheist, don’t call yourself an atheist. I never called you one. Atheists become atheists because it is human nature to look for a “support group” that reinforces perceptions we have of ourselves.
Atheism fills a natural void in those who reject common religions, which push themselves on us like a tuesday night hooker at Logan Circle. So many people choose to label themselves thus. But with that label, comes a lot of connoations that I am not sure all who call themselves atheist, would ascribe to given the light of certain arguments, such as I have made here this evening.
Rather than ascribing to atheism if you’re merely “skeptical” you might try inventing your own word. Like a “mespoist” or like me, a “dont’knowist”.
But if you choose to profess atheism, thats your call. Just know that atheism is a belief system, a doctrine, and like religion, cannot prove its founding tenet.
mespo727272
what would you call someone who didn’t believe in astrology or vodoo or the occult or even the Loch Ness Monster?
😐
“Gifted”?
But I think you meant to say “believe in without sufficient evidence”, not “do not believe in”.. .right?
rafflaw
1, August 25, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Mespo,
There is a word for those who do not believe in things without sufficent evidence….that word(s) is Republicans!
Now THAT I “believe” in.
How about we correct the entire sentence?
mespo727272
Atheists may by some definitions not belief [believe]in a supreme deity or any deity
No.
By ALL definitions atheists do not believe in a supreme deity or any deity.
But feel free to produce the branch or sect of atheism that does believe in a god.
😐
Course, then it wouldn’t be atheism.
By definition.
Mespo,
There is a word for those who do not believe in things without sufficent evidence….that word(s) is Republicans!
Oops make that “believe” not “belief” in line 1.
Atheists may by some definitions not belief in a supreme deity or any deity, but what would you call someone who didn’t believe in astrology or vodoo or the occult or even the Loch Ness Monster? Why is there a word for people like most of us who do not believe in things without sufficient evidence?
It’s the atheists who chose to debate what an atheist is. I merely pointed out that I find atheism about the same as I find religion.
Closed minded, dogmatic, often fanatical and without a tenable foundation.
Skepticism is a much broader word, and had no real place in the discussion, however I am all for skepticism.
Unfortunately atheism is much more than skepticism, and is a belief system all it’s own. One who’s members often mock the “Theists” proclaiming some sort of scientific superiority, which it does not possses.
I am all for skepticism, and open minded thinking. I am all for tolerating belief systems, including atheism. But I am also for exposing fallacies purported by both religions and atheism, as I think THAT is the only way we truly come “into the light” so to speak.
That “some atheists” are more tolerant than others is not in question, as is not that some Theists are more tolerant than others.
But both seek to discredit the others, regardless of the twisted logic contortions executed by followers on either side to demand otherwise.
Atheism is the belief their is no god. A belief that they cannot prove.
Theism is the belief that there is a god. A belief that cannot prove.
When either one can prove themselves right, they will by definition, prove the other wrong.
In the meantime, the jury is still out so to speak, and any professions by either side is just two arguing factions saying “nuh uh” to the other.
I have little time for either, but tolerance for both.
I think this entire “atheism means…” thread is irrelevant. The point is that most thinking people are skeptics. That is to say they require proof before acceptance and not the other way ’round. To designate atheism as this attitude adds nothing to the central concept but merely distracts the reader from the central truth which is the basis of rational thought. To debate what an atheist is makes about as much sense as debating the number of angels on the head of a pin. It may be intellectually occupying but it advances the debate about the truth of religion not one bit. And isn’t that really the crux of the issue?
During his entire 3 year ministry, Jesus didn’t once reference homosexuality, or even allude to it.
Doesn’t mean he condoned it. Doesn’t mean he didn’t.
Problem is, no where in the canon does he mention it, so whatever his feelings on the subject he didn’t think enough of it to bother to offer any discourse on the subject.
Scott said…
I have a comprehensive exegesis at Bible Passages That Oppose Homosexuality – Including the Words of Jesus and God Himself
Scott, you have no “words of Jesus” about Homosexuality, nor have you produced any in the above passages.
The above passage from Mark 10 was in direct response to a question about “DIVORCE”, and had nothing to do with homosexuality, which is why it doesn’t say anything about homosexuality.
And your quote from Matthew is about Adultery, and in this case, a man lusting after a WOMAN, and says nothing about a man lusting after a man, or a woman lusting after a woman.
Sorry buddy, you seem to have memorized some verses of scripture but not the surrounding context of those verses, a true sign of a “evangelical”.
Personally, I would have to rule that such deragotary ads should be allowed under the principle of free speech.
However, that being the case, equal treatment MUST be given so that criticism of atheism, liberalism, communism, homosexuality, Islam, Obama, women – you name it – is also allowed.
There should be no double or triple standards – either everyone can be mocked and smeared, or no one can.
The ACLU’s bias on this matter is stark – posters featuring Jesus in controversial light are allowed, yet positive portrayals of Christianity are banned from public areas as ‘infringing on separation of church and state’.
American Civil Liberties Union Religious Bias
And don’t get me started on the wide berth given to Islam… I dare Activists for Atheism to feature Mohammed as a pedophile, if they’re so into intellectual criticism of religion.
Hah. See? Cowards.
All references to homsoexuality aside, the theological problems with the Secret Mark are as follow:
1) If two people are not married and carry out sexual intimacy, they are committing adultery.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. – Matthew 5:27-28
2) According to Judaism and Jesus Himself, marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” – Mark 10:6-9
3) Therefore, if Jesus engaged in sexual intimacy with said youth in Secret Mark, He would no longer be sinless.
And as I said, this is even before taking into account the Biblical prohibitions against homosexual acts.
I have a comprehensive exegesis at Bible Passages That Oppose Homosexuality – Including the Words of Jesus and God Himself