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.
Words are not infinitely malleable.
mespo727272 1, August 25, 2008 at 7:47 pm
And so says mespot727272
Take a close look at Patty’s post above. The one where she lays out in great detail a myriad of assorted facts mingled with atheist rhetoric.
Note how she is compelled to talk to me as if I were a THEIST. Implying that I follow some religious belief system. Even though I’ve made it clear time and time again, that I am neither a THEIST, nor an A-THEIST.
She does this because it is the only way the A-THEIST can shore up their crumbling foundations.
And when logic, and the English Language disagree with the A-THEIST, they turn invariably to lengthy diatribes about mystical powers they have injected into the word “disbelief” that sets them up and apart from others belief systems.
Of course, to the rest of us, those who are neither THEISTS nor A-THEISTS, we can see their dogmatic contortions as they strain the very bounds of logic trying to assert themselves into a loftier position than their counterparts, the THEISTS.
Invariably they will turn to the “but that’s not how I see it” defense, the same defense employed by most 3 year olds when referring to bath time.
But the fact is, A-THEISM is a DOCTRINE and a BELIEF. It is the doctrine and belief that there is no God or gods.
So says the word A-THEISM.
So says literacy.
So says logic.
So says the DICTIONARY.
Josh said..
You haven’t approached the issue of plausibility yet
That’s because I can’t get past the issue of literacy yet.
When we can get the atheists to accept literacy, then we can move on to things like plausibility.
Josh
1, August 26, 2008 at 1:58 pm
CroMM,
Forgive my ignorance but of course saying,” I disbelieve in a god.” is exactly the same as saying, “I believe god doesn’t exists.” So what?
So what? That’s what I say. So what?
It is not I who has been arguing in here that they are somehow “mystically different”.
Don’t just read my posts. Read Patty’s who just laid out a lengthy diatribe on how “disbelief” in something does not constitute belief in the opposite.
You understand that disbelief a god exists equals the same as believing god does not exist?
Great! One more convert to literacy.
Now if you could just convince your friends.
Michael Spindell said..
I’m not interested in dictionary’s though, they are the last refuge of the pedant and the pretender
No Mike.
They’re the last refuge of the literate, when dealing with the illiterate.
CroMM,
Forgive my ignorance but of course saying,” I disbelieve in a god.” is exactly the same as saying, “I believe god doesn’t exists.” So what?
What matters isn’t what you believe, but why you believe. It is not inherently the same to believe one thing or the other. For instance, “I believe the sky is blue.” and , “I disbelive the sky even exists.” Wow, both of those people must be crazy fanatics because they believe something equal but opposite, right? Of course not, so if you want to point fingers about straw arguments you might want to dig a little deeper into your own logic. It isn’t the belief you have, and it’s not even the fervor for which you state your belief that matters. It’s the content that matters. You haven’t approached the issue of plausibility yet.
So you see Gyge, Atheism DOES have a basic “DOCTRINE” or “TENET”.
That doctrine?
That there is no god.
A-THEISTS of course, like the THEISTS, will make contorted strains of logic, IGNORE the DICTIONARY and rules of the English Language, and strain reason, and LITERACY, to it’s very bounds trying to prove their belief system, is somehow superior to other’s belief systems, in fact trying to assert it’s not even a belief system at all.
But some sort of mystical “dis-belief” that does not equal belief in the opposite.
I believe that does not constitute literacy.
I also disbelieve that constitutes literacy.
See Gyge? Same thing.
😐
To the literate.
Gyges
1, August 26, 2008 at 11:36 am
CroMM,
I know I said I was done, but after a night of sleep, and a quick look in the dictionary, in the interest of intellectual honesty: I misused the word tenet. I should have used Doctrine.
So your argument now is illiteracy, coupled with more illiteracy?
Your statement was wrong whether you used the word “tenet” or “Doctrine”.
Ok, thought you were done too but lets reexamine the statement you made that’s in question here.
Here’s your statement Gyge.
Gyges
1, August 25, 2008 at 4:16 pm
There is no suggested course of action like in organized religion, no system of morals, no basic tenet.
And now your new argument this morning… after a good nights sleep, and a peruse of your dictionary, compells you to reopen your position, substituting the word “doctrine” for “tenet”?
Ok, hate to have to do this but apparently we need the dictionary again. Sad but true.
Ok, here’s the definition of the word “TENET”, from the dictionary.
—
ten·et (těn’ĭt)
An opinion, doctrine, or principle held as being true by a person or especially by an organization
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
—
So now, your argument, is you want to subsitute the word “Tenet” which means “DOCTRINE” with the word “DOCTRINE” as if that somehow alters the inaccuracy of your earlier statement?
Did you not see the definition of the word “ATHEISM” from the dictionary’s last night?
I posted them repeatedly.
Here Gyge, I’ll post one or two again for you, so you can see that changing the word “TENET” to “DOCTRINE” in no way improves the innaccuracy of your statement.
—-
atheism
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
—
a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary
—
Mike Spindell
1, August 26, 2008 at 10:42 am
I didn’t lie and I explained why I didn’t, but you chose to focus solely on your original point, without confronting my explanation
No Michael, what I did was print your lie in bold letters for you to see, so you could see your own strawman you created, and then your LIE trying to cover it up.
Here.
I’ll do it again.
YOUR STRAWMAN INVENTING WORDS AND POSITIONS 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
YOUR LIE, TRYING TO COVER UP YOUR STRAWMAN;
I too never said that you said ” “ALL” atheists repredsent(sis) the belief systems of O’Hare and Dawkins.”
See Michael?
You can make all the post-lying explanations you want, but your words prove you out.
Your words show both your strawman, and your LIE.
Patty C
1, August 26, 2008 at 6:18 am
Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief
As always, the atheist contorts and stretches the bounds of reason, logic, and of course the English Language, to try and find solice in shoring up their untenable belief system.
To do so, the atheist turns to books of philosophy and atheist publications to shore up their position.
To those of us of course not under the passion of their “belief system”, we understand that the “lack of belief” is the same as the “belief in the opposite”.
It’s not “mystical”.
It’s not a difficult concept.
It’s just plain english.
As in , I “disbelieve patty knows what she’s talking about”, or “I believe patty doesn’t know what she’s talking about”.
Same thing.
To anyone literate.
Jill,
I never said I was a good composer, mainly I just rip off ideas from Mingus.
I without doubt do claim this! But I did hear Ritalin may help with it:) If you get a chance I’d like to hear about what type of music you compose. That is a wonderful skill.
Excuse me: “…claim to have proven false…”
Jill,
There’s an well known mechanism where humans perceive something that we expect to see. So basically it’s not my fault I can’t proof read I’m just hardwired that way. Of course you’ll probably claim that humanity can’t proof read because of nurture, not nature.
CroMM,
I know I said I was done, but after a night of sleep, and a quick look in the dictionary, in the interest of intellectual honesty: I misused the word tenet. I should have used Doctrine. I was assuming certain connotations from tenet that didn’t exist. You are right to say that Atheism has a tenet, I apologize for my error.
I also am willing to admit (and have from the beginning) that there are organized groups of atheists, some of which have a list of tenets that “True” atheist believe (I eat my oats with cream, so am not a true atheist). I would hope that you’re intellectually honest enough to admit that no such group ever speaks for all the people it claims represents. I’m a composer and performing artist but ASCAP doesn’t represent me anymore then Atheist.org represents me.
You having proven that atheism shares some characteristics with organized religions does not prove that atheism shares all characteristics with organized religions. The point I originally made, and you claim to have is that your comparison of atheism with organized religion falls short because of certain key features that organized religions share that atheism lacks. Any other definitions you have given, arguments about belief\disbelief, accusations of that you may have made are simply, to borrow a turn of phrase, red herrings and straw-man arguments.
I won’t be drawn back into a debate with you, because I don’t think either one of us is going to convince the other. I try to only engage in discussions that are a give and take of ideas, not two sides ranting at each other. I once again apologize to you and to everyone for being drawn into it (not the debate in and of itself, but the type of debate) in the first place. I really am working on not getting into this sort of thing, but the flesh is weak.
If jesus was gay, should it really matter, hes your god, what you going to do about it? hehe
“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.”
I didn’t lie and I explained why I didn’t, but you chose to focus solely on your original point, without confronting my explanation. The literary equivalent of “Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Secondly, you prove that you only superficially read these comments, looking only for minutiae that you can pick apart and make you feel like you’re a good debater. I am a Jewish Deist and I did state that clearly in one of my comments. I am not a believer in atheism, which I also stated clearly.
However, you’re not interested in discussion, or exchange of ideas. Your only interest is in winning debates (you of course would be the only one to define a win) and attempting to prove how smart you are.
You are admittedly smart, but you are at the same time quite ignorant. I’m not interested in dictionary’s though, they are the last refuge of the pedant and the pretender. I define ignorant as being unable to grasp other points of view besides your own, or those few you agree with.
Finally, I am not a lawyer. I’m a Social worker, Psychotherapist and Directed Social Service Programs, before health forced me to retire.
Given that background I am certainly interested in how people view the world, I listen to others, read others content and generally try to learn through understanding other’s views, which may be different from my own. Debating to me is a silly endeavor, focussed more on the ego, than on edification. You on the other hand may be smart, but you seem to only take pleasure in tearing down others as a tribute to your intelligence. Sad and pathetic.
CMM,
You still there? I’m pretty late to this thread, but I read a lot of your earlier postings. I feel very strongly that I disagree with your position on atheists here. I disagree that atheism is an inherrent attack on other beliefs. I disagree that atheism is just as bad as fundamentalist anything. I disagree with your assertions that atheism’s beliefs (yes I do agree they are beliefs) are standing on shaky ground. I do not believe the tenets of atheism you posted above assume anything contrary to your own beliefs save one, which admittedly they all assume. The belief that there is no god. If you only took out the obvious statement that there is no god in each and replaced it with a less certain “If there is no god, then…” I think you wouldn’t disagree with those statements. If so, please explain to me which of those tenets is wrong given the presumption of no god?
If you don’t disagree that if there is no god then we are on our own. Then we are left with the one problem, God himself. And I am happy to discuss that topic as well, but it comes second to whether or not you disagree with the tenets assuming God doesn’t exist.
Barry Lauterwasser:
“But I also don’t see any benefit in insulting Christians by mocking their God… it only fans the flames of hatred and I hope that Christians can pass this test of avoiding the hate, and embracing these kids with nothing but love. If they can do that, then they will have a better understanding of what their lord prescribed to them.”
*************
Would you feel the same way if the erroneous belief system involved were the Branch Davidians or radical Muslims?
Should we accept and respect the opinion of those who are convinced Elvis is still alive?
Sometimes it takes some insults to get people thinking in different ways. Public scorn is a powerful force to make delusionists reconsider their position.
I believe it was Pascal’s Wager that said you may as well believe in God because if you do, and there is, you win. If you do and their isn’t, you’ve lost nothing. If you don’t, and their is, your screwed, or something like that anyway.
I don’t find it to far-fetched that something with far greater intellect and abilities designed all of this, and produced it… not in China, but somewhere probably in the Azores.
I do find it difficult to believe that a being with all of this power needed to send a guy down here to try to convince us we should believe he is the son of God, and that our only way to heaven is through him? As a former Christian and deacon at a Southern Baptist Church I am well aware of the teachings of Christ, and the Old Testament. I tend to believe if God had something to say, he’d say it himself… Like with an Earthquake or Flood…
But I also don’t see any benefit in insulting Christians by mocking their God… it only fans the flames of hatred and I hope that Christians can pass this test of avoiding the hate, and embracing these kids with nothing but love. If they can do that, then they will have a better understanding of what their lord prescribed to them.
Peace.