My point was poorly put, pdx, but “Mormon” just doesn’t have the history or connotation that “Jew” (with or without “boy”) does. So “Mormon boy” is much more like “Christian boy.” The term “Mormon” doesn’t in and of itself mean an insult (Compare “Mormon!” with “Jew!”– different history). I think the “boy” part is more the insult, so I don’t think the parallel is there.

Now, that said, there’s a lot of anti-Mormon sentiment that can be unfair and flippant– whether about polygamy, not drinking, Joseph Smith, racism, etc. Southern Baptists simply can’t preach much to Mormons about racism. But again, the term “Mormon” is not what is wielded as the weapon of insult. That may change, granted, but I don’t think it will.

So, again, my hyperbolic imagery ruined my point to you, which was just to say that history matters: “Mormon” isn’t that close to “Jew” and “honky” isn’t that close to the N-word. Taunting and name-calling are bad precisely because we exercise some judgment about what counts as how hurtful a “name.” Judgment, aka “instruments,” that can be adjusted from making identifications that aren’t close enough for equivalent moral objection.

It seems to me there is some issue here about what is dignified as a “religion.” Mormonism doesn’t get a lot of respect.

And while we’re at it, suppose someone referred to Barack Obama as just……”boy”?

These are interesting questions, but I think the bottom line, if you look back at the post, is that “Mormon boy” actually is not being used any kind of epithet.

I’m not really sure which of my “instruments” I’m supposed to adjust. Just sayin’.

But, until 6 million or so Mormons are slaughtered, they’re fair game for taunting and name calling? That can’t really be what you’re saying. After this Holocaust occurs, you’ll “revisit that”? This is a version of “Why can’t I say the N-word”?

Whatever.

Otherwise, this is the 10,548th version of “Why can’t I say the N-word?”, and that question has yet to generate anything other than bad-faith pearl-clutching.