Double standards

Remove all ads!

I recently attended a conference for my faith in Salt Lake City. It was a spiritual, uplifting experience for me and I left with the desire to be a better person. One thing that bugged me I wanted to share with you all. I grows out of the "cracker" thread.

There were people on the street heckling the Mormons as they walked by, insulting them, telling them they were going to hell, and basically being a nuisance. I'm sure that similar people are found at Catholic rallies, as well as the rallies of other Christian demoninations.

My question, what would happen if such people attended a Muslim meeting? I can guarantee that there would be violence. Then apologists of all stripes would say that it was the hecklers' fault and that all of us should all be more tolerant of differing faiths. At a Buddhist rally the violence is less likely, but the outcry of "Oppression, Racism, Discrimination!" would be loud and vociferous.

While I saw no violence perpetrated against the hecklers, I am not naive enough to think it has never happened, and that merely shows the not-so-surprising fact that Mormons are not perfect, but my question is this -- why is it that some people want tolerance for some faiths and not others? I know for a fact that I would not heckle at the meeting of another faith, and I'm pretty sure that in the modern age my faith does not actively organize such protests.

And before anyone reminds me, yes, I know that the hecklers have a Constitutional right to expression.

 

What bewilders me is that more often than not it's the people who preach tolerance and fight for their own rights that are the most intolerant overall

I know many religions have a belief that they have the duty to preach their religion, but I think that many methods are simply unneccessary, you can relate your religion to others in gentler manners and in conversation rather than forcing it down someones throat and damning them to hell otherwise.

Live and let live I say, 'And it harm none do what ye will.'

 

Hmmm... I wonder if the fact it was in SLC had something to do with it. The Mormon population is probably larger there than anywhere else in the country. I imagine that there might be more tension between Mormons and non-Mormons because of relative numbers. I live in Maryland, where Mormons probably make up less than 1% of the population, and no one heckles Mormons. Heck, I only know a few Mormons, and none of them are native to Maryland.

 

Umm...such people do attend Muslim functions in the US. All the time. And there usually isn't violence. I see no double standard, here.

 

No kidding? Well, learn something new every day. Do the Muslims have any success in labelling their behaviours as racist? Or do they take the Mormon tack, which seems to be that ignoring the hecklers is the best option.

 

Retaliation generally only confirms the hecklers narrow minded views.

It's just unneccessary there is such a complete and utter lack of respect left in this world.

I try to keep my own faith quiet. I get enough mocking and insults from my friends and family without inciting it from complete strangers as well.

 

Yes and no. Yes, SLC was a factor because, and I'm guessing here, LKD would be referring to the semi-annual General Conference of the Church. There are always protesters there. If you were trying to convince people to abandon their faith, why not go where tens or hundreds of thousands of them are going? The problem with that logic is that many of them have traveled to be here, spending hundreds on flights and hotel rooms to be there. If you were willing to make that commitment to your belief, how quick would you be to abandone it because some jerk shouted obscenities at you?

But at the same time, this phenomenon is not limited to SLC. I've been to an annual Event in upstate New York, and both times, there were protesters along the path that members walked from their vehicles to the site. I've seen them at the Groundbreaking and Dedication of the Toronto temple. Anywhere the Mormons put on a high profile event, these people will be there to mock, ridicule and denounce the faith. Everywhere except, of course, disaster areas where the Church is quick to respond with emergency supplies...

Now here's an interesting question: If the biblical passages prohibiting homosexuality can be ruled hate speech, couldn't their protests also constitute hate speech?

 

Gnarff, biblical passages prohibiting homosexuality can't be ruled as hate speech. A passage from a book -even a religious tome - is just a passage from a book. Unless you are using those passages as part of a larger argument to, say, ban deviant sex and stone all gay people on sight...

 

If I were to write a book about the evils of the purple people (for example), it would be probably be construed as hate speech.

but because the Bible is a "holy book" its fine.

 

Really drew? what about this :http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31080

And this : http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/13/hate_speech_laws/index.html

Think again drew, think again

 

Ignored that crucial operator, didn't you, martaug? The passage, itself,is not labeled as hate speech. You also ignored this part of my post:

I was quite clearly pointing out here that it was the context in which you use such verses that determines whether the biblical passage is hate speech. Alone, the passage, like any biblical passage, is just a passage.

You know, you seem so obsessed with "winning" your arguments that you tend to ignore what people actually say; arguing instead with convenient straw-men. This is obnoxious and adds nothing constructive to the debate. Indeed; when you continually employ such techniques, there is really no debate at all.

 

Living where I do, those incidents that martaug mentions are ones that I've thought a lot about. The "context" that some minorities use as an excuse to "be offended" and stifle free speech are utterly and completely stunning. It looks like such things aren't happening in your neck of the woods, Drew, and that's a good deal for you, but the idea of these vocal minorities persecuting others for exercising their free speech scares me, as I think it would scare anyone who cares about freedom.

The case of Ezra Levant is one worth discussing. All a minority has to do ismake an accusation and the whole power and financial resources of the government go into full assault mode to hammer a publisher. The accuser need not lay out a penny. The accused must defend himself and pay for that defense hemself. That's how minorities forced Levant out of business -- they made repeated allegations. Each one was eventually thrown out of court (Levant was vindicated, in other words) but the repeated blow to his finances forced him out of business.

The Alberta Human Rights Commission has proved itself on several occasions to be somewhat Orwellian in it's behaviour -- Human Rights for vocal minorities, stifling of those rights for others. Levant is presently taking them to court, agreeing that he has done everything they accused him of doing, and that none of those things are or were illegal. I think Levant himself is a dork, but he's going to win this one because he never once said anyone should be killed, and I applaud him, because without someone fighting for our rights to free speech, soon we'll lose it and be no better than the communists we feared all through the second half of the last century.

 

Umm, drew , he wasn't trying to ban anything or incite anyone to kill gay people he was just expressing his opinion. I don't understand were you are getting otherwise. Did he state anywhere that he wanted to hurt or demean them?
I'm not trying to be disingenuous, i just like providing examples against what i see as false statements. You said it couldn't be labled as hate speech & i listed examples wher it was. Sorry if that made you mad or seemed deliberately malicious to you, that wasn't my intention.

 

Without seeing the ad, Martaug, there's no way to be sure one way or the other.

 

http://www.eunacom.net/SecularNews.htm
Here you go drew. Now please tell me what about this ad looks like hate speech to you?

 

Nope. In this case, I would have to say I disagree with the court decision. I find the fact that the paper was willing to print the ad somewhat appalling, but don't think it should be illegal.

 

Yeah, actually i was expecting something much worse myself, so when i did find a picture, i was like "WHAT THE !!!!! This is what all the hoopla was about??"
I'm not really sure how this is even majorly offensive let alone hateful

 

Oh, it's pretty damn offensive, not to mention hypocritical. But it isn't hate speech.

 

Thats just it, from my viewpoint, it could be taken as "mildly" offensive but i just don't see "pretty d@mn" offensive.
It reminds me of the Ads i see all the time for some store around here that always has a biblical passage in thier Ad somewhere. They are just expressing their POV.
Do i take offense when the lady at the grocery store tells me to "have a blessed day" or "walk with the Lord", no i don't because she is just expressing glad tidings via her religion POV. Just like i didn't take offense when the gay guy that works at the gym said i had a "perfect little sugar-bowl butt". I have no idea what the he!! that means but he can say whatever he likes about it as i don't see any of his comments as offensive or harrassment.
Why would i, when i will comment on a woman having a spectacular whatever-body-part. As long as i don't say it in a derogatory way, i don't expect her to be offended.

You know they ARE just words.

 

It probably was one of those other demoninations - like the Baptists or something. And they were probably bussed in from Texas. Here, they even fight amongest themselves about which Baptists are "going to hell" and which ones are not. It goes on and on with those guys: "I'm the real Baptist. He's the one going to hell." Whatever.