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?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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*
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* Non-mormons get elected to statewide office in Utah all the time. I think it would depend on his politics.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There were multiple groups mentioned in the text. There quite possibly could have been many other groups.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Was there not furor associated with a Roman Catholic being elected President -- just about half a century ago?
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
Steven, you have taught me that eating shellfish produces strong bones and healthy teeth. Who needs a college degree with you around?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
