N/S PTO rules that "Redskins" is derogatory (not a case about the NFL team but likely precedent) (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

I sure hope the Saints team name & decal get to hang around then. I'm fairly certain you could find at least 136 "Freedom From Religion" types that take offense to the use of a religious based name & symbol to represent the city of New Orleans....especially considering they receive tax payer dollars.<O</O
<O</O
Just curious, would you guys (that support the removal of the Redskins name) support changing the team name & symbol of the New Orleans NFL team if someone was able to get 500-1000 signatures to change it, based on offense taken due to its religious connotations?<O</O

It's not a fair analogy at all. The idea isn't that some threshold amount of people find the name vaguely offensive for some reason. The conclusion of the agency here was that the name was disparaging to a group of people. While "Saints" has a religious connotation, it isn't disparaging or derogatory. It doesn't have a negative connotation or history with respect to those it implicates.

The idea isn't some entirely subjective concept of offensiveness. That could never lead to any applicable standard. Magicians could protest the Orlando Magic. Zookeepers and naturalists could protest any team with an animal name.

That's not what is happening here.

 

[Mojomajik9]

Just curious, would you guys (that support the removal of the Redskins name) support changing the team name & symbol of the New Orleans NFL team if someone was able to get 500-1000 signatures to change it, based on offense taken due to its religious connotations?<O</O

I know I'm wasting my time here....but really? Terrible comparison. A saint is not a derogatory name, insult, or racial slur. How is this that hard to understand? If it was the New Orleans Crackers or Coon ***** then yeah, you may have a point but you don't.

Living in Arizona for a few years I can say that whenever I heard the word redskin used towards a Native American it was decidedly not a term of endearment. You can try to jump through hoops to say it's historical or meant in a positive manner but that isn't reality.

 

[V Chip]

Reading people's first attempts at logic is like watching a fawn try to walk for the first time.

Well except that they think they're running gracefully.

 

[crosswatt]

I sure hope the Saints team name & decal get to hang around then. I'm fairly certain you could find at least 136 "Freedom From Religion" types that take offense to the use of a religious based name & symbol to represent the city of New Orleans....especially considering they receive tax payer dollars.<O</O
<O</O
Just curious, would you guys (that support the removal of the Redskins name) support changing the team name & symbol of the New Orleans NFL team if someone was able to get 500-1000 signatures to change it, based on offense taken due to its religious connotations?<O</O

Actually, that was a joke response to an asinine question. My apologies. I should've maybe made that clearer.

But the movement to get rid of Native American symbols as sports mascots is much bigger and older than many in this debate think. Here is a report from the National Congress of American Indians concerning their view of its history.

NCAI Releases Report on History and Legacy of Washington

And let me state one more time that I actively want this name change mostly just to anger Redskin fans. If y'all knew more of them, you would understand.

 

[SystemShock]

ok so what happens to people who grow red skin potatoes.. how can they (PTO) get away with differentiating between redskin vs red skin? or am I just blowing smoke? Seems rather unfair to me that a government agency all of a sudden wants to attack a private business that's been operating under that name for so many years but why are we not surprised.. I'm sure Obama has sent his liberal thugs into the mix to make sure there is a favorable ruling on this.. because God forbid, someone may be offended... even though the ownership and several polls have validated that the brand name was in honor not in detriment of any native american tribe... I'm so sick of government meddling in private industry..

I believe there is a space between the d and the s that makes red skin different from redskin, you know, kind of like putting a space between the e and the r in therapist. There's also the matter of calling a potato a red skin, vs calling an individual a redskin; you know, kind of like calling a female dog a ***** and calling a woman a *****.

 

[billinms]

I'm not passionate either way on this, I think the name is probably offensive and should probably be changed, but the OMG Athiests! And OMG potatoes! posts are highly entertaining. Thank you for brightening my day

 

[simon templar]

It's not a fair analogy at all. The idea isn't that some threshold amount of people find the name vaguely offensive for some reason. The conclusion of the agency here was that the name was disparaging to a group of people. While "Saints" has a religious connotation, it isn't disparaging or derogatory. It doesn't have a negative connotation or history with respect to those it implicates.

The idea isn't some entirely subjective concept of offensiveness. That could never lead to any applicable standard. Magicians could protest the Orlando Magic. Zookeepers and naturalists could protest any team with an animal name.

That's not what is happening here.

Nicely stated. Concise and clear. Nevertheless, there are some who are determined to see some political correctness bogeyman lurking everywhere they look.

 

[wowatkin]

There are two types of people commenting in this thread: those that "get it" and those that likely never will.

Which one are you?

 

[RajCaj80]

It's not a fair analogy at all. The idea isn't that some threshold amount of people find the name vaguely offensive for some reason. The conclusion of the agency here was that the name was disparaging to a group of people. While "Saints" has a religious connotation, it isn't disparaging or derogatory. It doesn't have a negative connotation or history with respect to those it implicates.

The idea isn't some entirely subjective concept of offensiveness. That could never lead to any applicable standard. Magicians could protest the Orlando Magic. Zookeepers and naturalists could protest any team with an animal name.

That's not what is happening here.

I think it is a fair analogy...although I recognize that our society has not yet arrived to the point where religion is as roundly rejected (regardless of context) as physical apperance generalizations, like "Redskins".

This whole conversation got started because a government agency made a decision to reject a NEW company's brand, because our current day society finds the term (regardless of the context it's used in) offensive to a group of people. The question then became, will this set precedent that would require an OLD company's brand (that was given when it was NOT socially inacceptable) to change it...based on current social standards.

Similarly, there have been court rulings (government agency) that have sided with Fredom from Relgion groups, in their efforts to get displays of religious imagery removed from land, or from facilities that receive public funding...on the grounds that they feel any governmental interaction with said religious symbol represents an endorsement of that religion, and therefore offends them because it makes them feel to be second rate citizens, and generalizes that all citizens of the government either should, or do, follow that religion. (You want to piss an Atheist off, tell them the US is based off of Judeo Christian values)

In both cases, the initial context & meaning of those symbols are being ignored, in favor for how people of today interpret them to mean.

One of my good friends is an Atheist, and a warrior for the cause, and would completely disagree with you about Christian religious imagery not being offensive, or negative in historical context. We had to go to bar rules when hanging out because every time religion was discussed, he would bring up the Crusades, all the death & bloodshed at the hands of religion, peodphelia, discrimination, etc. He meets with a group of like-minded people on a regular basis, and there is a nationwide network of similar groups.

Where the analogy ties in is that in both cases, recent legal precedent could be used to force organizations to change, and come into compliance with modern day social standards. Just as the Washington Redskins would have to remove their name because the government recently (and officially) determined that it is offensive in nature, the Saints could potentially be forced to remove their name (or reject public funding) because the government has recently (and officially) determined that no religious speech, or imagery, can be associated with any entity that is either owned or funded with public tax dollars....all brought to you by lawsuits based on people being offended.

 

[superchuck500]

I think it is a fair analogy...although I recognize that our society has not yet arrived to the point where religion is as roundly rejected (regardless of context) as physical apperance generalizations, like "Redskins".

This whole conversation got started because a government agency made a decision to reject a NEW company's brand, because our current day society finds the term (regardless of the context it's used in) offensive to a group of people. The question then became, will this set precedent that would require an OLD company's brand (that was given when it was NOT socially inacceptable) to change it...based on current social standards.

Similarly, there have been court rulings (government agency) that have sided with Fredom from Relgion groups, in their efforts to get displays of religious imagery removed from land, or from facilities that receive public funding...on the grounds that they feel any governmental interaction with said religious symbol represents an endorsement of that religion, and therefore offends them because it makes them feel to be second rate citizens, and generalizes that all citizens of the government either should, or do, follow that religion. (You want to piss an Atheist off, tell them the US is based off of Judeo Christian values)

In both cases, the initial context & meaning of those symbols are being ignored, in favor for how people of today interpret them to mean.

One of my good friends is an Atheist, and a warrior for the cause, and would completely disagree with you about Christian religious imagery not being offensive, or negative in historical context. We had to go to bar rules when hanging out because every time religion was discussed, he would bring up the Crusades, all the death & bloodshed at the hands of religion, peodphelia, discrimination, etc. He meets with a group of like-minded people on a regular basis, and there is a nationwide network of similar groups.

Where the analogy ties in is that in both cases, recent legal precedent could be used to force organizations to change, and come into compliance with modern day social standards. Just as the Washington Redskins would have to remove their name because the government recently (and officially) determined that it is offensive in nature, the Saints could potentially be forced to remove their name (or reject public funding) because the government has recently (and officially) determined that no religious speech, or imagery, can be associated with any entity that is either owned or funded with public tax dollars....all brought to you by lawsuits based on people being offended.

I still think the idea extends the concept far beyond reasonable application . . . however, I get your point and appreciate your cogent response.

 

[RajCaj80]

Nicely stated. Concise and clear. Nevertheless, there are some who are determined to see some political correctness bogeyman lurking everywhere they look.

My comparison to the Saints, and recent court rulings that have established the "separation of church & state" precident is not PC fear mongering....its reality.

The FFR group went after a memorial dedicated to some WWII vets, that had a cross attached to it. The cross (religious symbol) is not religious in context...but historical, referencing the faith system of the WWII vets it was dedicated to. Nothing about the cross compelled anyone to workship Christianity, yet the FFR group has fought it based on a violation of the "separation of church & state" precedent because THEY interpreted it as an endorsement of religion, by their government, NOT a reference to the faith system of the fallen WWII vets....all because the land the cross was on is partially funded by public funds....thereby violating the separation of church & state.

Ticky tacky...YES, but proves my point that people are offended by EVERYTHING, not just phycial characteristic generalizations.

There are dozens of similar cases where crosses on the side of highway (memorials for family members...who were Christian...lost in car accidents) were forced to be removed, prayer banners in schools forced to be removed, pregame prayers forced to stop....all on the basis that group of people were offended.

 

[RajCaj80]

I still think the idea extends the concept far beyond reasonable application . . . however, I get your point and appreciate your cogent response.

I highlighted "reasonable" because that is a subjective word, different from person to person, and how generations of people think & feel over time.

I think if you would have told a group of people in the 1940s - 1950s that the Washington NFL Team would have to retire the "Redskins" name because the government deemed it too offensive to Native Americans, you would have been laughed out of the room (similar to how some in this thread have reacted to my analogy with the Saints)

That said, I'm glad we were finally able to reach a common understanding, regrdless that we disagree on the issue. It was a good debate, and I benefited from reading some of the counter points.

 

[crosswatt]

My comparison to the Saints, and recent court rulings that have established the "separation of church & state" precident is not PC fear mongering....its reality.

The FFR group went after a memorial dedicated to some WWII vets, that had a cross attached to it. The cross (religious symbol) is not religious in context...but historical, referencing the faith system of the WWII vets it was dedicated to. Nothing about the cross compelled anyone to workship Christianity, yet the FFR group has fought it based on a violation of the "separation of church & state" precedent because THEY interpreted it as an endorsement of religion, by their government, NOT a reference to the faith system of the fallen WWII vets....all because the land the cross was on is partially funded by public funds....thereby violating the separation of church & state.

Ticky tacky...YES, but proves my point that people are offended by EVERYTHING, not just phycial characteristic generalizations.

There are dozens of similar cases where crosses on the side of highway (memorials for family members...who were Christian...lost in car accidents) were forced to be removed, prayer banners in schools forced to be removed, pregame prayers forced to stop....all on the basis that group of people were offended.

But that has nothing to do with a team named for a racial slur, and those to whom the slur is intended speaking out against it. Sure, a day could come when the Saints were forced to change their name. Extremely doubtful, but it could occur. But efforts to remove the term Redskins will set no precedence towards that end.

 

[superchuck500]

I highlighted "reasonable" because that is a subjective word, different from person to person, and how generations of people think & feel over time.

I think if you would have told a group of people in the 1940s - 1950s that the Washington NFL Team would have to retire the "Redskins" name because the government deemed it too offensive to Native Americans, you would have been laughed out of the room (similar to how some in this thread have reacted to my analogy with the Saints)

That said, I'm glad we were finally able to reach a common understanding, regrdless that we disagree on the issue. It was a good debate, and I benefited from reading some of the counter points.

True - but courts apply reasonableness standards everyday to govern relationships all around us. Yes, reasonableness is a living concept, it is subject to change over time. But it is a real standard with applicability. It's not one thing to one person and another to someone else. At some point, one of those views is going to cease to be reasonable.

 

[V Chip]

I think it is a fair analogy...although I recognize that our society has not yet arrived to the point where religion is as roundly rejected (regardless of context) as physical apperance generalizations, like "Redskins".

It's not even close.

How is "Saints" derogatory towards any group? Are there a group of very religious people who take offense to being called "Saints?" Was that term ever a term used as an epithet towards the offended group? What you're suggesting re:Saints and Atheists (or any religion that doesn't have "saints") is an outside group finding a term offensive. That's not the same -- it would be akin to Asians saying "Hey calling that team the Redskins offends me (because there isn't a team called the Yellowskins)." And again, the "offends" isn't because of a perceived slight, it is because the word "redskins" is in poor taste, just like we wouldn't have any team called the "Yellowskins" or "Blackskins" or "Whiteskins."

therefore offends them because it makes them feel to be second rate citizens, and generalizes that all citizens of the government either should, or do, follow that religion.

It doesn't offend Atheists (at least the vast majority of them) for those reasons -- it offends civil libertarians because it goes against the First Amendment. Atheists and others are fine when government allows such displays for all religions or non-religions, just when they deliberately restrict it to one specific religion is where it becomes a defacto government endorsement of that religion.

(You want to piss an Atheist off, tell them the US is based off of Judeo Christian values)

You don't piss off Atheists for that -- you just show that you're completely mistaken. the US is not based off any particular religion's principles.

One of my good friends is an Atheist

Just as the Washington Redskins would have to remove their name because the government recently (and officially) determined that it is offensive in nature, the Saints could potentially be forced to remove their name (or reject public funding) because the government has recently (and officially) determined that no religious speech, or imagery, can be associated with any entity that is either owned or funded with public tax dollars....all brought to you by lawsuits based on people being offended.

Nope. The Government cannot force a business to rename itself, no matter the "offense" taken. To think that the government would get involved in either of these issues is silly. And to imply that Saints is offensive to Atheists -- sillier.