quote:SANTA ROSA, Calif. (AP) - February 28, 2007 - - When a few classmates razzed Rebeka Rice about her Mormon upbringing with questions such as, "Do you have 10 moms?" she shot back: "That's so gay."
Those three words landed the high school freshman in the principal's office and resulted in a lawsuit that raises this question: When do playground insults used every day all over America cross the line into hate speech that must be stamped out?
So... teasing her about her religion isn't hatespeech, but using an expression that doesn't even have anything to do with being gay is?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No kidding. One thing about Mitt Romney running is that it exposed the mountain of religous bigotry and the hypocrisy apprently rampant in the US. I had no idea. *angry*
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I did!
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Funny thing is, this is the first time I've ever heard someone get in trouble for saying "that's so gay." and I hear it just *ALL* the time and from people would shudder at a racist barb.
I don't think we're going to get past double standards and I don't think we're going to get past hate speech and we're certainly not going to get past kids ripping on eachother... not any time soon.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: One thing about Mitt Romney running is that it exposed the mountain of religous bigotry and the hypocrisy apprently rampant in the US. I had no idea.
I have no idea what you're talking about, kat. I don't see a mound of religious bigotry or hypocrisy in the US; I see small blips that if we're not careful to take with understanding and grace, become swirling vortexes (vortices?) of doom...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm thinking of the poll where 43% said they would not vote for a Mormon. ALMOST HALF? Forty-three percent consider being a Mormon a disqualification?? That's horrifying to me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Eh, I don't know if I see the "mountain of religious bigotry" that kat does. I don't deny the possibility that it might exist, but I don't personally see it. On that poll, I wonder about two things: 1. How much do the respondents really know about Mormons? 2. How many of them were religious themselves?
I think it's largely a crime of ignorance, people fear and distrust what they don't understand. And I also think it's largely a crime being committed by other Christians who think Mormons are some kind of heretical sect or cult. I really, REALLY want to see the demographic breakdown of that poll.
In this specific instance, I have to agree with Lisa, it's ridiculous.
I have to say though, that I often here "that's so gay" being used specifically in the same context all the time. I don't think it should be punished, I think it's part of the vernacular, for better or for worse now.
Trying to change it now would be like trying to change and punish people who say "That's dumb" because it's offensive to mutes.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
kat, I'm just curious, and I know you're probably just thinking through this, but....what kind of poll results do you think you'd get by asking Utah Mormons if they'd elect a non-Mormon governor of Utah?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Lyr: all sorts of offensive things have worked their way out of the vernacular as people have stood up and requested people not to say them. I'm going to continue to request people not say "That's so gay" around me as it offends me greatly.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*sigh* Non-mormons get elected to statewide office in Utah all the time. I think it would depend on his politics.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Well, there's lies, damned lies, and then there's statistics.
Poll results, even exit polls, are often wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Forty-three percent consider being a Mormon a disqualification?? That's horrifying to me.
Why is it more horrifying than the atheist numbers?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
You know what question this raises for me: When did every single little name-calling dispute have to get settled in court with money changing hands?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The situation Lisa posted is indicative of hypocrisy, at least on the surface. The poll, not so much. Prejudice, maybe.
I don't see it as a mountain, though.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm thinking of the poll where 43% said they would not vote for a Mormon. ALMOST HALF? Forty-three percent consider being a Mormon a disqualification?? That's horrifying to me.
I know. That blew my mind. I'd almost vote for a Mormon just because of that 43%, regardless of how I felt about the person.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I am much more concerned about someone's character and maturity than their religion. I will admit that I think extreme religious views indicate an unstable character. The question is, is it extreme to assume that the Book of Mormon is true when there is no linguistic, genetic, or archaeological evidence to support that conclusion? AFAIK, there's plenty of archaeology supporting the large-scale populating of the Americas around 11-13,000 years ago.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:When did every single little name-calling dispute have to get settled in court with money changing hands?
Normally, it wouldn't. In this case, the only person who was specifically, and personally insulted was the girl who got censured by the school.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There's lots of different poll results out there that cast some doubt on the 43% number:
24% is signigicantly less than 43%, although still pretty high.
I'm trying to think of a single attribute that would make me say I wouldn't vote for a person for President. "Convicted pedophile" is on the list. "Dead" is on the list.
But nothing that's not trivially obvious.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There are many things that would completely destroy any chance I have of voting for a specific person. There are very few things I can think of that would have a chance of applying to an Abstract Presidential Candidate, though.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I am much more concerned about someone's character and maturity than their religion. I will admit that I think extreme religious views indicate an unstable character. The question is, is it extreme to assume that the Book of Mormon is true when there is no linguistic, genetic, or archaeological evidence to support that conclusion?
I seriously doubt you'll ever convince the larger archaeological community that humans have not been in the Americas for at least the last 12,000 years. End of story. Convince most or all of them, and you may convince me. Otherwise....
Don't even get me started on the lack of genetic evidence.
Oh, and how about the fact that Native Americans look, in many cases, suspiciously Mongolian/East Asian?
I saw a group picture of a Cherokee boarding school from back in the late 1800s at the Cherokee museum in Cherokee, NC about 6 years ago.
Half of the people in the picture I would have sworn were Mongolian, simply by their features.
I didn't see anyone who looked like Woody Allen.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But let's say there's a faith, Religion X. And Religion X teaches that using widgets is immoral and against God's law. Religion X also teaches that countries themselves fall out of favor if they don't follow God's law, or some such wording. If you use widgets on a daily basis and see nothing wrong with them, is it wrong for you to decide not to vote for a candidate following that religion because of the likelihood that he or she will be pro-widgetlessness?
....I feel like I just wrote a physics problem.
-pH
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
steven: The evidence in that article actually indicates that there was simply an influx of Semitic vocabulary in one region of the Americas. This would mean that there were other people there first.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Lyr: all sorts of offensive things have worked their way out of the vernacular as people have stood up and requested people not to say them. I'm going to continue to request people not say "That's so gay" around me as it offends me greatly.
I didn't say we shouldn't try at all, just that I don't think punishment is appropriate. I'm very, very cautious about punishing speech in general. I personally say the phrase very little, it strikes me as moderately offensive, unless there's a gay pride parade or something equivilant marching through town, in which case I'd say it's appropriate. Sometimes it slips out, as it is so widespread and I hear it so much.
I'll be honest. In 7th grade a girl and I (who I later became incredibly good friends with), were arguing about something, something to do with some gadget she'd brought to school and you had to have a password to operate it. I asked her what the password was and she said I should guess and I said "I don't know, how about gay mother?" Later on I was called into the principal's office, only to find to my horror that the girl's mother actually is gay. I had no idea, and I was shocked, and a little mortified that I'd insulted her like that and hurt her feelings. They didn't really believe me when I said that I didn't know her mother was gay, and in the end I served a detention for it, but the punishment mattered less to me than hurting her feelings. I apologized, profusely, and two years later we were really great friends for another four years until we lost touch.
Maybe some of you could tell me what's wrong with my thought process there, I don't understand it myself. When I thought her mom was straight, I apparently didn't have any problem at all using the phrase as an insult, but when I found out it was TRUE, I was vastly disappointed in myself for hurting her feelings in such a way. Hurting her feelings by other means, sure, but teasing her because of her mom? That's out of bounds. I don't understand it myself, but then I'm also hardpressed to explain how my brain worked 10 years ago.
As for the Mormon thing (like there aren't enough threads ongoing for this already), I'm betting you'll find much higher numbers of people who wouldn't vote for an athiest, which I think is a bigger crime. Christians are the ones who have the biggest problem with Mormons (that's my unfounded opinion, I admit), and I'm not sure if it's a bigger crime to be of the wrong religion, or to be of no religion at all. Perhaps it all falls under the fact that you shouldn't have to pass a religion test to get elected in this country, but you do. I wonder what the poll results would be of asking 1,006 Mormons if they would vote for an athiest.
There's always tests to be passed, there's always voters out there with their own criteria for what they want in a candidate. This particular one I feel is interfaith warfare, and I think in general people with strong religious convictions are far more likely to vote based on those convictions, making almost everything into a test of religion, Mormons included.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I thought that Mormons believed that the Jews were the first to populate the Americas.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
When the people in the Book of Mormon came, there were already people here.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
There were multiple groups mentioned in the text. There quite possibly could have been many other groups.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Kat, if that poll is true, and 43% would not vote for a Mormon, then how did Mitt Romney get elected governor of Massachusetts, and how did his father, George, get elected governor of Michigan years ago? Did everyone else to a man (woman, etc.) vote for the Mormon? I think the poll must be suspect.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
steven, that's wrong on a couple of different levels.
First, the earliest inhabitants of the Americas mentioned in the Book of Mormon are contemporaries of the Tower of Babel ... centuries before the birth of Judah.
Second, the Hebrew settlers of the Americas mentioned in the Book of Mormon were not Jews, but rather, were mostly members of the lost tribe of Manasseh, if I remember correctly.
Third, just as in the Bible, receiving an inheritance in a "promised land" is no guarantee that the land is uninhabited. While the Book of Mormon addresses the history of a few societies, there is no reason to assume that they were the only people ever to inhabit the land. Mormons have assumed that, of course, and many still do. But Mormon scholarship leans heavily in the direction of believing that the Book of Mormon tells the story of a single group of societies among many.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Whoah! It's a Ron sandwich!
There's some killer post-timing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Kat, if that poll is true, and 43% would not vote for a Mormon, then how did Mitt Romney get elected governor of Massachusetts, and how did his father, George, get elected governor of Michigan years ago? Did everyone else to a man (woman, etc.) vote for the Mormon? I think the poll must be suspect.
Oh that was back during our crazy Republican days.
Doubtful he'd get elected if he ran today, but that'd be because he's a Republican, not because he's a Mormon. Might also be that we don't really talk about religion much in Michigan gubanatorial elections, at least not in the last six years. It was never mentioned during the political ads this past year, and might have only briefly been touched upon by the candidates in debates because Jennifer Granholm is Catholic, and proud of it, and her family is also very religious. But it was never a campaign issue. Had she been a Mormon, I'm betting she still would have beat Devos. We cared too much about the economy and the future of our state to care much about religion.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Yar, it IS killer post-timing. Yar! [/pirate]
Let me understand--do Mormons believe that modern-day native groups in the Americas descend from that original lost tribe? If that is the belief, I'd like to see some genetic or anthropological evidence along the lines of bone formation. Is that not fair?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:were mostly members of the lost tribe of Manasseh, if I remember correctly.
Well, it doesn't say. It says that Lehi was a member of the tribe of Manasseh, but it doesn't mention what tribe Sariah (his wife) was from. If I remember correctly, the tribe you belonged to was derived from your mother's tribe...
The same problem applies to Ishmael and his children-- according to the online Index of the Book of Mormon, he was a Ephraimite; but since we don't know what tribe his wife belonged to, we don't know what tribe his children did.
Or something like that-- it's a question that Lisa and Rivka have answered lots of times here, and I never paid attention. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well, it doesn't say. It says that Lehi was a member of the tribe of Manasseh, but it doesn't mention what tribe Sariah (his wife) was from. If I remember correctly, the tribe you belonged to was derived from your mother's tribe...
In Jewish tradition, tribe comes from the father, not the mother. The mother determines whether the child is Jewish or not.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Was there not furor associated with a Roman Catholic being elected President -- just about half a century ago?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:do Mormons believe that modern-day native groups in the Americas descend from that original lost tribe?
We believe that descendants of that original group still exist in some of the native American tribes. Of course, just because someone is descended from Lehi doesn't mean they are predominately of semetic stock. Like I said, there could have been many other groups, and a lot of intermarrying.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
steven: As I understand it, a lot of Mormon leaders used to teach that Native Americans were all descended from the Israelite peoples in the Book of Mormon. Some people still believe that, but the Book of Mormon never says that they were the only ones there or that they arrived in an unpeopled land. I think common sense dictates that there were many other people there when the people in the Book of Mormon first arrived. I also think that a small group of people arriving 2600 years ago is not likely to leave a huge mark on the gene pool. Of course, genetics is far from my field of expertise.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:along the lines of bone formation
They ate lots of shellfish, so the bone formation would be universally perfect.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
And katharina wins the thread.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Does the book of Mormon say that modern Native Americans are descended from the folks in the Book of mormon, or is that something that you choose to believe without support?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm pretty sure the genetic heritage would be detectable given the right kind of study. Problem is, such a study is hard to do and (if I'm recalling a discovery article correctly and the article was accurate) many Native Americans do not participate in such studies. Also, it seems likely that the effect of the lost tribe will be harder to detect than G.K.'s effect. I'm sure there are other ways to do such tests.
I doubt any of them would be visible in bone structure.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Does the book of Mormon say that modern Native Americans are descended from the folks in the Book of mormon, or is that something that you choose to believe without support?
Presumably it says that some of them are so descended. They've already told you it does not say that all of them were.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Way back to the OP: my third-grade son came home saying his friend had called him gay. I asked him if he knew what that was. He said, "I don't know, it means stupid or something."
On the one hand, I understand why it would be offensive to use that as an all-purpose insult, implying that just being gay is worth using as an insult. On the other, it is used as a generic insult nowadays that has nothing to do with sexual orientation. My son didn't even know what it meant. So to accuse this girl of "hate speech" is a little ridiculous, when she was just using it as a generic insult. (Not that I'm saying she didn't know what it meant ... just that surely sexual orientation didn't even come into her head as she used it.)
Of course, I don't think it should be used as a general insult, but then I'm naieve enough to think that kids shouldn't be using any general insults. We just shouldn't be insulting each other.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Physical anthropologists can detect all sort of things about heredity, race, etc. from bone structure. Which college was your degree in anthropology from? Oh wait. None at all.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm pretty sure the genetic heritage would be detectable given the right kind of study.
There were some news stories about a year ago about some studies like this. IIRC, they determined that Native Americans come from Asia, not the Middle-East, as is the commonly held view. As far as I know, however, it did not address the possibility that they might have some Semetic blood in them.
quote:Presumably it says that some of them are so descended. They've already told you it does not say that all of them were.
This is correct.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Which college was your degree in anthropology from? Oh wait. None at all.
There's no need to act like that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Steven, you have taught me that eating shellfish produces strong bones and healthy teeth. Who needs a college degree with you around?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Dag, are you a Mormon? Do you have degrees in genetics, anthropology, or linguistics? No? Then why do you think I am asking you about any of this?
*wonders* Am I miscommunicating?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Until I see genetic evidence, I'm going to ignore the Book of Mormon. end of story. I also have learned to keep my mouth shut about my eating habits here, kat, so you're beating a deaad horse. Bait me all you want. I've learned that hatrack doesn't want to hear what I had for lunch, and I've learned it well.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You're coming through loud and clear. I definitely consider you an expert on scientific inquiry.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Physical anthropologists can detect all sort of things about heredity, race, etc. from bone structure. Which college was your degree in anthropology from? Oh wait. None at all.
What college was your degree from? I've asserted that "I doubt" something - an undeniably true statement. I do doubt it.
You've asserted that something is definitely true. Unless you have a college degree in the subject, by your own standards, we should ignore your far more definite statement because of your lack of such a degree.
We have two opposing non-expert views. One is couched in terms of doubt, the other certainty. Why should we accept yours over mine unless you have the proof you demand from me?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Hey, steven, did you read the article I linked to?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Until I see genetic evidence, I'm going to ignore the Book of Mormon. end of story
I don't think you'll hurt its feelings.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Steven, in other words, your question has been answered many times by many people. That you continue to ignore the answers is your own responsibility.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I ignored the screen name when I answered - a mistake on my part. You seemed to be a genuine seeker of knowledge. There also seemed to be a gap in communication between two people. I am quite capable of bridging such gaps, and do so fairly often. I am also interested in the topic.
I had no idea you were so picky about credentials. You certainly haven't given a lot of credence to them in the past.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Physical anthropologists can detect all sort of things about heredity, race, etc. from bone structure. Which college was your degree in anthropology from? Oh wait. None at all.
Steven: Thus far in the thread you have been politely responded to and carefully corrected, and you seem determined to start a fire when nobody seems interested.
Yes, there SHOULD be SOME genetic evidence somewhere, but Mormons can neither accurately state where the people of the Book of Mormon ended up or where they are now. The last mention in the record is 300+AD somewhere in current day New York. It seems to indicate that even the person who wrote those final passages was far from home, and that his people fought a genocidal series of wars with their neighbors over a significant geographical area until he and those of his ethnicity all died.
Yes Initially alot of Mormons believed that the ONLY people in the Americas were the people from the Tower of Babel, and Lehi + decendants (as well as another group of Israelites from the tribe of Judah, whose language was corrupted as they did not bring writings with them). There is no passage in the BOM however that supports such a sweeping claim. It was an assumption that I believe is completely wrong. South and North America are an INCREDIBLY large land mass, and its most likely the people in the BOM did not explore the entire breadth of the land.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I agree, Porter.
All this to say, I think it's possible that there has been contact between the middle east and/or Africa prior to Columbus or Leif Erickson's voyages. I saw a special on public TV about a large civilization in sub-saharan West Africa that existed well before the birth of Christ. I don't doubt that there could have been trade across the Atlantic between that group and the Toltecs and other groups.
However,
I am seriously doubting that any Jewish heritage I have comes from my Native American ancestors. I have an open mind about it, because stranger things have happened. yes they have.
However,
taking potshots at my dietary habits is poor sport, largely because I know Hatrack doesn't want to hear about it. have you seen any Dr. Price threads lately? I don't frickin' think you have.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
At what point did steven decide that we were trying to persuade him, via scientific evidence, that the Book of Mormon was true? Was it Jon Boy's link? I mean, I'm sure it was informative, but scientific evidence isn't the reason we accept the Book of Mormon, nor is it supposed to be.
Steven, I don't care if you don't believe in the Book of Mormon. I'm not threatened by it, and your opinion really doesn't affect the reasons why I accept it. So ... I don't know, I'm just wondering why you're doing this. It's like you're trying to bait us into persuading you of something that we don't really care if you believe. It seems really weird and pointless.
I'm willing to correct your gross misstatements of Mormon doctrine, for the sake of clarity and avoiding spreading misconceptions. But persuading you to believe in Mormon doctrine, when you have no interest in exploring the question from a spiritual and moral perspective? What a collossal waste of time that would be.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Funny covereth a multitude of sins.
But seriously, in a thread where you are demanding genetic proof concerning religious beliefs, it's not out of line to point out that your own personal beliefs don't stand up well to that same scrutiny.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: But seriously, in a thread where you are demanding genetic proof concerning religious beliefs, it's not out of line to point out that your own personal beliefs don't stand up well to that same scrutiny.
Or that you are apparently refusing to read someone else's link concerning evidence when you've been so dogged about getting people to read yours.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Porter, I am not going to discuss Dr. Price's work or my own eating habits here. End of story.
What pissed me off was that Jon Boy posted a 20+ page article without summarizing its points. 1-3 pages is fine. A summary, please.
Did I not just say
"I am seriously doubting that any Jewish heritage I have comes from my Native American ancestors. I have an open mind about it, because stranger things have happened. yes they have. "
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Let me also point out that if you hadn't claimed to have scientific proof for your personal beliefs about nutrition, nobody would have really cared. If you had said "this is what I believe, even if I cannot prove it scientifically", that would have been that.
Likewise, we have make no scientific claims about the Book of Mormon. We believe it is true, but cannot prove it scientifically.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Porter, it's clear that you didn't believe me when I said I am done discussing Dr. Price's work here.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It seems to me that you are not seriously asking but are, I don't know, goofing around by trying the bait the Mormons. I'm not taking you remotely seriously. That it is YOU who is demanding scientific proof for something that has already been stated to have been adopted on spiritual grounds make it even funnier. You may wish to erase the memories of your hilarious claims of scientific rigor, but they are still out there.
If you really want to know about the Book of Mormon, you could start with Jon Boy's link or (and this is the one I recommend) read it for yourself and pray to know if it is true.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I deleted the double post that led Rat to exclaim about the "Ron sandwhich."
Lyrhawn, religion per se was not an issue in the recent gubernatorial election in Michigan, but Dick DeVoss' Amway connection was--in fact, much of the time, the Jennifer Granholm ads seemed to be running against Amway Corp., banking on the negative feelings some people have about Amway by reminding voters in virtually every ad that DeVoss was a CEO of Amway.
Interestingly, Amway Corp. ran several ads during the election campaign promoting itself, and trying to present Amway people as just people like anyone else. One such ad ended with a grandfatherish man grinning wryly and saying, "I'm Amway-you got a problem with that?"
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: steven: The evidence in that article actually indicates that there was simply an influx of Semitic vocabulary in one region of the Americas. This would mean that there were other people there first.
I already gave you a very simplified summary in this post. I didn't know you wanted more than that because you didn't ask.
Basically, there appears to be a large influx of Semitic vocabulary (mostly Hebrew and Egyptian, if I remember correctly) in the Uto-Aztecan language family (which stretches from the northern Great Basin down to Southern Mexico). The research has discovered about 1000 similarities between Uto-Aztecan and Hebrew, mostly consisting of vocabulary items but also including a good number of grammatical features. The article also discusses systematic sound correspondences, which is absolutely essential when proposing linguistic relations.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I just wanted to point out, in case there's any confusion or misunderstanding, that I don't think the study I linked to (or any other study, for that matter) is either a substitute for reading the Book of Mormon or a shortcut to gaining a testimony of it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Many have pointed to evidence they say indicates that Egyptians sailed to South America. They probably took some of their slaves with them.
Most of the Amerinds are commonly believed to be descended from Asian peoples who crossed the former Bering Land Bridge (which is now a shallow strait), then migrated south, down the western coast of the American continent.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It seems to me that you are not seriously asking but are, I don't know, goofing around by trying the bait the Mormons. I'm not taking you remotely seriously. That it is YOU who is demanding scientific proof for something that has already been stated to have been adopted on spiritual grounds make it even funnier. You may wish to erase the memories of your hilarious claims of scientific rigor, but they are still out there.
If you really want to know about the Book of Mormon, you could start with Jon Boy's link or (and this is the one I recommend) read it for yourself and pray to know if it is true.
The Book of Mormon has never really made sense to me. I know a little bit about Judaism, and a know a little bit about languages, and I know a very little bit about genetics, and I can't reconcile my knowledge with what the Book of Mormon says about the transplants.
No tradition, language, or DNA seems to have survived at all. Every once in a while a pocket of Judaism in pretty strange places crops up (Central Africa, Asia) with language and tradition still relatively intact. I have seen no example whatsoever of this happening in the Americas, and that, to me, damages some credibility.
But, not belonging to the faith, I can't really be expected to have any, and I respect those of you that do. I just felt stephen was getting lonely.
P.S. And I believe Jewishness comes from Mommy, and tribe comes from Daddy. Someone said something about it way up there somewhere.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: No tradition, language, or DNA seems to have survived at all. Every once in a while a pocket of Judaism in pretty strange places crops up (Central Africa, Asia) with language and tradition still relatively intact. I have seen no example whatsoever of this happening in the Americas, and that, to me, damages some credibility.
Could have been Phoenicians, too. Lots of boats, it's not all that weird to think that one could have gotten blown off course and wound up in the Americas. Very few people wouldn't leave all that much in the way of DNA, but a higher material culture could result in linguistic traces.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yep-- I'm happy to be proven wrong.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: No tradition, language, or DNA seems to have survived at all. Every once in a while a pocket of Judaism in pretty strange places crops up (Central Africa, Asia) with language and tradition still relatively intact. I have seen no example whatsoever of this happening in the Americas, and that, to me, damages some credibility.
Could have been Phoenicians, too. Lots of boats, it's not all that weird to think that one could have gotten blown off course and wound up in the Americas. Very few people wouldn't leave all that much in the way of DNA, but a higher material culture could result in linguistic traces.
The Bering Straight Landbridge I buy.
Egyptians and Phoenicians sailing to America I don't buy at all. To say nothing of the fact that I question whether their boats could have even made the journey, they would have starved long before they made it. Even a large, post Phoenician quinquerieme wouldn't have been large enough to carry the kinds of supplies needed for a transAtlantic journey, especially not given the size of the crew those ships generally carried. They don't sail primarily by wind power, but with oar power. The sails wouldn't have been big enough to get them over the ocean fast enough, especially not when it was a several month journey even for faster ships, and the slave oarsmen would have died of starvation before adding much of a benefit to the task.
I suppose it is theoretically possible, if there was an especially well laden ship, with a light crew that was blown very quickly from the westernmost point of Africa to the easternmost point of South America with no interruptions, then maybe a ship could have made it. But then you have to gauge their chances of survival amongst hostile natives they have no real technological advantage over like the Conquistadors did.
I'd need to see some pretty major proof to buy this theory.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
airman-
In regards to language, Jon Boy posted an article about linguistic influences of Egyptian and Hebrew languages on uto-Aztechian languages. This was, of course, unknown at the publishing date of the Book of Mormon. However, as Ron and Lisa pointed out, it is also theorized that perhaps Egyptians or Phoenicians explored that far, bringing some of their slaves.
As others on the thread have said, no amount of logical arguments or proofs will convince someone of the validity of the BOM. Furthermore, no one is really trying. There's really no point.
For example, if unequivocal DNA evidence is found linking Native Americans to ancient Hebrew people, do you really think people will suddenly say, "Wow, the Book of Mormon must be true?" No way. There always exist alternate explanations and possibilities such as the sailing Egyptians one offered in this thread.
Just like the Bible, a belief in the validity of the Book of Mormon can't really be arrived at by judging historical evidence.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Some of my gay friends will say, "That's pretty gay" and then qualify it with, "You know, the bad gay."
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Lyrhawn: Ever heard of Thor Heyerdahl?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
When I was in high school, I came back to the student recreation center one day to find a gay friend of mine doodling all over the cover of my course notebook.
And I was all like "Hey .. hey! what are you doing! Are those unicorns?"
There were indeed unicorns and dippy smiling hearts and flowers and rainbows and moonbeams and god knows what else, all doodled in cutsey glitter pen he'd borrowed from some sacker for the purpose of punishing me for leaving my stuff in the care of my dutiful and ever-trustworthy friends.
He said "I'm fagging up your notebook!"
Then everyone else started laughing and I said "Gwargh! Luke! Quit fagging up my notebook!" One of the student counselors from the tolerance project had actually come within earshot just to hear that. It was actually a comic setup. Of all the counselors, why specifically the one who has the primary responsibility to make sure that we're tolerating everyone else to an extremely P.C. extent? Her name was Ms. Meyer, I think. She was also an accounting whiz and was often found slotting as a de-facto treasurer of the school.
"What did you just say?" She said.
I pointed accusingly at Luke and stated, with a comical pout. "He's fagging up my notebook and won't quit it."
I probably would have been crucified on the spot had Luke not then smiled a big cheesy smile and proudly held up my now thoroughly fagged-up notebook, complete with a now polka-dotted unicorn who he had labeled "Spunkins the Spotted Uni-Quorn." Instead, she gave us a cursory lecture attempting to explain to us that we shouldn't use offensive language. When we insisted that we thought it was fine to use when no offense was intended, she then took us to her office immediately for another less-than-cursory lecture on how we should understand that the language is offensive and we shouldn't be using it even to trivialize it, since someone somewhere might still be offended.
Twenty minutes later, we leave. And then Luke turns to me and says "That was pretty gay."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I remember when one of my favorite Latin professors flipped out when we referred to a TV character in a "wife-beater." He had never heard the phrase before, and he was horrified. I see his point - humor only works when it strikes a chord, and making jokes about a stereotype legitimizes it in a way.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Lyrhawn: Ever heard of Thor Heyerdahl?
I didn't say it was impossible, just that I'm highly skeptical, especially in the face of zero proof of such, that ships notorious for their slow speed and unreliability could have made a journey that even high seas ships barely made 2,000 years later.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:But then you have to gauge their chances of survival amongst hostile natives they have no real technological advantage over like the Conquistadors did.
They most certainly did, to wit,
a) Bronze weapons (iron depending on period) b) Better tactics c) Eurasian disease environment
Actually, c) is a pretty good point against any such theory: Why weren't there die-offs on the scale of what happened to the Incas and Aztecs? (Unless there were and nobody has looked, of course.) In any case, why assume the natives would be hostile?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
OK trans oceanic voyage logistics aside;
Does anybody else think schools have no business policing what children say when it comes to expressing an opinion? I feel like context is important, but should somebody be disciplined to this extent at all?
I am not sure how I feel about this all, I personally wonder if its right for schools to censore what students say at all outside the "Imminent lawless action" test.
If a student goes so far as to say, "I can't stand being around Mexicans," does the school attempt to discipline, educate, or allow the statement to stand?
Should we really use polls that most children have no idea about as a defense for suing them?
I just don't feel comfortable about the lengths being used to punish this girl at all, regardless of the fact we share the same religious beliefs.
I personally did some things that were MUCH worse then this girl when I was in 5th grade, and in fact endangered the safety of other students. I was not punished this harshly, though I was certainly punished and harshly.
edited for grammar and some clarity upon second thought.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I personally did some things that were MUCH worse then this girl when I was in 5th grade, and in fact endangered the safety of other students. I was not punished this harshly, though I was certainly punished and harshly.
How harshly was she punished? I didn't see that in the article.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I personally did some things that were MUCH worse then this girl when I was in 5th grade, and in fact endangered the safety of other students. I was not punished this harshly, though I was certainly punished and harshly.
How harshly was she punished? I didn't see that in the article.
Edit: I just reread and misunderstood but its her parents that are suing the school apparently.
However,
quote:Rice got a warning and a notation in her file
Obviously I do not know the details of the warning, but I think the warning + notation in her file is ridiculous.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In any case, why assume the natives would be hostile?
Duh? They're red-skinned savages! They would waylay and annihlate anyone who came to their shores!
As opposed to, you know, greeting and trading with them and even sharing survival techniques. We've never documented that happening.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:But then you have to gauge their chances of survival amongst hostile natives they have no real technological advantage over like the Conquistadors did.
They most certainly did, to wit,
a) Bronze weapons (iron depending on period) b) Better tactics c) Eurasian disease environment
Actually, c) is a pretty good point against any such theory: Why weren't there die-offs on the scale of what happened to the Incas and Aztecs? (Unless there were and nobody has looked, of course.) In any case, why assume the natives would be hostile?
Alright they might not be, but natives in general, American Indians and Thanksgiving aside, weren't generally inviting from what I've read. But it'd depend entirely on when and where they landed. South American Incas and Mayans were much more quick to anger and violence in general than some of their northern east coast neighbors. It's not an automatic assumption, but it's also not unfounded considering their history.
And you'll have to forgive me, but I don't consider bronze age weapons a serious advantage over the Incas or Mayans, and if they went to North America, indeed, into INLAND north America as some of the claims suggest, they'd meet Apaches and Cherokees, who were deadly as all hell. You're suggesting that a single ship blown off course, ot let's give them a lot more credit, three or four ships, carrying sufficient numbers of troops, could have had THAT much of an advantage over natives?
I'm willing to say they'd have an advantage, but like I said, not's not really there. Tactics, sure, but then again, tactics aren't really technological are they? Neither is disease, unless you're suggesting they thought of themselves as living biological weapons. So we come back to bronze. Bronze age weapons alone aren't enough of an advantage, and their tactics aren't especially worthwhile when there would be so few of them, I doubt they'd have enough to even form a phalanx, which probably would have been the popular tactic of the time, depend on the time period.
A lot depends on when this happened, and where in the Americas they were supposed to have landed, and really it also depends on whether or not it was Egyptians or Phoenicians.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Actually, c) is a pretty good point against any such theory: Why weren't there die-offs on the scale of what happened to the Incas and Aztecs?
Many of the plagues that were so deadly to the people who met the spaniards developed because of cities (density of population sufficient to create endemic disease) and close proximities to domestic animals. 1000 years before that, only one of those factors existed. Without density to support active disease at all times, it's much less likely such migrants had the disease when they traveled.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I want to point out that it's not necessary at all to believe the Book of Mormon stories took place in the Americas to be Mormon.
My own best guess is that there are plenty of other potential settings for the BoM. It's not meant to be an anthropology text, nor to give us archeological or technological information. That it was dug up from a place in the Americas is evidence that it was buried there. However, when an angel from another .... (I don't know what word to use ... dimension or astral plane would be the science fiction word for it, what's the religious word for other places like heaven?)... place ... directs you to something, then later takes it back, it doesn't seem to me to be at all necessary that it originally came from the spot where you found it. If Moroni himself came there from elsewhere, enough to physically shake someone's hand, which we believe he did, then why are we positive the book wasn't brought from another planet, dimension, astral plane, etc. as well? We're flat out told that there are other sheep, and that nobody knows where they are but they're not lost to the Father. Where are they? They could be on other planets, other dimensions, or places that we don't have physics concepts yet to describe. God knows more about physics than we do. He knows more about his universe. His purpose with scriptures has not been to teach us that stuff, but rather, to teach us spiritual knowledge we need in order to advance from our current condition to something higher.
I'm not trying to change any Mormon's mind. To me it's not that important either way. But I just want to mention this so that people who aren't LDS will understand that refuting the existence of BoM societies in the Americas makes no difference. Plenty of Mormons don't tie their faith to whether or not BoM societies were located in the Americas.
I personally believe the book is literally true, but that it's perfectly possible that it didn't take place on this continent. God gave us the book. He didn't tell us everything about the context of the book, because that was irrelevant.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tatiana, I would be extremely wary of taking such a stance on the BOM. The BOM to a very adequate degree provides doctrine that makes its location in the Americas a certainty. That, coupled with the fact that it predicts the means and circumstances of its own revelation to mankind makes it a matter of authenticity that the events it describes takes place at the very least in the north or south American continents.
Using the dimensions POV on the BOM basically renders it, a nice book of stories, and little else. People have been attempting to give the Bible the same treatment for centuries now, and it cheapens the message of the book to the point of uselessness.
Why do we need to literally accept that Jesus lived in Jerusalem, or that he performed the atonement. Because to say those things are true relatively speaking inaccurately depresses Jesus' necessity to mankind's ultimate happiness.
If the gospel is not the perfect plan of happiness, it has certainly been given far more attention then it deserves.
If the geography and history of the BOM were unimportant I honestly believe the writers would not have put so much emphasis on them. They make it a point to outline landscapes, timelines, and historical facts while stating that the words they speak are true.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Actually, c) is a pretty good point against any such theory: Why weren't there die-offs on the scale of what happened to the Incas and Aztecs?
Many of the plagues that were so deadly to the people who met the spaniards developed because of cities (density of population sufficient to create endemic disease) and close proximities to domestic animals. 1000 years before that, only one of those factors existed. Without density to support active disease at all times, it's much less likely such migrants had the disease when they traveled.
Are we perhaps thinking of different periods? Carthage was a reasonably large city, surely.
quote:Tactics, sure, but then again, tactics aren't really technological are they?
They most certainly are.
quote:Neither is disease, unless you're suggesting they thought of themselves as living biological weapons.
They don't have to think of themselves that way in order to actually be biological weapons. You can hardly be suggesting that Cortes thought of himself as a plague carrier, but he certainly made good use of the fact.
quote:South American Incas and Mayans were much more quick to anger and violence in general than some of their northern east coast neighbors. (...) Apache, Cherokee
None of which cultures exist at the time we are discussing. In particular, the Apache and Cherokee were deadly and hostile because they'd seen what had happened on the East Coast, indeed some of them were refugees from that disaster.
quote:You're suggesting that a single ship blown off course, ot let's give them a lot more credit, three or four ships, carrying sufficient numbers of troops, could have had THAT much of an advantage over natives?
Why not? Pizarro had 150 men, remember, not all of them soldiers. And it's not the weapons so much as the armour that gives an advantage; bronze armour works just as well as iron, especially against stone weapons, and armour is absolutely decisive in hand-to-hand combat.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Black Blade, why would it matter whether it happened in America or on some other planet, though? It still happened! It's authentic and true.
And what about people on other worlds who have to learn of Christ's life that took place on our world and not their own? Does that makes it any less real to them? Does that make it a fantasy? Understand that I'm not saying the BoM is fiction, or a fairy tale. I'm saying that it actually happened, it's a true record handed down to us. It just doesn't seem important to me whether or not this physical continent where I now stand was the setting.
The geography and history are described, yet they don't match very closely any particular spot in the Americas. This is another reason to rethink that requirement.
I understand that to many people it seems very important that the Americas are THE place that it had to have happened, but I don't understand why that is. To me it is just as valid no matter where it happened.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I think this video is applicable to the original story.
Words...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I am contending the geography and history could (and in fact did) certainly have taken place on the American continents.
The people who wrote the Book of Mormon stated that *this* land was the land of promise as described by God, and that because of their iniquity they were removed from it, and we have their record to help us understand how they lost it. It states that the people who would eventually settle this land (us) would be held to the same obligation, and in the day we do not, we will likewise be removed from the land.
If all of that is figurative, it deals a blow to the literalist manner in which the words are written, to the point I would contend, that it becomes merely a book of moral stories, and not very well told at that.
The Book of Mormon claims to have a mission and purpose that far surpasses THAT intention.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
KOM -
It's a fun conversation, and I'd argue with you a bit more, but first we have to narrow down a time. Exactly when are we talking? You bring up Carthage, but Phoenicians were around long before they ever settled in Carthage. It's a period of time that could span 500 years. That changes the tactics, the weaponry, the armor, what a ship would likely have on board (which could be ZERO weapons and/or soldiers), the type of ship used, and other factors. And I wonder how bad the disease problem would have been. The plague hadn't hit yet, I think it's likely that a couple hundred guys, just off the boat, wouldn't be as bad as the type of European that came to town 2,000 years later. A lot happened, biologically, in those 2,000 years, and we didn't have a lot of the acquired immunities that killed so many natives later on way back then.
Anyway, define the year it happened, within say, 50 years, even a 100 years, and we could continue, otherwise we're on different pages.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: Second, the Hebrew settlers of the Americas mentioned in the Book of Mormon were not Jews, but rather, were mostly members of the lost tribe of Manasseh, if I remember correctly.
I don't know what that means to you, but to me it is paradoxical impossibility. Jew DOES NOT mean "from the tribe of Judah." Or rather, it was so derived, but rapidly became the name for all Hebrews/Israelites/what-ever-other-names-y'all-have-for-us.
Like kleenex. Or xerox. Or ketchup! It's a generification.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:And I was all like "Hey .. hey! what are you doing! Are those unicorns?"...
That story is hilarious.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Sidestepping *all* discussion of Mormon doctrine, about which I know zippo...
One small colony of European visitors could be vulnerable to American Indians, because one was: Vinland. They didn't get wiped out, but they did decide they'd better leave. I suspect that the one ship didn't spread major diseases to the area, because once the nastier diseases hit after 1492, they spread like forest fires. Which among other things showed they hadn't been to North America previously, or there'd have been better immunity.
Recommended reading: Collapse, Jared Diamond.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
rivka, I didn't realize that. I knew about the derivation, and assumed it was still part of the meaning of the word. I guess the fact that I always hear about the "Hebrews" and the "children of Israel" wandering in the wilderness with Moses, but I never really hear about the "Jews" doing that, I assumed that calling folks "Jews" was a tribe-specific thing.
But I guess since Judah wasn't just a person and a tribe, but also a nation ... yeah, I can understand why it would have a broader application. Whoops Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The name "Jews" (Yehudim) was not applied until after the settlement of the land. Probably not until David's time. So no, not used for the generation who wandered the desert. (Then again, neither was "Hebrews" (Ivrim) -- "children of Israel" (B'nei Yisrael) was used almost exclusively for that generation. At least, it is in TaNaCh.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
steven was really flailing in this thread earlier. Shucks.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm thinking of the poll where 43% said they would not vote for a Mormon. ALMOST HALF? Forty-three percent consider being a Mormon a disqualification?? That's horrifying to me.
That reminds me of this one guy from high school that said he would not vote for a woman president simply because she was a woman. The whole class was appalled at his comment but he stood by it. Little white trash bastard.
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
That's better than someone who won't vote for a woman simply because she's a woman, but refuses to admit that's how they feel.
I prefer open prejudice to hidden prejudice.
On another topic, I vote for the candidate I deem most likely to destroy our country, which strangely means I voted for Bush.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by DevilDreamt: That's better than someone who won't vote for a woman simply because she's a woman, but refuses to admit that's how they feel.
I prefer open prejudice to hidden prejudice.
On another topic, I vote for the candidate I deem most likely to destroy our country, which strangely means I voted for Bush.
You should move to Canada. Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
Canada would be fun. I'm in my second year of getting a degree in education though, so I might wait until I am certified here in Michigan. Although I have no idea how easy/hard it would be to get certified to teach in Canada, I'm only imagining that being certified here would help.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: The name "Jews" (Yehudim) was not applied until after the settlement of the land. Probably not until David's time. So no, not used for the generation who wandered the desert. (Then again, neither was "Hebrews" (Ivrim) -- "children of Israel" (B'nei Yisrael) was used almost exclusively for that generation. At least, it is in TaNaCh.)
I don't think "Jew" was ever used in the northern Kingdom. But when we use the term nowadays, we use it to refer to all of us, regardless of tribe.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: The name "Jews" (Yehudim) was not applied until after the settlement of the land. Probably not until David's time. So no, not used for the generation who wandered the desert. (Then again, neither was "Hebrews" (Ivrim) -- "children of Israel" (B'nei Yisrael) was used almost exclusively for that generation. At least, it is in TaNaCh.)
I don't think "Jew" was ever used in the northern Kingdom. But when we use the term nowadays, we use it to refer to all of us, regardless of tribe.
That's the impression I got.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm thinking of the poll where 43% said they would not vote for a Mormon. ALMOST HALF? Forty-three percent consider being a Mormon a disqualification?? That's horrifying to me.
That reminds me of this one guy from high school that said he would not vote for a woman president simply because she was a woman. The whole class was appalled at his comment but he stood by it. Little white trash bastard.
I wouldn't vote for a Jew for president.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, why wouldn't you vote for a Jew for president? I thought you are Jewish yourself. Is it that the most prominent Jewish politician is Joseph Lieberman, and you dislike his politics?
Lieberman professes to be a Sabbath-keeper, but he also claims that his work in the U.S. Senate is important enough to justify working on the Sabbath. I imagine that would make him seem fairly liberal to you. And people who are closest to us in beliefs but differ on only a few points, seem to be the ones who we tend to feel threatened by the most. Among Christians, it was such who we burned at the stake, not Atheists or Hindus. So you Jews are just the same us the rest of us, aren't you? Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's possible that Lisa thinks the laws of Shabbos would interfere with the administration of a country. I know I do.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
If no one links Ron to my recent answers to these questions, I'll answer when I get the chance. But it's less than 20 minutes until I have to light candles, and I shouldn't be on the computer at all right now, because there's stuff to do.
But for the record, both Ron and Tom are wrong about my reasons.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I would never, ever, vote for a Jew for either President or VP. Basically, as far as I'm concerned, the President of the US has to have the welfare of the US as his chief priority. And a Jew should have the welfare of the Jewish people as his. It'd be nice to think that there will never be a conflict between the two, but obviously, they aren't necessarily always going to be the same thing. I couldn't respect a Jew who put the US over his people, and I couldn't accept a President who did not.
From the Ask the Rebbetzin thread.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: The name "Jews" (Yehudim) was not applied until after the settlement of the land. Probably not until David's time. So no, not used for the generation who wandered the desert. (Then again, neither was "Hebrews" (Ivrim) -- "children of Israel" (B'nei Yisrael) was used almost exclusively for that generation. At least, it is in TaNaCh.)
I don't think "Jew" was ever used in the northern Kingdom. But when we use the term nowadays, we use it to refer to all of us, regardless of tribe.
Before the split (i.e., during the reigns of David and Shlomo (Solomon)), was it not used for everyone?
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: No kidding. One thing about Mitt Romney running is that it exposed the mountain of religous bigotry and the hypocrisy apprently rampant in the US. I had no idea. *angry*
Well, yeah. It's the US. When has it ever been good at treating minorities with respect? I hate to sound cold, but get used to it. I am; nothing surprises me anymore when people tell me they hate what I am, what I do, who I love, and all based on religious beliefs.
This is just a small sample of what most gay people have to go through, sadly, and that comes from personal experience and talking to many of my friends.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:It's the US. When has it ever been good at treating minorities with respect?
As compared to whom?
Turkey? Saudi Arabia? China? Rwanda?
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B:
quote:It's the US. When has it ever been good at treating minorities with respect?
As compared to whom?
Turkey? Saudi Arabia? China? Rwanda?
Who says I have to compare it to another country for my statement to be true? I'm stating a fact: the US has had a history of treating minorities as second-class citizens. I'm not saying other countries are better or worse, just that the US hasn't had a great track record.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
So we have a poor track record, except as compared to the rest of the world? Sounds reasonable.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: So we have a poor track record, except as compared to the rest of the world? Sounds reasonable.
I'm terrible at telling tone in posts, so I'll assume you're being sincere.
Well, it's not like the track records of other countries, if they are indeed worse, somehow negate what we've done anyways, and since I'm no historian, I can't speak to the histories of other countries. But we managed to do plenty of damage in the 232 years (assuming my math is correct) we've been a sovereign nation.
Posted by Liaison (Member # 6873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: When we insisted that we thought it was fine to use when no offense was intended, she then took us to her office immediately for another less-than-cursory lecture on how we should understand that the language is offensive and we shouldn't be using it even to trivialize it, since someone somewhere might still be offended.
Back to the original topic for a moment. Here are a couple more links about the story.
Those articles are from our local newspaper. I thought I would just add a couple words, because I attended and graduated from this school in '04. I quoted Samprimary because that is exactly the kind of attitude the school administration and faculty have taken at Carrillo for quite a few years now. The overall personality of the student-body is northern Californian, progressive, liberal, college prepatory, white, and rich. To be more specific, by white I mean about 95% caucasian, and by rich I mean the school is loathingly called "Gucci High" by other schools in the city. It's infamous for the huge parking lot being filled completely so that students end up parking on the football field because there are so many rich families that buy their kids brand new, shiny, expensive, cars. The school has also been hit a few times with swastikas and really nasty racial slurs on the walls. There have been anti-war sit-ins, public protests against racism and the like. All of this has created a certain degree of tension when it comes to being politically correct, which the staff has taken very seriously. Especially Gans-Rugebregt who is French and has caught wind of her own share of insults from students.
I don't claim to be incredibly educated about this particular case, but I find it hard to take any of it seriously. It's all just such a bizarre mess. When I attended I had a close friend who was Mormon and I never heard a word against her. I asked her if she had ever been insulted because she was Mormon. She said that she never had been while at Carrillo. Then there's the issue of the girl's parents and the vice-principal. They are very open about being anti-homosexual and while I don't actually know what the vice-principal's sexuality is (or care) she comes across as being stereotypically lesbian. Lastly, I know many students who were reprimanded with referrals and warnings for using language that faculty found offensive. My own brother was in almost the exact same situation, for the same offense, and recieved the same exact treatment, but he's not Mormon nor anti-homosexual.
I'm more apt to think that the girl's parents are taking it this far because they can. I'm not really sure how to feel about the issue. I understand that something like "that's so gay" is inherently very offensive, but I also believe that the majority of kids, and my peers, use it as a general insult that has no connotations with homosexuality.
My brother and I have a wierd perspective on the phrase because it was passed onto us by our mother. She has been using it amongst her sisters since the 70s. It's one of those random family tradition things. It was taken from the true/original definition of gay and morphed into being a blanket word that could be used to celebrate, to insult, to replace names,to describe and a million other things. Like 'Yay! The pizza's here! That's gay!' or 'Don't be so grumpy, gay' or 'What time is it? It's gay time!'.
Going to Carrillo, especially after my brother was reprimanded for saying it, I constantly had to check myself when I almost let a phrase like that eek out. It's something we use in our family all the time so it was really challenging to stop myself. The context could even be positive and happy, but I never wanted to offend anyone who was familiar with it only being used negatively.
Ah, rough subject. By all means, go on with the Mormon thing, which is completely over my head. Cheers!
(Editted multiple times for link silliness. Yeesh.)
[ March 03, 2007, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: Liaison ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: The name "Jews" (Yehudim) was not applied until after the settlement of the land. Probably not until David's time. So no, not used for the generation who wandered the desert. (Then again, neither was "Hebrews" (Ivrim) -- "children of Israel" (B'nei Yisrael) was used almost exclusively for that generation. At least, it is in TaNaCh.)
I don't think "Jew" was ever used in the northern Kingdom. But when we use the term nowadays, we use it to refer to all of us, regardless of tribe.
Before the split (i.e., during the reigns of David and Shlomo (Solomon)), was it not used for everyone?
I can't think of an instance where it was. Bnei Yisrael, but not Yehudim.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I would never, ever, vote for a Jew for either President or VP. Basically, as far as I'm concerned, the President of the US has to have the welfare of the US as his chief priority. And a Jew should have the welfare of the Jewish people as his. It'd be nice to think that there will never be a conflict between the two, but obviously, they aren't necessarily always going to be the same thing. I couldn't respect a Jew who put the US over his people, and I couldn't accept a President who did not.
From the Ask the Rebbetzin thread.
Thanks.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
You're welcome.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
I doubt that I could ever vote for a Mormon. I mean, I would, if I aggreed with his (or her I suppose) stances, but most Mormons tend to be much more socialy conservative than me.
I don't know if I'm bigoted or not. There are several Mormons on this board whom I like a lot. I have never really known any irl. I've met some of course, but they are a tiny minority where I live.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: So we have a poor track record, except as compared to the rest of the world? Sounds reasonable.
It can be reasonable. Imagine that you were someone living in 1000 BC with no knowledge of the present day. Most nations at the time would have no problem with slavery, racism, genocide. You would probably be pretty justified in saying that every nation in the world had a poor track record in regards to their treatment of minorities, even without a specific example of a nation with a better track record.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)