Atheists Give High Schooler $1,000 Scholarship for Dressing as Jesus on ‘Fictional Character Day’
We read:
"Jeff Shott, a 17-year-old sophomore at Summit High School in Spring Hill, Tennessee, is $1,000 richer thanks to the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), an atheist group that frequently attacks faith and religion in the U.S. Shott won the scholarship money after dressing up as Jesus Christ for his school’s “fictional character day” in January.
The teenager wasn’t disciplined for wearing the costume, the Tennessean reports, but Summit Hill Principal Charles Farmer did tell him that he would need to change if his outfit became a distraction. The student did, inevitably, remove his robes and sash (he even had a hammer and nail to go along with the costume) to purportedly avoid problems with school administrators.
The mere action of wearing what many Christians would dub an offensive costume brought Shott financial support from Annie Laurie Gaylor and her FFRF organization. As a result of his costume, the student became the first to receive the Paul Gaylor Memorial Student Activist scholarship (named after Gaylor’s father).
While the FFRF claims that his free speech was trampled, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted schools the right to limit both commentary and expression if it impedes the learning process.
SOURCE
Since Jesus is quite clearly an historical character, the kid is just showing his ignorance. Jesus may or not be God but he did exist. The kid should have been be corrected and sent home to change, not praised.
32 comments:
How about dressing KARL MARX in a pink tutu
Jesus is quite clearly an historical character
Absolutely. Even "The Jesus Seminar" admits that Jesus was a real person, even though they actively deny his miracles and deity.
It's obviously time for Christians to stop turning the other cheek. Weakness and passivity beget aggression. Counter-aggression begets "understanding".
I'm not offended by the FRFF. That would be kind of like being offended by a smoker dying of lung cancer telling you you're not "cool" because you don't smoke. Er, okay.
But, FRFF, I am curious as to what your goal was? I mean, was it just to insult people? Wow! How cool of you! And how tolerant! I want to be just like you when I grow up!
No? Okay... maybe it's to "enlighten" people so they'll quit believing in God? Okay... let's just say some people quit believing because of you. Whew... Problem solved. Now you can finally get some sleep. Your cookie is in the mail.
Or maybe it was to mock Jesus?. Hmmmm. If Jesus is the Son of God, I have to wonder if that was the smartest thing to do, since He could, you know, squash you like a bug. Plus I'm pretty sure He's not too worried about your opinion. If he's not a deity and he's just some other 2000 year old dead guy, you just paid out a thousand bucks to insult a dead guy? I'll tell you what... if you're offering that kind of deal... I'll let you insult me anytime for $500 a pop! That's half of what you paid to insult the-believed-to-be-dead Jesus, and I'm even alive to hear it!
Or maybe it's because the thought of Jesus goes against your... religion? You *do* realize that atheism is a relgion, right?
Silly FRFF. :)
What is FRFF so afraid of, an idea? Are they so scared of an idea that rather than freely discuss it, they seek to ban it? Isn't that what the communists did? The fascist? The McCarthy-ites?
Anon 3:57:
Actually I had it right the first time.
Well, unless you don't count Paganism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, some schools of Hinduism, and Unitarian as religions. They're all "religions" that don't require belief in some omnipotent Creator.
You see, a "religion" is simply a set of, (spiritual, generally) beliefs that people adhere to.
Contrasted to "atheisim" which is simply the belief that there is no god.
Atheists state there is no god. This is what they claim as truth. And it's a truth they can't really prove. Belief by faith, if you will. Sounds like a religion to me.
So while, yes, many religions are "theistic" in nature, they don't have to be.
At least that's what those silly dictionaries say. :)
Sounds to me that FFRF really just wants to condemn others for believing in their faiths while maintaining their own.
And if someone were to dress as Mohammed, liberals would arrest the kid, and the kid's parents, and charge them with a hate crime.
Yet another "for trayvon" attack that the liberal media is ignoring. Even the own paper the victims work for ignored the story for 2 weeks.
http://hamptonroads.com.nyud.net/2012/05/beating-church-and-brambleton
Please name ONE non-christian source that shows "Jesus is quite clearly an historical character."
If you have an open mind - and very few christians do - read D M Murdock's work, and check out her web site. http://freethoughtnation.com/
Try reading Josephus, a non-christian that documents the existence of Jesus.
The OBVIOUSLY FRAUDULENT entry in Josephus, a non-christian, DOES NOT document the existence of Jesus. Up until the mid 1900's, even christians recognized that was ADDED in the 200's AD - it is CLEARLY NOT Josephus's writing.
Uhm. 17 year old sophomore.
Terence you are a liar.
"The extant manuscripts of the writings of the 1st century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity.[1][2] Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to Jesus in Books 18 and 20 and a reference to John the Baptist in Book 18.
The overwhelming majority of modern scholars consider the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" to be authentic and to have the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity.[4][1][2][5][6] Almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist to be also authentic.[7][8][9]"
In response to JJR's concept of Jesus being a historical character surely the FFRF response would be 'he is not Jesus, he is the Christ - that's the fictional part'.
On that basis, someone should have come dressed as Obama!
"Try reading Josephus, a non-christian that documents the existence of Jesus."
How do you know it's true? Were YOU there?
Wow Terrance, rather than concede the point or document evidence to back up what you said you choose to roll in the gutter.
Anon 1:56 -
Don't be ridiculous, how do you know anything that happened before you were born is true? Do you think you are on some sort of variant of "The Truman Show"?
Back to the point of the story. I would use the fact the FFRF paid someone for representing Jesus in a public school against them in any current or future court cases they bring to have anything religious removed from schools. They cannot have it both ways.
Here is a good look at sources which stated that Jesus really lived, but were actively hostile to Christianity:
Is There Any Evidence for Jesus Outside the Bible?
BTW, "The Jesus Seminar" is also hostile to Christianity, yet even they do not deny that Jesus lived. Generally speaking, if someone is hostile to a certain position, yet accepts something which supports that position as a fact, it's usually because that fact is so well established that it is literally undeniable.
I still fail to understand the atheist religion (and yes, it is one!) There are religions such as Pentecostals, that go around proselytizing about their faith. FFRF goes around proselytizing about their faith, too, in methods like this. Generally, Christians who go around telling people about Jesus don't do it in such a nasty manner.
WHY IS IT UNACCEPTABLE FOR SOME ATHEISTS THAT OTHERS BELIEVE IN GOD? WHY IS THIS SO PAINFUL FOR YOU? I DON"T GET IT. Some atheists (most actually), like Jon Ray, don't have to go around belittling others beliefs. His beliefs are not affected by the fact that some people believe in God. Why do others have such an issue??
I remarked, "How do you know it's true? Were YOU there?"
Some anonymous bozo replied, "Don't be ridiculous, how do you know anything that happened before you were born is true? Do you think you are on some sort of variant of "The Truman Show"? "
That is exactly the same argument we get from the creationists, ID'ers, and anti-darwinsists. So I guess you are saying that the creationists/ID'ers are ridiculous as well. Christian hypocrisy knows no bounds.
It would be neat to see this thread with its debate and discussion, minus the debasing and name-calling. It would be a much better debate!
The kid has a right to think what he likes and to express himself. I just can't wait for the FRFF to reward the kids who respond in kind next year by dressing as "Charles Darwin" with a lawsuit.
Anon 710 - the most depressing part is how many of the name-callers are "Anonymous"
Terrence,
Still in the gutter, you just can't resist calling names can you.
You still fail to answer the arguments with counterpoints or concede a lost argument and instead keep trying to divert to other issues but yes I think the outspoken Creationists are ridiculous, patronizing and weak in their faith. They are very much like you, rather than answer the debate they race off into unbecoming attacks and try to divert the question.
---- UNRELATED ----
Has anyone heard anything about our host? I have searched but failed to find any notice but it's very unlike him to leave his blogs for several days without even a small note.
Apparently, seeing how the posts haven't changed in several days, Jon must be on vacation?
The kid has the given legal right to dress up as anyone who may or may not be an actual person in history.
There is no specific proof that the biblical Jesus ever existed but most probably he did in some form, but the one (or rather many) beliefs about him that have come down to us through 2000 years of a very turbulent world history, have distorted that image to become any image we want to create of "Jesus".
There is no specific proof that the biblical Jesus ever existed…
Interesting…
Did you see the link I posted a couple of days ago?
BTW, just in the last month, the news came out that a manuscript (handwritten copy) of the book the Mark was found which has been dated within the first century. That's within 70 years of his crucifixion. More work needs to be done to give a more precise date, as well as peer review. But that's far too early for the development of legends, which takes at least 400 years.
So Luke - up to 70 years gap before a recorded mention. What if WWII accounts had to be relied upon only from memories or alleged accounts only found now? And we are looking through the prism of 2000 years of historical distortion. I guess you're not a very objective historian. (Development of legends takes far less than 400 years, or are you again making your own definitions of terms?)
Maybe I can anticipate Luke's response to my WWII analogy. Sure, some people from 70 years ago are still living and there are plenty of first-hand accounts of WWII. But as Luke must admit there are no actual first hand accounts about this biblical Jesus from the whole period in history that he is said to have lived(much less the amazing miracles), and none of the gospel accounts is written as a first-hand witness account, but only as a report, and three of the four gospels rely heavily on "Mark"'s more basic account. The much later references to "Jesus" are vague and some only refer to followers of the Jesus cult, and, as is well known, some are later fake additions.
Rather than rewrite it all, I'll just quote from here.
We know the Apostle Paul died during the Neronian persecution of A.D. 64. Paul was still alive at the close of Acts, so Acts must have been written sometime before A.D. 64. Acts was a continuation of Luke's Gospel, which must have been written earlier still. The book of Mark predates Luke, even by the Jesus Seminar's reckoning. This pushes Mark's Gospel into the 50s, just over twenty years after the crucifixion.
It is undisputed that Paul wrote Romans in the mid-50s, yet he proclaims Jesus as the resurrected Son of God in the opening lines of that epistle. Galatians, another uncontested Pauline epistle of the mid-50s, records Paul's interaction with the principle disciples (Peter and James) at least 14 years earlier (Gal 1:18, cf. 2:1).
Think about that. Galations was written in the mid-50's, somewhere around 54 or 55 AD. 14 years prior to that would have been 40 or 41, a mere 7 years after Jesus' crucifixion. That was when Paul learned this creed (a simplified statement hitting all the important points):
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.
— 1 Corinthians 15:3–8
Here Paul is reiterating what he told them when he visited them in 50 AD. This is what he confirmed with the disciples no less than 8 years after Jesus' crucifixion in Jerusalem, the city where these events took place! All that was required to shut the disciples down was to simply bring out Jesus' body. (Remember, it was under Roman guard prior to the resurrection.) That didn't happen.
Yet, in the very city where eyewitnesses and physical evidence were literally everywhere, the story of Jesus rising from the dead and being the Son of God continued to grow and spread, in spite of people literally being put to death for spreading that story. To expect that such an incredible story could simply pop into existence full blown and without any cracks when contradictory evidence should have been everywhere when it was actually false contradicts everything we know about how legends form.
There are today eye-witness accounts by people you can meet in person who can describe being abducted by aliens from outer space, and many such accounts sound very similar and even quite convincing. Do you believe them for that reason?
Luke would say they were angels come down from Heaven.
Maybe Jesus was an alien and his ascension into "heaven" reportedly witnessed by so many ignorant credulous peasants was just him being beamed up to an alien spaceship.
In terms of probability (and such laws as the Law of Parsimony), it is more likely that Jesus as recounted in the Bible was a being from an extra-terrestrial super-race from this same material universe, than "he" was a super-natural being from a whole other dimension (and his god/father sounds in the whole bible like some weird puppet-master using humans like some computer-game, and wanting his creations to "worship" him/it on pain of deletion in "Hell".)
Post a Comment