Congratulations DCP

[_Scottie]

He actually has a good point, and I've thought that for years. I'm not sure why Mormons aren't umbrellaed under the hate laws. Why is it socially acceptable for street preachers to defile sacred Mormon items, but would be considered the lowest form of scum if they did the same thing to Jewish or Muslim holy items?

Uh, scottie? Have you ever been in an evangelical book store? They are against all sorts of religious groups, not just Mormons. You definitely have the wrong impression if you think they're targeting Mormons alone. They can't stand catholicism, for example, or just about any "new religious movement".

The reason they pay negative attention to these groups is because they literally believe these groups are influencing people to go to hell to burn for all eternity. If a person really, truly, believes that, then I guess they do have a moral responsibility to warn people.

Sure, it's one thing to write about how the other churches are wrong and yours is right. Do any of these books use the word Kike in them?

Defiling sacred items is a whole other ball game. I would be terrified to attempt to defile any Jewish item in public!! I mean, look at the torment Mel Gibson has gone through for his anti-semetic remarks. If he had said that about Mormons, it wouldn't have even been a story.

And, I'm against any group using derogatory slang towards another group. Not just against Mormons.

[_Mister Scratch]

And if I ever meet Mr. Scratch on the street, I'll knock him on his ass, pin him to the ground, and stick blades of grass up his nose until he cries.

Ah, lovely. More threats of physical violence from TBMs. Gee, did Ray A happen to see this I wonder?

I'm sure blades of grass up the nose is right next to adultery and murder in the list of serious transgressions. I knew you were a cry baby.

Whaaaaaa!

(emphasis added)

Look up again at your post, Will. Threats of physical violence are against the law. Don't you know that? Would you like to apologize for threatening me?

[_Scottie]

He wasn't actually saying these things.

Wha..? He was "actually" saying the words which are right there---in print---for all to see?

Ok, poorly worded on my part. You're right, he DID say these things...as if he were talking as an angry exmo.

He was illustrating a point that anti-Mormons feel like they can spew any and all manner of name calling they want and get away with it, but if a similar line of hatred and name calling were spewed toward the Jews, it would be a hate crime. The post was made as if he were an angry anti-Mormon, except replacing Morg with Kike.

A couple of thoughts. 1) Was it really necessary for him to "illustrate" this point in the manner he did?

Probably not necessary, no.

2) Isn't his entire diatribe a false analogy? I.e., what are the analogs in Mormonism for the various Jewish stereotypes that Prof. H. is exploiting in his rant? Can you name them? I rather doubt it. Mormons have long been envious of the suffering which Jews have endured throughout history, and Hamblin's popping off is just yet another instance of this.

It seemed very analogous. You are going to sit there and honestly tell me that exmo's don't have common steriotypes that they hurl at TBM's??? You're joking, right???

He actually has a good point, and I've thought that for years. I'm not sure why Mormons aren't umbrellaed under the hate laws. Why is it socially acceptable for street preachers to defile sacred Mormon items, but would be considered the lowest form of scum if they did the same thing to Jewish or Muslim holy items?

He does not have a good point. For one thing, it is not "socially acceptable" for street preachers to "defile sacred Mormon items." (Another side point: how is this even relevant? Hamblin's rant was directed towards ex-Mormons, not "preachers" from other denominations.)

How is it not socially acceptable? What accountability do they have? Again, Mel Gibson said 1 remark about Jews and has paid DEARLY for it. Now THAT'S not socially acceptable.

Second, it makes very little sense for Hamblin to try and make a point about offensiveness by being extraordinarily offensive himself.

Why? Seems to drive the point home pretty well when you can see how offensive your words really are.

[_Mister Scratch]

2) Isn't his entire diatribe a false analogy? I.e., what are the analogs in Mormonism for the various Jewish stereotypes that Prof. H. is exploiting in his rant? Can you name them? I rather doubt it. Mormons have long been envious of the suffering which Jews have endured throughout history, and Hamblin's popping off is just yet another instance of this.

It seemed very analogous. You are going to sit there and honestly tell me that exmo's don't have common steriotypes that they hurl at TBM's??? You're joking, right???

No, I'm not joking. Please provide examples of:
---common stereotypes of TBMs that carry the same offensive weight as stereotypes of Jews
---things in LDS culture and history which are analogous to the Holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition, and various other instances of violent historical anti-Semitism.
---Mormon stereotypes which are analogous to the stereotypes Hamblin listed in his diatribe (and good luck with that one).

The two things are not the same, Scottie. Another problem with what you're saying is that these supposed "stereotypes" are more or less limited to the ex-Mormon community, whereas Jewish stereotypes are much more widely known, and therefore more pernicious and dangerous.

He actually has a good point, and I've thought that for years. I'm not sure why Mormons aren't umbrellaed under the hate laws. Why is it socially acceptable for street preachers to defile sacred Mormon items, but would be considered the lowest form of scum if they did the same thing to Jewish or Muslim holy items?

He does not have a good point. For one thing, it is not "socially acceptable" for street preachers to "defile sacred Mormon items." (Another side point: how is this even relevant? Hamblin's rant was directed towards ex-Mormons, not "preachers" from other denominations.)

How is it not socially acceptable? What accountability do they have? Again, Mel Gibson said 1 remark about Jews and has paid DEARLY for it. Now THAT'S not socially acceptable.

Mel Gibson is a public figure and very famous and seen as a kind of role model. Due to his fame, his remarks carry more weight. Likewise with Michael Richards. On the other hand, some no-name street preacher is far less likely to reach or affect the same size of audience as Gibson. And Gibson did not pay "DEARLY." He was shamed and had to attend either AA or anger management. That's it. Big deal. I assume you'd have no problem with assigning anger management classes to the nutcase preaches standing outside Temple Square, right? Or would that be making them "pay DEARLY"?

Second, it makes very little sense for Hamblin to try and make a point about offensiveness by being extraordinarily offensive himself.

Why? Seems to drive the point home pretty well when you can see how offensive your words really are.

No, it actually just demonstrates what a hypocrite Bill Hamblin is. Bottom line: the term "morgbot" is nowhere near as offensive as the "K-word."

[_beastie]

Sure, it's one thing to write about how the other churches are wrong and yours is right. Do any of these books use the word Kike in them?

Defiling sacred items is a whole other ball game. I would be terrified to attempt to defile any Jewish item in public!! I mean, look at the torment Mel Gibson has gone through for his anti-semetic remarks. If he had said that about Mormons, it wouldn't have even been a story.

And, I'm against any group using derogatory slang towards another group. Not just against Mormons.

Why do you think that if a celebrity like Mel Gibson had gone on a rant about Mormons instead of Jews, it wouldn't have been a story? Because people say ugly things on internet boards and it's not a story? You don't think people say ugly things about all sorts of groups on internet boards?

The only reason Gibson's remarks were news was because it was Mel Gibson. I would venture to guess on any given day there are more anti-semitic than anti-mormon comments being made by non-celebrities, and none of them are stories.

I agree with your aversion to using derogatory slangs against groups of people, I just disagree with your seeming assertion that our society would be A-ok with using derogatory slang against Mormons.

Frankly, I think the only groups that our society thinks it's A-OK to use derogatory slang about are fat people and atheists.

[_William Schryver]

Mr. Scratch:

No, it actually just demonstrates what a hypocrite Bill Hamblin is.

Yawn ........

You are, without a doubt, the most repetitive, humorless bore on this message board. "One-Note Scratch." Convinced he's playing a concerto, but he just drones on and on and on and on and on and on ...

[_Scottie]

No, I'm not joking. Please provide examples of:
---common stereotypes of TBMs that carry the same offensive weight as stereotypes of Jews
---things in LDS culture and history which are analogous to the Holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition, and various other instances of violent historical anti-Semitism.
---Mormon stereotypes which are analogous to the stereotypes Hamblin listed in his diatribe (and good luck with that one).

So now we are weighing the supposed offensiveness of a stereotype??? Is there a web site I can go to that gauges how offensive one stereotype is compared to another??

The two things are not the same, Scottie. Another problem with what you're saying is that these supposed "stereotypes" are more or less limited to the ex-Mormon community, whereas Jewish stereotypes are much more widely known, and therefore more pernicious and dangerous.

I agree with you here.

Mel Gibson is a public figure and very famous and seen as a kind of role model. Due to his fame, his remarks carry more weight. Likewise with Michael Richards. On the other hand, some no-name street preacher is far less likely to reach or affect the same size of audience as Gibson. And Gibson did not pay "DEARLY." He was shamed and had to attend either AA or anger management. That's it. Big deal. I assume you'd have no problem with assigning anger management classes to the nutcase preaches standing outside Temple Square, right? Or would that be making them "pay DEARLY"?

Ummm...yes, it WAS a big deal. It was a big deal for a long time. He DID pay dearly. What? Would he need to be whipped with stripes in order for YOU to consider it paying dearly??

As for the street preachers, ANY form of accountability would be fine with me. But, no, there is absolutely nothing. No negative consequences at all. If this same no-name street preacher were to protest the same way and defile Jewish items in a large Jewish gathering, I'd be willing to bet my right ass cheek that he'd have some 'splainin to do to somebody.

No, it actually just demonstrates what a hypocrite Bill Hamblin is. Bottom line: the term "morgbot" is nowhere near as offensive as the "K-word."

Maybe not to you. How can you gauge just how offensive it might be to someone? Even if it's not "as offensive", does that make it ok to say it?

I still fail to see how this makes Bill a hypocrite??

[_The Nehor]

To save time I'm with Scottie on this one. He was using the offensive nature of what he was saying to show how offensive it was that others were doing something similar to him. It is obvious in context that he in fact does NOT believe what he is saying or the analogy would by default mean he thinks Mormons deserve it. Whether you think the analogy good or flawed accusing him of Anti-Semitism is ridiculous.

[_Mister Scratch]

No, I'm not joking. Please provide examples of:
---common stereotypes of TBMs that carry the same offensive weight as stereotypes of Jews
---things in LDS culture and history which are analogous to the Holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition, and various other instances of violent historical anti-Semitism.
---Mormon stereotypes which are analogous to the stereotypes Hamblin listed in his diatribe (and good luck with that one).

So now we are weighing the supposed offensiveness of a stereotype??? Is there a web site I can go to that gauges how offensive one stereotype is compared to another??

Nice dodge. I'll ask again: What are the comparable LDS stereotypes? You have claimed on this thread that the term "Morgbot" is every bit as offensive as anti-Semitic slurs. You have any evidence, or are you just blowing smoke?

The two things are not the same, Scottie. Another problem with what you're saying is that these supposed "stereotypes" are more or less limited to the ex-Mormon community, whereas Jewish stereotypes are much more widely known, and therefore more pernicious and dangerous.

I agree with you here.

Then what is your point? Best to throw in the towel, methinks.

Mel Gibson is a public figure and very famous and seen as a kind of role model. Due to his fame, his remarks carry more weight. Likewise with Michael Richards. On the other hand, some no-name street preacher is far less likely to reach or affect the same size of audience as Gibson. And Gibson did not pay "DEARLY." He was shamed and had to attend either AA or anger management. That's it. Big deal. I assume you'd have no problem with assigning anger management classes to the nutcase preaches standing outside Temple Square, right? Or would that be making them "pay DEARLY"?

Ummm...yes, it WAS a big deal. It was a big deal for a long time. He DID pay dearly. What? Would he need to be whipped with stripes in order for YOU to consider it paying dearly??

It was, relatively speaking, a slap on the wrist. He ought to have known better, and his punishment, in my view, was just. I can't help but wonder why you sympathize with him. Do you use a lot of racial and ethnic slurs yourself, which thus renders you afraid of having to endure consequences similar to Gibson's?

As for the street preachers, ANY form of accountability would be fine with me. But, no, there is absolutely nothing.

That's not true. Some of them have been arrested; some of them have been beaten bloody by angry Mormons.

No negative consequences at all. If this same no-name street preacher were to protest the same way and defile Jewish items in a large Jewish gathering, I'd be willing to bet my right ass cheek that he'd have some 'splainin to do to somebody.

More and more it just seems that you are naïve on this whole issue.

No, it actually just demonstrates what a hypocrite Bill Hamblin is. Bottom line: the term "morgbot" is nowhere near as offensive as the "K-word."

Maybe not to you. How can you gauge just how offensive it might be to someone? Even if it's not "as offensive", does that make it ok to say it?

I still fail to see how this makes Bill a hypocrite??

It makes him a hypocrite because he behaved in an extraordinarily offensive manner. I'll ask again: do you think he would have felt comfortable posting the same long diatribe on a Jewish board?

[_Mister Scratch]

To save time I'm with Scottie on this one. He was using the offensive nature of what he was saying to show how offensive it was that others were doing something similar to him.

In other words: "two wrongs make a right"? Come on, Nehor. You are better than this. Hamblin did wrong.

It is obvious in context that he in fact does NOT believe what he is saying or the analogy would by default mean he thinks Mormons deserve it. Whether you think the analogy good or flawed accusing him of Anti-Semitism is ridiculous.

The extensive nature of the comments make me seriously wonder what he believes. (Certainly he seems very, very familiar---disturbingly familiar, even---with all of these nasty slurs and stereotypes.) Using your logic, one could quite easily make a case that Michael Richards' outburst was merely an instance of him trying to engage in social commentary. (I.e., "In context, it's clear he doesn't really think that! He was just trying to make a point about how bothersome certain words were!")

Bill Hamblin did wrong, and he deserves to be held accountable for it.