Bigotry

Tebren · Post by **Tebren** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 2:54 pm

Written October 7, 2003

© 2003 Bob Lonsberry

Today's Column
HOW ABOUT TOLERANCE FOR ALL?
Some Muslims wear sacred clothing.
So do some Jews. The same for Native Americans and some Hindus and others.
Bits of cloth or string that are physical reminders of God and his bond with man. Sacred things, really. Prayer shawls or beads, head coverings or aprons, medicine bags. Things that are special to people, honorable and good things.
Things that should be respected.
One would not, for example, rip the yarmulke from a Jewish man's head and mockingly fling it like a Frisbee. Nor would you wear a yarmulke as a spoof or joke. Certainly not as an attack on Judaism. Not as a mockery of Jews and their faith.
Yet something like that happened this weekend.
In front of thousands of people in one of America's great cities. An act of religious desecration, bigotry and discrimination.
And the perpetrators boast of it to the press.
It was in Salt Lake City. And it was against Mormons.
And somehow that makes it acceptable.
Here's what happened.
Over the weekend, Mormons gathered for what they call "general conference." It is a twice-a-year meeting that draws tens of thousands to Salt Lake City and is broadcast around the world to an audience in the low millions. It is a worship service. It is sacred and special to them.
And each year it is protested.
So-called Christian evangelists stand on the sidewalk outside the Mormon meetings and shout rude condemnations of the religion to the thousands who pass in and out. It is an odd spectacle, unmatched in American society. To think that crude protesters would stand outside a mosque or synagogue, or a cathedral or church, and harass worshippers and denounce a religion is just beyond the pale.
It is an act of indefensible religious bigotry.
And yet it happens, and is often applauded and boasted of.
This column started with a mention of sacred clothing. Well, Mormons have sacred clothing, too. Like a variety of religious garments, it is worn against the skin. It is a type of underclothing. They don't talk about it. They don't show it to people. They keep it sacred. Like virtually all religious clothing, it is a specific reminder of promises made to God. Like virtually all religious clothing, it is precious and significant to the people who wear it.
Well, Sunday the evangelists had some.
Maybe six guys, Baptist ministers, mocking the Mormons as they came out of a meeting. Shouting rude things to people coming out of church.
And they had these sacred garments.
And one supposed minister of the gospel was wiping his backside with them, laughingly treating them like toilet paper as thousands who held them sacred walked by.
Can you see that being done to a prayer shawl in front of a synagogue, or a prayer rug in front of a mosque?
Wouldn't that sacrilege be publicly denounced by all decent people?
He also draped them around his neck, and pretended over and over to sneeze into them. And loudly blow his nose into them. While families and children walked past.
Stop for a moment.
Lay aside what you do or don't think about Mormons. But was that right? More to the point, was that Christian? Is that what Jesus would do? Is that what any decent person of any faith would do?
Absolutely not. It is wrong, bigoted and un-American. No matter who it's against.
It was an affront. It smelled like the bigotry of the Klan and the Third Reich. And yet the ministers boasted of it to reporters and posed for pictures and no one in the Utah or American religious, media or civil rights communities has condemned it.
And, oddly, two worshippers were taken away in handcuffs.
One man, dressed in his church clothes, walked past in the crowd, saw the insults and desecrations, and grabbed the piece of clothing. To protect it. He was charged with robbery and taken to jail.
Half an hour later another worshipper similarly grabbed a molested garment and attempted to take it away. He was unsuccessful and waiting police stepped in to take him into custody.
And that's the world we live in.
You are harangued for your beliefs and arrested for defending them.
And the bigotry of our society is illustrated by how selectively we practice tolerance.

- by Bob Lonsberry © 2003

Mustafa · Post by **Mustafa** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:35 pm

Any form of bigotry is not acceptable. Any person with any level of intellect should see that everyone is free to practice religion as they wish, practice culture as they wish, BE as they wish, etc. Certain religions are so un-accepting of others, and doing as such are really creating an oxymoron. Religion is supposed to be about one thing, and that one thing no matter what religion it is, is a higher power. When people finally learn to respect other's feelings and values, then maybe just maybe, our society will finally be able to move on....these prejudices along with so many others are what holds our society on the plateau it currently has leveled off at.

Shazam0 · Post by **Shazam0** » Mon Oct 13, 2003 10:20 pm

People that hate others, will be hated themselves. People that practice tolerance to others, will be given tolerance by others.

Lijah Reaper · Post by **Lijah Reaper** » Tue Oct 14, 2003 5:45 pm

It's important to separate ideological differences (and a desire to spread information that supports your side) and ad hominim attacks.

The latter is actually biggotry. The former is perfectly acceptable. Think about the guys who walk around with big plaques that say stuff like "The End Is Near". Do they hate individual people? Or are they trying to spread a message which really doesn't directly harm anybody?

I think that the location was deliberately obnoxious, however. This is equivalent to the "pro-life" demonstrators walking around abortion clinics. If you are going to protest stuff, there are less dangerous places to do it. Of course a protest is always most obnoxious if they are protesting what is close by, unfortunately this is also the best means of getting the message across.

When protests become violent, what they are doing is confusing the thing that they are protesting (an idea, an activity) with people themselves. And then the whole point is lost, it has degenerated.

Anyway, I think that anti-Mormonism protesters are a fine idea, as long as they stay on public property, don't block cars, etc. They also shouldn't be violent, standard legal protest type things.

These people were totally out of control though and showed themselves to be religious bigots.

Lonagan Nash · Post by **Lonagan Nash** » Tue Oct 14, 2003 6:23 pm

This is a free speech issue. The protesters were well within their rights to be doing what they were doing no matter how stupid their message was. police were even on hand to prevent it from getting out of hand. The Mormons were suckered in to assaulting the protesters so they were hauled off to jail. Stupid move there. The best thing to do when confronted with antagonistic protesters is to ignore them. Then they look just like asses rather than victims whos' right to free speech was infringed.

Golda · Post by **Golda** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 5:51 am

It's interesting how God does not force me to be objective about any religion.

Mustafa · Post by **Mustafa** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 6:17 am

Lonagan Nash wrote:This is a free speech issue. The protesters were well within their rights to be doing what they were doing no matter how stupid their message was. police were even on hand to prevent it from getting out of hand. The Mormons were suckered in to assaulting the protesters so they were hauled off to jail. Stupid move there. The best thing to do when confronted with antagonistic protesters is to ignore them. Then they look just like asses rather than victims whos' right to free speech was infringed.

Yes, free speech is one thing, but issues like this deal with a slippery slope. The bigger question is: WHEN do we draw the line? White supremacists make minorities feel like dirt when they spew their filth around, in that case it is infringing on the right of other people to pursue liberty and happiness, one person's right should not overrule someone else's right. I agree that protesting should be allowed, but when it even starts to become obnoxious and degrading, there should be a line drawn. There is a huge difference between standing outside an event with signs that read "Say no to Moronism" or something like that, and people standing outside descracing the entire religion. Once again, people are free to practice their own religion, there is no reason the right to speech should impend upon them. It is kind of ironic that Christians which so long ago came here to escape religious persecution are alienating other people in the same way.

So-called Christians especially should not be protesting in this manner....it really sickens me how so many Christians preach one thing and do yet another....it just boggles my mind. I don't even believe in God persay and I wouldn't go around mocking someone like that.

snaazex · Post by **snaazex** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 8:39 am

Well...

Usually I don't bother with threads like this one since I know my own values and views and therefore I don't really want to get tangled up in what others think. I'm bored at work now and can hopefully contribute here in a meaningful way.

If I may lift this to a higher perspective for a second? As I see it, this is a question of what is "norm/standard" for each person. These can be based on religion or society or friends or twisted personal standards or whatever. My point is that everyone has a different starting point for a discussion like this.

Examples. In Namibia they sentenced a lady to death by stoning. In their country that is apparantly normal/standard. By their religion it is a perfectly legitamate punishment. When we in our part of the world see this on TV we are outraged. "How can they be so cruel?!", "We have to stop it!!". For them this is normal, for us it is not.

Other examples are honor slayings of girls (palesitinans, kurdish, indian), wearing of a burka (Afganistan), ritual suicide (Japan), scarring to prove manhood, sowing shut girl's genital area (Africa) etc etc etc. The list is long....

So my point I'm trying to make is - why even bother? In the "west" we allways view these things as "they are wrong - we are right". Because of our beliefs. People arround the globe will allways be horrified/apauled/scared of what is not "normal/standard" in their own society. Hence conflicts will allways be arround. Hence pointless discussion.

So saying "All forms of bigotry is wrong" is pointless. A bit spiced up here I admit to that, but I have to drive home my point. I don't mean to offend or flame or be a wet blanket. I've had enough of these conversations, both sober and drunk, to know they never end in a good way... so I think I'll stop here....

Lonagan Nash · Post by **Lonagan Nash** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 12:59 pm

Mustafa wrote:
Yes, free speech is one thing, but issues like this deal with a slippery slope. The bigger question is: WHEN do we draw the line? White supremacists make minorities feel like dirt when they spew their filth around, in that case it is infringing on the right of other people to pursue liberty and happiness, one person's right should not overrule someone else's right. I agree that protesting should be allowed, but when it even starts to become obnoxious and degrading, there should be a line drawn. There is a huge difference between standing outside an event with signs that read "Say no to Moronism" or something like that, and people standing outside descracing the entire religion. Once again, people are free to practice their own religion, there is no reason the right to speech should impend upon them. It is kind of ironic that Christians which so long ago came here to escape religious persecution are alienating other people in the same way.

"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Hapiness" aren't rights as protected in the Constitution. They are simply ideals espoused in the Declaration of Independence. If those 3 virtues were in fact law then there would be no death penalty, no prison, and drugs would be legal. Organizations, such as the KKK are reprehensible fringe groups, but just because they represent something awful doesn't mean that they shouldn't be afforded the same basic rights as everyone else in this country, as long as they don't overstep those rights and engage in criminal activities. I remember a funny byline from the Onion which said, "ACLU defends Neo-Nazis rights to burn down ACLU headquarters."

Lines are drawn when protesters become obnoxious or lewd. There are laws for public decency and such. You say that ones right to practice their religion shouldn't be impeded by ones right to free speech. I say that the religion you practice shouldn't have anything to do with what I have to say about that religion. I liken this to flag burning. While I personally don't like it I would not stop you if you felt so emotional about something as to hate the country that gave you the right to speak out in that way. Now if I were to club you over the head because you were burning my flag, I would be the one in error. Placing the rights of one individual or group over the rights of another individual or group is an even more slipery slope than the one you mention.

Mustafa wrote:So-called Christians especially should not be protesting in this manner....it really sickens me how so many Christians preach one thing and do yet another....it just boggles my mind. I don't even believe in God persay and I wouldn't go around mocking someone like that.

Perhaps you should adopt my personal outlook. Untill they prove otherwise, people are stupid. If you follow this guideline human behavior will cease to be surprising.

snaazex · Post by **snaazex** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 2:01 pm

Listen to Lonagan, he knows what he is talking about. That is my personal conviction. It has been proven time and time and time again to be right.

Mustafa · Post by **Mustafa** » Wed Oct 15, 2003 4:37 pm

I agree with you on some points, religion is one thing. When dealing with racial bigotry I don't share the same views however. Being a so-called 'minority' myself, I know how it feels to be looked down upon, mocked, etc, for being who I am. I cannot change my race. Others can change religion. So once again, while I do agree with your points on this case persay, I definitely do not agree with them when it comes to Neo-Nazi groups and the like. Free speech or not, no one should be allowed to publically humiliate a member of the other race. Do it deep in the woods like the KKK, or do it in someone's house; nothing more.

Shazam0 · Post by **Shazam0** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 9:26 pm

After more thought on the subject I have a lot to say about this:

People like to spew "free speech", blah, blah, blah and they usually don't even know what they're talking about. Free speech in this country (as originally intended by our forefathers), did not give someone the right to be crude, imposing, degrading to others. Free speech was included to protect against political oppression. It was intended to be speech aimed at the government not at religion, etc.

People who claim to support these ridiculous people's right to free speech are fooling themselves and are idiots in my opinion. I have a right to walk the side walk and not be yelled at. I have a right to walk between church buildings and not be degraded. I have a right to privacy and decency. These individuals took that right from me as well as all other members who were subjected to it. They feel their "rights" supercede our rights. Their cause is more just than our cause. These people intentionally targeted an area that would inflame. They're intent was to never have a peaceable demonstration. Their intent was to cause a disturbance. We have a right to walk the streets in peace...they intentionally took that right from us. Then have the audacity to scream when they think their rights have been violated because someone wished to reclaim their right to be on the street without offense.

And for the record the Utah State Code has laws against hate crimes. The actual law is as follows:

76-3-203.3. Penalty for hate crimes -- Civil rights violation.

As used in this section:
(1) "Primary offense" means those offenses provided in
Subsection (5).
(2) A person who commits any primary offense with the intent to
intimidate or terrorize another person or with reason to believe that
his action would intimidate or terrorize that person is guilty of a
third degree felony.
(3) "Intimidate or terrorize" means an act which causes the
person to fear for his physical safety or damages the property of that
person or another. The act must be accompanied with the intent to cause
a person to fear to freely exercise or enjoy any right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the state or by the Constitution or laws of the
United States.

snaazex · Post by **snaazex** » Fri Oct 17, 2003 9:28 am

Did my post here a few hours ago just disappear?

Lonagan Nash · Post by **Lonagan Nash** » Fri Oct 17, 2003 1:45 pm

Shazam0 wrote: People like to spew "free speech", blah, blah, blah and they usually don't even know what they're talking about. Free speech in this country (as originally intended by our forefathers), did not give someone the right to be crude, imposing, degrading to others. Free speech was included to protect against political oppression. It was intended to be speech aimed at the government not at religion, etc.

How is it that the words "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech," applies only to political discussion? It seems odd that one would use one ammendment to counter someone elses rights which are protected in that same ammendment. The ammendment gives one the right to practice the religion of their choice and it gives one the right to say anything one wants about that religion. Time and again the Supreme Court has made laws (which is kinda funny concidering the wording of the ammendment) respecting the freedom of speech which have nothing to with political speech. They even respected the KKK's freedom of speech when they wanted to adopt a highway. There are however limits, especially when it comes to speech plus action.

As to citing a hate crimes law, the protestors may have never commited the primary offence needed for that classification, I assume that they had the prior paperwork to protest, either way the police didn't do anything about it. Now I'm not saying that the protestors didn't do anything wrong. Free Speech is limited when it comes to "fighting words." The protesters indeed were deliberately inciting the Mormons, which is in fact a criminal act per Lewis v. City of New Orleans (1974) which defined "fighting words" as anything abusive and insulting, under face-to-face circumstances likely to provoke an immediate violent response. There must be some conduct (spitting, moving one step closer, pointing a finger) along with speech that is expressed violently. The police were clearly in err for not stopping this. Yes this counters my first post in this thread but further research pointed out my error.

Personally I can't stand the idea of "hate crimes" as seperate provisions under the law. It seems to me that it punishes people for ignorance. If I assault someone because I want their money or I assault someone because I don't like their religion the result is the same.

Shazam0 wrote:People who claim to support these ridiculous people's right to free speech are fooling themselves and are idiots in my opinion.

I respect your right to call me an idiot.

Mustafa · Post by **Mustafa** » Sat Oct 18, 2003 6:59 am

I wouldn't call them idiots persay, but I would say that it would be healthy to question the real motives behind their actions and their beliefs of these things.

Vistilantus · Post by **Vistilantus** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:01 pm

Not believing in ANY form of religion myself allows me to be open minded and respect other peoples beliefs.

My girlfriend's mother is a devout christian who has no tolerance for ANY thing that she does not believe in.

i.e: if she doesn't believe in it, everyone else MUST think the exact same, otherwise, it's like all out war.

I prefer to live a simple life, I know that death is part of life and have no need for the afterlife or a god of any kind.

So i`ll part on this piece of information:

Most wars fought in the world are started because of religion or religious differances.

~Visti

-note: this is my view and not intended to offend anyone, if i have offended in my post, i apologise.

Shazam0 · Post by **Shazam0** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:40 pm

This is really an unfortunate event. On the one hand a religous group gathers to hear thier leaders teach them. The other group has gathered to _save_ those who've been lied to.

This second group are full of zeal. They _know_ thier doing the right thing, that which thier God has commanded them to do. Their actions come from thier belif and thier fanatism. In order to save the mormons attending this conference they know they have to _shock_ them out of thier belief system. So deliberate inciting actions are taken, not to hurt or to damage anyone rather to 'save' and reclaim souls from the hell thier currently in.

So both groups think thier doing what is morally right. Its just unfortunate.

As for hate crimes... heard and read many debates on this issue, becuase in my undergraduate a couple of white boys beat someone and blooded him pretty bad, didnt take any money, or clothes or anything. Just attacked this other student. The victim was walking home when the other students attacked him. The school paper had letters to the editor comment on hate crimes and we as a student body took it upon ourselves to pass judgment on these criminals. We played with thier fates and the 'wrongness' of their actions for a couple of months. Hate crimes are differnt then 'normal' crimes due to the intentions, and motivations. If i'm motivated to kill for freedom or because my general has orderd me to, then its ok. If my motivation to kill is sadistick then its wrong... this is a dramatic example, but the point is our motivations for criminal activity does matter, and effects how we should be punished.