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.
Josh
And there is no evidence that belief in a god came before disbelief.
Amazing. I mean really, amazing.
Uhhh… Josh… pray tell how can there be a belief system that DENIES the existence of a god or gods, if someone hasn’t FIRST believed in them?
Lol.
Now you’ve impressed me.
😐
That was an amazing display of ignorance.
Yes. Why is that “offensive?”
Josh
1, August 26, 2008 at 3:45 pm
A-THEISM simply by virtue of being opposite to theism is not “offensive.”
Drop the offensive argument. I will not permit you to twist my position further.
It was never the crux of my position, nor does my position rely on the word offense.
Josh
1, August 26, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Here is the problem. You seem to be equating “opposing” with “offensive
No Josh. The word “offensive” was ONE word, I said out of ten THOUSAND.
It was ONE DESCRIPTION that I used ONE TIME, to demonstrate the opposing nature of A-THEISM to religion.
I did NOT repeat that definition through my next 50 or so posts, yet here you are, clinging to that ONE WORD, after being shown to be incorrect in your earlier arguments.
You had to dig back, find that ONE WORD, and try and make more out of it than was ever implied.
So try and focus here Josh.
I am not using the word “offensive” since it offends you.
I am using clear, simple English, the SAME clear simple English I’ve used in EVERY SINGLE
COMMENT since that one.
Here is my position, for the umpteenth time, for you to either refute, or acknowledge.
—
THEISM is a BELIEF SYSTEM that purports a god or gods exist.
A-THEISM is a BELIEF SYSTEM that DENIES a god or gods exist.
—
Any questions?
A-THEISM simply by virtue of being opposite to theism is not “offensive.” And there is no evidence that belief in a god came before disbelief. I suppose though that to come to a conclusion as to whether or not god existed would necissarily imply that you were considering it. So in that sense, I guess. But regardless of the decision of whatever human first dreamt up the idea, it still isn’t important. What is important is the idea that a rational conclusion based on observations and testing is not to be spoken aloud for fear od “offending” religion. It is no more offensive to say that I believe god doesn’t exist than it is to say I don’t like the rain to a farmer.
Josh
1, August 26, 2008 at 3:36 pm
And what? Dictionaries are fine, but are you seriously contending that atheists are offensive because they state their belief that there is no god?
ahhh, now the strawmen come out.
As they always do.
I never said “atheists are offensive”.
Please do not invent or summarize my positiion.
You’re apparently not literate enough to do so this afternoon.
My position, one more time is as follows.
THEISM is a BELIEF SYSTEM that purports there is a god.
A-THEISM is a BELIEF SYSTEM that DENIES there is a god.
BOTH are equally untenable, and BOTH rely on that which cannot be demonstrated.
Therefore BOTH are in opposition to each other, hence the letter “A” in A-THEISM.
😐
That is my position.
A) I would deny those points.
B) It doesn’t matter.
Here is the problem. You seem to be equating “opposing” with “offensive”.
Josh
Wiggle all you like, there isn’t much difference, and at any rate it’s moot so I don’t really mind dropping the point.
If my spelling out clearly, and without ambiguity my position equals to you “wiggling” then your mangled contortions must far surpass any seen during the recent olympic’s gymnastic floor routines.
Once more, so you cannot muddy my points with your inventions and distractions.
THEISM is a belief system that purports a god or gods exist.
A-THEISM is a belief system that came later, that DENIES that a god or gods exist.
Those positions have been mine from the beginning, and for all the insults, criticisms, and lengthy diatribes to the contrary, NO ONE has yet to refute those simple facts.
And what? Dictionaries are fine, but are you seriously contending that atheists are offensive because they state their belief that there is no god? Pretty shaky ground there.
It is not “declaring someones belief system is false” to state that I am an atheist. It is a statement that I am an atheist. Yes, it means I disagree, but it is not “offensive”.
Once again, my “premise” is correct.
THEISM is a BELIEF SYSTEM, that purports the existence of a god or gods.
A-THEISM is a BELIEF SYSTEM is a belief system, that developed AFTER THEISM, which DENIES the existence of a god or gods.
A-THEISM did not come first.
THEISM did.
A-THEISM came after THEISM, do DENOUNCE THEISTS and their beliefs.
I cannot believe that people in Jonathan Turley’s blog, need that spelled out.
Sorry for the gramatical error, and I never said you said provoke. But, it is not “offensive” to disagree, It is merely a statement.
Word games are alright I guess, but you’d be hard pressed not to read “provoke” into you term “offensive.” Wiggle all you like, there isn’t much difference, and at any rate it’s moot so I don’t really mind dropping the point.
In reality a statement of disagreement is just that. Simply because my opinion differs does not make it “offensive.”
Josh
1, August 26, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Dismissing a belief is not the same as offense to the belief.Once again your premise is wrong
So we’re back to illiteracy now?
Thought you were learning.
From the vantage point of the THEIST, someone declaring their belief system is false, is OFFENSIVE.
Whether your capable of understanding that fact, is moot.
The Atheist belief system purports that there is no god.
Therefore, to the THEISTS, who’s belief system centers on the existence of a god, the A-THEIST has just declared the THEISTS belief system to be false.
That’s what A-THEISM means.
The real problem here Josh, is people calling themselves A-THEISTS, and then trying to worm out of what that title entails.
If you, like me, just “DON’T KNOW”, then say “I just don’t know”.
Don’t declare yourself an A-THEIST, and then spend two arguing with the DICTIONARY that A-THEISM is not a belief system that denies the existence of god.
It is.
If you don’t know, then just say , “I don’t know”.
Hard words for many obviously, which is why we have so many A-THEISTS who don’t even know what the word means.
Dismissing a belief is not the same as offense to the belief.Once again your premise is wrong.
Wrong, in fact you stated, “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.'”
A statement clearly intended to equate to two. I do not agree with your premise. Do you retract now?
Josh said..
Also, you state in an earlier post that, “Atheism is by definition an offensive belief system” implying that it is designed to dismiss religion entirely.
But, that is only a consequence of the belief, not necissarily a deliberate effort to prevoke believers of other ideas
Lol, once more Josh, you strain the very bounds of reason.
A, A-THEISM is ANTI-THEISM.
So yes. Atheism “dismisses” religious beliefs that include a belief in THEO. God.
As for it being a “consequence” of the belief, and not a deliberate effort to “prEvoke” believers of other ideas, … A. I never said provoke, and B. what exactly did one think the consequence of promoting a belief system that declares anothers belief system to be false, would be?
lol.
I mean come on Josh… focus here bud.
“I didn’t mean to rob the bank your honor,… it was only a consequence of my walking up to the teller with a gun and saying ‘stick em up'”.
Josh
1, August 26, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Ah, I see, however it was you who first equated disbelief with belief very early in the postings
No, I called atheism a belief system. It was the atheists and their apologists who tried to distinguish the two, which brought about my correcting them.
And either way so what?
What does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to now pin some sort of “blame” for what has been an illuminating debate on atheism and theism?
I have no problem owning up to my own comments and posts. Others in here seem to take mulitple responses before admitting what they actually said.
Fact. My ORIGINAL fact.
A-THEISM is a BELIEF SYSTEM, just like THEISM.
The only noteworthy difference is in WHAT they “believe”.
😐
That and the funny hats.
Ah, I see, however it was you who first equated disbelief with belief very early in the postings. I srtongly disagree, not in the literary sense, but in the proposed premise. I would agree given that both belief and disbelief were on equal footing, however I do not see that as the case. You yourself probably disbelieve many things base on lack of evidence. If so, as I suspect you wouldn’t argue, you accept that to some degree, lack of evidence for the existence of something is evidence (although inconclusive) that the thing does not exist.
Also, you state in an earlier post that, “Atheism is by definition an offensive belief system” implying that it is designed to dismiss religion entirely. But, that is only a consequence of the belief, not necissarily a deliberate effort to prevoke believers of other ideas. Others here would agree that some atheists have made it a mission to do exactly that, believing it better to inform and i suppose convert isn’t entirely inapprpriate. But thosee atheists are the minority, despite the stated goals of certain prominent atheist organizations. However, I still, even here decline to admit that even these atheist missionaries equate to fundamentalism.