Interesting article on the Utah Jazz and Mormons from last year.

[JFFR]

This is satire. Whether its funny is completely relative. I laughed at it because its over the top stupid. If I go back and read it again I laugh again because its still incredibly stupid. I probably have a low IQ because I laugh at stupid things like this, Will Ferrel movies and some posts on this forum.

This is not intended to offend anyone. I dont even know why someone would be offended unless they had a close relative that was killed by a Utah Jazz member. But if it does then I am sorry.

What if you have relatives that were killed because they were Mormon? Its okay to joke about killing the Mormons but not about the holocaust?
My family joined the church back in the 1850-60's, so they didn't face as much persecution as those who were attacked, raped, tarred-and-feathered, etc in Missouri, Ohio and Illinois. But I still feel very close to those stories. I do not appreciate the Onion article at all.


Whether or not you can make fun of Mormons has been quite the hot topic lately. There is an article in the DesNews today about Robin Williams making fun of Mormons and how we shouldn't worry about it. About two weeks ago an evangelical guy wrote an article in the Washington Post saying Mormons should be more upset and that anyone who laughs at the Book of Mormon play should be ashamed of themselves.

In the end, Mormons are more likely to turn the other cheek and say something like "Any publicity for the church is good publicity."

But I'm starting to get sick of it. I spend a great deal of time trying to be politically correct and trying not offending anyone, why should others be able to trample on my religion?


Here's the links:
Robin Williams Mormon Bashing?
https://www.deseretnews.com/article...ms-Mormon-bashing-Keep-it-under-your-hat.html

Amos and Andy and The Book of Mormon
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-book-of-mormon/2011/06/15/AGRlHPWH_blog.html

"This new play will pander to our prejudices and treat our Mormon neighbors as we would never wish to be treated. Some Americans will allow it to confirm unthinking prejudice, while cowardly Mormons will applaud it hoping for crumbs of respectability.
Meanwhile the actual Mormons in our midst will keep paying taxes, making strong families with children, and dying to protect the rights of a decayed and decadent theater “elite.”"

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

What if you have relatives that were killed because they were Mormon? Its okay to joke about killing the Mormons but not about the holocaust?
My family joined the church back in the 1850-60's, so they didn't face as much persecution as those who were attacked, raped, tarred-and-feathered, etc in Missouri, Ohio and Illinois. But I still feel very close to those stories. I do not appreciate the Onion article at all.


Whether or not you can make fun of Mormons has been quite the hot topic lately. There is an article in the DesNews today about Robin Williams making fun of Mormons and how we shouldn't worry about it. About two weeks ago an evangelical guy wrote an article in the Washington Post saying Mormons should be more upset and that anyone who laughs at the Book of Mormon play should be ashamed of themselves.

In the end, Mormons are more likely to turn the other cheek and say something like "Any publicity for the church is good publicity."

But I'm starting to get sick of it. I spend a great deal of time trying to be politically correct and trying not offending anyone, why should others be able to trample on my religion?


Here's the links:
Robin Williams Mormon Bashing?
https://www.deseretnews.com/article...ms-Mormon-bashing-Keep-it-under-your-hat.html

Amos and Andy and The Book of Mormon
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-book-of-mormon/2011/06/15/AGRlHPWH_blog.html

"This new play will pander to our prejudices and treat our Mormon neighbors as we would never wish to be treated. Some Americans will allow it to confirm unthinking prejudice, while cowardly Mormons will applaud it hoping for crumbs of respectability.
Meanwhile the actual Mormons in our midst will keep paying taxes, making strong families with children, and dying to protect the rights of a decayed and decadent theater “elite.”"

Who is trampling on your religion? Is anyone threatening your right to worship as you see fit? Let's face it, Mormons have some beliefs that are, well, kind of out there. An expectation that some people wont' find such beliefs ludicrous, and exercise their Constitutional right to satirize, criticize them is very unreasonable.

I don't get the expectation of some religious believers that their 'faith' is exempt from criticism, satire, etc. All, and I repeat ALL, beliefs, ideas, etc. are and should be subject to scrutiny, criticism, satire, etc. No exemption for religion. Religious beliefs have profound consequences for believers and non-believers alike and thus I and everyone else has every right in the world to criticize--that's one of the critical bulwarks that helps keep us free from religious oppression.

Sure there's a balance, and sure we should strive to be polite where possible in our discourse, but I'm sorry, no free passes for Mormons, or Catholics, or Baptists, or Muslims, etc.

Oh and by the way, I have a number of gay family members and friends who have suffered significantly under the intolerance of the LDS religion, including leaders and lay membership. Plus I take great offense at the LDS Church's activism to deny Gays what I consider to be their civil rights. (I suspect you don't agree, I'm not looking for a debate on this topic, that's just what I believe.) So, your persecution complex rings a bit hollow to me. Go cry somewhere else.

Edit to add the following: I am not anti-religion, boiled down what I'm saying is that religion ought not be treated any differently than any other belief system. Same scrutiny, same criticism, same satire, etc. Just because a belief is 'faith-based,' this does not grant it any kind of special treatment.

 

[Hantlers]

Or substitute "Harlem Globetrotters" for "Utah Jazz" and "Kill whitey!" for "Kill the mormons". Same with the Utah Jazz "Gone Fishin'" graphics. They think it's funny to include a reference to plural marriage. For some reason they think it's okay to be disrespectful to the LDS, yet they are being just as bigoted as if they had a black player eating fried chicken and watermelon, because we all know "stereotypes are funny because they're true". It's the same mentality as bullying - it's okay to poke fun at the LDS because they're small and different and can't fight back.

[For the record, I am not LDS]

The LDS is small?? They're very rich, and I wouldn't say that they can't fight back...seems like they have a lot of tv ads out there promoting themselves. Not that there's anything wrong with that, just point it out.

 

[JFFR]

Thanks for replying.

I have no problem with scrutiny, criticism and a level of satire. It is when they mock sacred things or make threats that I have a problem. There is a line that should not be crossed. For some reason it's socially okay to cross that line with Mormons (as demonstrated by The Book of Mormon play, which despite its obscene nature won the most Tony Awards.)

But I didn't mean to sound like I was whining. I am well aware that it is nothing compared to the suffering other people have had to deal with (its just that usually the people who are causing that suffering are ignorant and poor examples of humanity. I guess I get upset because its a pretty well educated crowd, people who should know better, that likes to take shots at Mormons.)


As far as the homosexual issue- I am not alone when I say I hope and pray that changes will happen in the way members of the Church treat homosexuals. In talking about issues like Prop 8 I have earned a greater respect for the gay community. I think most Mormons have. Atleast most of the people I talk to really struggle with the issue (and a lot of those people are stake presidents and bishops.) I have seen a change in the way we are treating our gay neighbors and I feel it is positive. I think Jon Huntsman's immediate interaction with the gay rights leaders of the nation is an example of this. Hopefully some of the people who respect Jon Huntsman but have been ignorant will learn from this. (It is true that we are pretty firm in our definition of a family, I don't expect that to change anytime soon, but we can still extend rights and respect to homosexuals. Anytime I see my friends or members of the church being disrespectful, I go after the same way I'd go after the people who wrote this article for the Onion.)

 

[LogGrad98]

How is that hate speech? If that's your definition I'd say it's a pretty broad one.

As for the Onion piece, it is a weak effort at humor from a source that is usually much funnier than that. Even best satirists sometimes misfire.

No it is pretty much within the standard definition of hate speech.

Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.[1][2]

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.[3] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#cite_note-2

I concede it is not what would be popularly viewed as hate speech, which is why I said substitute in another protected class and see what reaction you get. If the reaction would be worse if you substitute in a different protected class, say blacks, in place of mormons, then I think that would qualify as hate speech. And if it is for blacks, then why not when directed at mormons?

So I guess you are saying that the exact same "joke" directed at gays or muslims or blacks would be equally as benign as it is supposed to be directed at mormons? You think that exact passage substituting blacks in place of mormons would be considered no worse at all?

I guess there our opinions would differ.

 

[Fishsticks]

This article is retarded. And the op is equally retarded for putting this here. Shouldnt this be moved already?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Thanks for replying.

I have no problem with scrutiny, criticism and a level of satire. It is when they mock sacred things or make threats that I have a problem. There is a line that should not be crossed. For some reason it's socially okay to cross that line with Mormons (as demonstrated by The Book of Mormon play, which despite its obscene nature won the most Tony Awards.)

But I didn't mean to sound like I was whining. I am well aware that it is nothing compared to the suffering other people have had to deal with (its just that usually the people who are causing that suffering are ignorant and poor examples of humanity. I guess I get upset because its a pretty well educated crowd, people who should know better, that likes to take shots at Mormons.)


As far as the homosexual issue- I am not alone when I say I hope and pray that changes will happen in the way members of the Church treat homosexuals. In talking about issues like Prop 8 I have earned a greater respect for the gay community. I think most Mormons have. Atleast most of the people I talk to really struggle with the issue (and a lot of those people are stake presidents and bishops.) I have seen a change in the way we are treating our gay neighbors and I feel it is positive. I think Jon Huntsman's immediate interaction with the gay rights leaders of the nation is an example of this. Hopefully some of the people who respect Jon Huntsman but have been ignorant will learn from this. (It is true that we are pretty firm in our definition of a family, I don't expect that to change anytime soon, but we can still extend rights and respect to homosexuals. Anytime I see my friends or members of the church being disrespectful, I go after the same way I'd go after the people who wrote this article for the Onion.)

Thank you for your reply. I am passionate about few things but one of them is civil rights (and of course the Jazz). If there is a change it in my experience hasn't filtered down, as witnessed by enthusiastic response among leaders and rank and file to promote Prop 8. But I appreciate your sincere comments and I wish there were more fair-minded people like you.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

No it is pretty much within the standard definition of hate speech.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#cite_note-2

I concede it is not what would be popularly viewed as hate speech, which is why I said substitute in another protected class and see what reaction you get. If the reaction would be worse if you substitute in a different protected class, say blacks, in place of mormons, then I think that would qualify as hate speech. And if it is for blacks, then why not when directed at mormons?

So I guess you are saying that the exact same "joke" directed at gays or muslims or blacks would be equally as benign as it is supposed to be directed at mormons? You think that exact passage substituting blacks in place of mormons would be considered no worse at all?

I guess there our opinions would differ.

You are 100% correct that I think it's an entirely different situation. I think I've made myself clear, beliefs and ideas, and people who espouse them, fair game. Race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, not fair game.

Of course if it is true hate speech, the real kind, not the silly watered down definition you espouse, then that's different, and we will be in agreement. (no it doesn't remotely fit within the definition)

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

This article is so non-funny that if it weren't for the "onion" in the URL there's no way anybody would have even known it was supposed to be a joke. If there were some shred of humor or satire I'd get the arguments of these people who are supporting it, but all I see is a pathetic excuse to suggest that people be killed just for being members of a group that others may disagree with. The Onion editors should be embarrassed of themselves for publishing this sort of crap.

 

[JFFR]

@jimmy eat jazz- I'm a little bit curious about your train of thought with your conversation with LogGrad. How is it that he can post a definition that shows that the law defines hate speech as involving religions and then you say, "well, I don't think it involves beliefs and ideas"?

He posted the law. It involves religion. Religious people should be protected. I think you need to change your perspective, be a little more open minded.

 

[Dr. Jones]

This thread went from dumb original post, to everyone (for the most part) agreeing the article wasn't funny, to .. whiny.

 

[LogGrad98]

You are 100% correct that I think it's an entirely different situation. I think I've made myself clear, beliefs and ideas, and people who espouse them, fair game. Race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, not fair game.

Of course if it is true hate speech, the real kind, not the silly watered down definition you espouse, then that's different, and we will be in agreement. (no it doesn't remotely fit within the definition)

We get it. Regardless of the law, if JEJ thinks it is worth disparaging, then disparage away. Sure sounds like a reasonable standard. Same one used by the KKK by the way.

If it applies to one protected class then under the law it applies to them all. Really, that part is not open for debate. You can certainly espouse your opinion that it is fine to discriminate or disparage a group because of their religion if you don't like it, but it does not fit within the framework of the law. I am sure glad you didn't make the laws regarding discrimination.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

@jimmy eat jazz- I'm a little bit curious about your train of thought with your conversation with LogGrad. How is it that he can post a definition that shows that the law defines hate speech as involving religions and then you say, "well, I don't think it involves beliefs and ideas"?

He posted the law. It involves religion. Religious people should be protected. I think you need to change your perspective, be a little more open minded.

I'll make this my last post on the subject. I suspect people are tiring of it, for that I apologize.

Here's the critical portion of the definition he cited

"In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group."

Satire, or most of it, does not rise to this level. More my point is that
Ideas' and 'beliefs' are fair game. How does criticism of ideas fit within this definition of hate speech? Can you imagine a truly free society in which criticism of ideas was restricted? Religious ideas have profound consequences for believer and unbeliever alike. Any cursory review of history will make this clear. So by what logic do we then privilege religious ideas from the same scrutiny, criticism, etc we apply to other ideas. In a free society this also allows mocking, it may be deemed tasteless or bad form, but that goes hand in hand with freedom of speech.

As for the people who espouse ideas, they are IMO fair game for same level of scrutiny, criticism, etc. But once such criticism pf people, not ideas, crosses the line above, then I am in full agreement with LogGrad and you. (granted it's not always clear where criticism of ideas ends and inappropriate hate speech toward people begins)

Race, ethnicity, sexual orientation are benign inherent traits that affect no one so they are treated differently.

Ideas affect people, including religious one, so they are fair game.

Sorry for hijacking thread. Its been a slow week basketball wise.

 

[LogGrad98]

This thread went from dumb original post, to everyone (for the most part) agreeing the article wasn't funny, to .. whiny.

So stop whining.

 

[Dr. Jones]

So stop whining.

Good one, Log.

 

[oyster]

OK....I have learned my lesson. I will not post such stupid **** like this again (even though I laughed at it because it was soooo stupid). I underestimated that so many people would be offended by its context or content. I thought people would have taken it as it was meant to be and that is a retarded article.

You can delete, move, ban me for life or whatever needs to be done. I did not mean for this to become a religious or cultural debate.

I wish the NBA would get the CBA resolved and we can just talk about how great the Jazz will be.

 

[Bodhi]

Color me offended. As a graduate of Yale University (class of 2000) I majored in Philanthropy with a minor in Good Humor, and I can tell you, with the most pure of conviction, that this flies in the face of all that our four fathers (yes, "4 fathers".......kind of like 3 Men and A Baby, minus the baby......plus one more man. LOL at Steve Guttenberg......am I right?!?) fought so valiantly for.

With this article its almost like the British won. ****ing Obama.