We caught this little gem on the news last night, and again on the radio this morning. Apparently, a New Jersey assemblyman has had it up to here (imagine our hands marking off a point very near the tops of our heads) with hockey's most evil team, the New Jersey Devils. From USA Today:

[Assemblyman Craig Stanley] is leading the charge to retire the name 'Devils' after 23 years and three Stanley Cup championships and replace it with a name chosen in a statewide competition.

"This is an age where symbolism is very important," said Stanley, whose resolution to rename the team is to be introduced in the Assembly next month. "With the team coming to a new city, Newark, I thought it was a good time to do it."

...

"I've always cringed when people say they're going to see the Devils," said Stanley, a deacon at Newark's Bethlehem Missionary Baptist Church. "The merchandise, the paraphernalia is based on the actual demonic devil. Personally, it causes a little bit of an issue with me."

Wait, he's a deacon, which means he's...Christian? What are the odds of that?

Let's start from the top. The name of the team is a direct reference to the Jersey Devil, a mythical creature that doesn't roam the Pine Barrens in southern New Jersey in much the same way that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't swim about in Scotland's Loch Ness. It is not a reference to the Christian Antichrist (who doesn't skulk about in the Christian Hell roasting non-Christians for all eternity). But this little tidbit of fact won't derail Assemblyman Stanley.

Setting aside the well-known fact laid out above, who cares if the team is named after the Biblical Devil? It's a sports team, not a church group, and there are plenty of sports teams with variations of "demon" and "devil" in their names because the name evokes images of ass-kicking one's opponents. What, exactly, is the problem? Do these names lead to higher incidences of satanism among fans? Do the people who officiate for these teams report higher rates of temptation to sin? No. It just offends this narrowminded prick, so it has to be changed.

This is the same politically correct nonsense that actually caused a number of college teams to change their names because they offended Native Americans — think St. John's, Stanford, and others. Our Irish friends aren't offended by the Notre Dame Fighting Irish — even though their mascot is a bar-brawling Mick — because they realize that it's just a mascot for a sports team and not an insult. Why is this so hard for so many people to understand? We'll also mention that the Stanford Cardinal, which appears to be a flaccid pine tree of some sort, does not at all evoke images of ass-kicking. Apparently, that's what a "non-offensive" mascot does for you. Way to go, Stanford.

Also, since the Two Percent Company actually has some geographic representation in the state of New Jersey, we can attest to the fact that the state has not yet fixed every one of the actual problems facing state residents. Car insurance comes to mind. And highway infrastructure. Also that nasty chemical smell that triggers your gag reflex and makes your eyes tear up on the Pulaski Skyway (and on much of the New Jersey Turnpike for that matter). But we digress.

According to Lou Lamoriello, CEO of the Devils:

"I can assure you the Devils name will never change, and I think there are more important things to be thinking about than something that will never happen," team CEO Lou Lamoriello said. "It's who we are and what we want to be."

Well good. After all, he owns the team. We'll also mention that one of the "more important things" might be actually having a hockey season and making it profitable. Otherwise, this is all merely academic.

This is just one more example of the plethora of religious nutbags who spend half of their time whining about how atheists are on a mission to remove all mention of Christianity from the country because they find it offensive, and the other half of their time on a mission to wipe out all mention of anything that they find offensive to their brand of Christianity.

And people ask why we find it necessary to mock morons like this. Go figure.

I agree this is stupid, and that sports mascots are on the whole innocuous. I would however make an exception for the Redskins, which is a startlingly stupid name for a team. If Notre Dame were nicknamed The Drunken Wife-Beating Micks the irish might be offended...Native Americans are justifiably offended by the name Redskins.

Although, hilariously, a minor league baseball team in Georgia was once called the Crackers. How I would have loved to have seen their mascot.

Do we think "Redskins" is a stupid name for a team? Perhaps, but that's irrelevant. We also think that the Stanford Cardinal is a stupid name, and that offends about as few people as possible (notice we didn't say "nobody" since we're sure that someone is offended by that stupid, flaccid tree). We also checked with the Irish member of our group and he let us know that he would not be at all offended by the Notre Dame Drunken Wife-Beating Micks — in fact, he thinks it's pretty funny. He also freely admits that some Irish people would be offended by that name. So it isn't really "the Irish" who would be upset by this, but rather some subset of the Irish population (which we're pretty sure is what you were talking about, Ed). And that's always the case with issues like this one — you can't please everyone, and you shouldn't try.

The classification of being "justifiably offended" is something that can be argued (hey, we aren't offended by much of anything, even things that people might think we could be justifiably offended by). What is "justifiably offensive" to one person may be perfectly acceptable to another, and vice versa. It's all subjective. For our part, we don't think that Native American Indians are justifiably offended by the Redskins. For your part, Ed, you do. Which of us is "right"? Neither. On this issue, we have opinions that sit on opposite ends of the spectrum and no one answer would satisfy both of us. The same is true of Assemblyman Stanley who would argue that he is justifiably offended by the New Jersey Devils, although we completely disagree with him. Where does this leave us? Well, the politically correct answer of "let's not offend anyone" is useless and non-functional, and any other solution is just bowing to one set of subjective beliefs while ignoring others.

There are plenty of examples of subjective offense differing over time, geography and individual preference. Back in 1987, before the Western world was brainwashed by the ridiculous "politically correct" movement, this Straight Dope supplicant had no problem referring to himself as "Oriental" (and aren't we so offended that he calls us "Anglo-Saxon"?). These days, many Americans of Italian descent are offended by The Sopranos, while many others with Italian ancestry think it's great entertainment. Which group is "right"? Neither. Those who are offended have the ability to not watch, and those who are not offended are free to tune in. It's the same with sports teams.

If people are offended by the name of a sports team, then they can choose to not be fans of that team. And if something offends enough people, then it's likely that the team will either change their name or go out of business. But from our perspective, investing time and energy into forcing a sports team to change its name — for whatever reason — is just plain silly.

Heh...the Crackers. Not the kind of ass-kicking name that I usually like, but the humor value far outweighs that problem.

I appreciate your points, and I certainly wouldn't advocate legal action to try and change the name, but I understand why groups have lobbied the team to change the name.

I've lived in Britain for the last five years, where 'Asian' means from the Indian sub-continent, and Oriental is still used for proplr from the far east. Of course, they still use the term 'red indian' for native americans (to distinguish them from indians of a rich dark hue, I presume). While policitcally correct speech can go overboard (though not nearly as much as conservatives claim...most of the 'egregious' examples held up for ridicule originated in a satirical book) what language you use says something about your awareness of others. It's not required, obviuously, but I'd say there are probably some fairly valid general observations to be made about someone bandying terms such as 'darkie' or 'nig-nog' in mixed company.

One thing that has always puzzled me is why more of the 'disaster' names don't offend people...the Miami Hurricanes? San Jose Earthquake? Um...don't those things kill people in those places all the time? Can we look forward to the Bangkok Tsunamis?

I appreciate your points, and I certainly wouldn't advocate legal action to try and change the name, but I understand why groups have lobbied the team to change the name.

I've lived in Britain for the last five years, where 'Asian' means from the Indian sub-continent, and Oriental is still used for proplr from the far east. Of course, they still use the term 'red indian' for native americans (to distinguish them from indians of a rich dark hue, I presume). While policitcally correct speech can go overboard (though not nearly as much as conservatives claim...most of the 'egregious' examples held up for ridicule originated in a satirical book) what language you use says something about your awareness of others. It's not required, obviuously, but I'd say there are probably some fairly valid general observations to be made about someone bandying terms such as 'darkie' or 'nig-nog' in mixed company.

One thing that has always puzzled me is why more of the 'disaster' names don't offend people...the Miami Hurricanes? San Jose Earthquake? Um...don't those things kill people in those places all the time? Can we look forward to the Bangkok Tsunamis?

If the deacon is concerned about anti-christian symbolism in popular culture, he should be worried about the Demon Deacons of Wake Forrest, although for some reason the faculty and students of the divinity school there don't seem to be. Perhaps the key difference between these Christians and Craig Stanley is, well, he's an idiot, and they aren't.

Ed, as you note:

...what language you use says something about your awareness of others. It's not required, obviuously, but I'd say there are probably some fairly valid general observations to be made about someone bandying terms such as 'darkie' or 'nig-nog' in mixed company.

We couldn't agree more. For our part, we choose not to use such terms (as well as others) in mixed company. Even if we are trying to offend someone (which we have been known to do), we wouldn't do so with certain words — those words that, from our subjective point of view, cross the line. Further, it is reasonable to say that if a team used a name that we attached certain connotations to, then we would choose not to support or watch that team.

Of course, the list of words we wouldn't use is a function of our personal experiences, including where we live. Since you live in Britain, we're sure that your list is different from ours, given the cultural and linguistic differences between the two countries. Further, different parts of either country have their own dialectic variations. Again, it all comes down to being totally subjective.

The list also changes over time. Fifteen years ago, a team called the Orientals would have been okay, but today it would be challenged as offensive by some. There's just no way to keep up with it.

We're also stumped by some of the changes that have been made. For example, Stanford used to be the Indians. Not the "Red" anything — the Indians. Why did that have to change? And they changed to the Cardinal, which is a big tree. It seems like they were trying to pick something that was as universally inoffensive as possible, and this is what they got. It's sad, really. It's even sadder watching that poor mascot waddling around with his arms pinned to his sides inside that tree costume.

With issues like this, it's always going to come back to the fact that viewpoints are (by definition) subjective. Given that, the question is: who gets to decide what is "over the line," and what is "acceptable"? No matter what the answer is, somebody's going to be unhappy. We'd love to say that we get to decide such matters — just as much as Assemblyman Stanley would like to say that he gets to decide them. In either case, the other party will be understandably (and justifiably, from their point of view) upset with the decisions made. The solution, to us, seems obvious: just as we would say with "offensive" television programming, the government should keep their noses out of the fray altogether, and individuals (or parents!) can decide what they will or will not spend their time and money on.

All that said: yes, we understand why some people are lobbying to have some team names changed. In fact, we would argue for their right to lobby, and they are welcome to do so. That's all part of a free market. As you note, those wishing to actually legislate such things (like Assemblyman Stanley) are not welcome to do so. In that regard, we want to differentiate between something we think is just silly, and something we think is a wrong-headed waste of government time and taxpayer money.

Overall, we just don't understand what the big deal is. Words can't cause harm, they can only cause offense — and only if we let them.

JY — yeah, we were talking about the Demon Deacons as an excellent example just yesterday. You'd think Assemblyman Stanley would be extra horrified by that team name given his role as a deacon, and the mixing of a holy title and the spawn of Satan. Yikes!

As for your assessment of Stanley's intellectual capacity — we think you just might be on to something, there....

Just to be precise about Stanford, they changed their name from the Indians to -- briefly -- the Cardinals, and then to Cardinal. But Cardinal isn't a big tree, its a color -- Stanford's team color. The tree is their mascot and has no relation to the team name. It's just that it's hard to represent a color in mascot form, so they just took the tree on the school crest as their mascot. There's much precedent for having a mascot have little relation to a team name. One of Auburn's mascots is an eagle, even though the team name is the Tigers. And the Crimson Tide have an elephant as their mascot (don't know what's with these Alabama teams).

Thanks for the info, JY — we weren't aware of the details of the Stanford team.

Of course, that's even sadder — changing the team's name to a color is pretty blatant pussyfooting, making sure that nobody is offended.

And having a tree as a team mascot is still really, really strange. If you've got a shade of red as your team name, the field is wide open to choose any mascot you want (and perhaps just make it that color). Why the hell pick a tree? (Even if it's on the school crest!) Just a very strange choice, if you ask us.

We have a guess as to the relationship between "crimson tide" and an elephant, but it's hardly family-friendly. Then again, neither is Alabama.

Should we petition for removal of the team names Anaheim Angels, New Orleans Saints, or Wakw Forest Demon Deacons (because of the 'deacons' not the demons)?

As for Duke University, is a blue devil as evil as a red devil is presumed to be?

I cannot believe our legislatures are wasting time on issues of war, health insurance, terrorism, and Medicaid reform when such weighty issues devil dog us.

Exactly, Grendel. It's all subjective. What is offensive to one person is fine to another. So who's to decide what is acceptable? If left up to small-minded people like the good assemblyman, it sure as hell won't be our personal biases that are mandated as law.

And to your second point, as hardline atheists, we should be offended by the use of fictitious religious characters as team names (like the Angels), and we should be offended by the use of dead "holy men" as team names (like the Saints). But we're not because we realize that these are just team names and not fucking personal attacks. They mean nothing to us, and people like the assemblyman are morons for thinking it matters at all what a team wants to call itself. There are so many actual important things — even to the religiosos — that should be addressed, why the holy hell would anyone waste their time on the name of a sports team?!

You know, some days we envy people like Assemblyman Stanley. Somedays we wish that we too could abandon the burden of logical thought and instead be small-minded morons who never have to actually think about our positions, and instead just broadcast them out to the world as if they were the word of god despite the fact that we sound completely insane.

But then we decide not to register as Republicans.

Aw man, you were doin' great but you spoilt the whole thing with a small-minded moronic generalization about Republicans. Oh, the irony!

(j/k)

The reduced issue is that there are people in the world who think with their emotions rather than their intellect.

Grendel:

The reduced issue is that there are people in the world who think with their emotions rather than their intellect.

Man, talk about "spoiling" it, that just spoiled our whole site! Other than the science news, the rest of what we write is all about people bypassing intelligence in favor of emotion. If you can boil it all down to one sentence like that, we'll probably just close up shop now and go home.

Nah — pointing at the morons and laughing is probably all that's keeping us sane. We'd better stick with it.

If required, I am fully capable of gross prolixity born of emotion.

It is only a rumor that Mrs. G refers to me as a spockhole.