So-called Terps- Sending Deaf PPL to Hell

"That is something that scares me. I believe that church interpreting should be done at the highest level of skill and integrity--it is MOST important."

This was a quote from one of you - I cannot remember whose it was...but

YES! I agree with that statement ;).
 
Last edited:
loml said:
Have you looked at churches who use PPT and "proxima" display for sermon, song, prayer etc?
Click to expand...

Yes...and no. Not a bad idea :). I was hoping to have an interpreter to help faciliate fellowship - getting to know the members of the church, ask questions, etc. -not just for interpreted services but to have full access to all parts of the church and its functions/events Also, though I'm fluent (I guess) in written English, it's not the same as interpreted services in ASL as others have mentioned in this reply.
 
Interpretrator said:
I am really sorry you're having trouble finding access and I think it's great you're getting involved yourself trying to find it (as opposed to just sitting around complaining about it); however I find this statement very hateful.
Click to expand...

No offense intended.
 
Etoile said:
First of all, let me say that I am not a church interpreter. I am fully certified (CI/CT) and I interpret professionally, but I will not interpret in church because I don't understand it. I am an atheist, I'm not familiar with any religion's practice (or their signs!), so I just don't do church interpreting. I would be providing a disservice to the deaf congregants by trying to interpret in their church.

You've brought up two issues. First, you are complaining that many churches don't or won't provide an interpreter. No argument from me here, but I think the burden is on you to push the issue. Have you explained what a qualified interpreter is, and why you feel they need one? Or have you just called 50 churches and gotten answers like "we have somebody who signs" and not pressed the issue? It's unfortunate that more people don't understand the importance of qualified interpreters, but the information isn't out there for them, so it is the deaf person's job to inform them what "qualified" means.

The second issue is that poor interpreters are denying deaf people full access to services. Well, yes. No arguments there either. And yes, the "signers" should know better...whoever taught them sign language should have informed them of the importance of using a qualified interpreter, and not "interpreting" if you don't know how. But many of them just want to help the best way they can, so they provide inadequate services because "it's better than nothing."

Perhaps instead of phrasing it as "bad interpreters send deaf people to hell" you could phrase it as "bad interpreters don't do enough to keep deaf people from hell." It's not like the interpreter is willfully sending someone to hell. They don't withhold their excellent interpreting skills so that a deaf person will go to hell. They just don't have the skills in the first place, and that is not a crime. Yes, they should know better, but they are NOT deliberately sending anyone anywhere as you suggest. In fact, I would bet that they sleep just fine, knowing that they are providing some access.
Click to expand...

To answer your first question: Yes, I actually called and explained the whole nine yards including the purpose of hiring a qualified sign language interpreter and why it was important for them to have one. I explained that I was a member of one of their sister chruches and wanted to continue attending chruch on a regular basis. I even had numbers of several sign language interpreting agencies they can contact for more information. I went back and counted how many churches I had contacted: 48. I've spent over 70 hours making calls and talking with people. I've met some face-to-face. So I'm really trying here.

And yes, I agree my phrasing could be better. I was pretty frustrated when I typed out my first posting - and it shows. But what about in a legal situation...is it ok for a legal interpreter to provide "some" access? To me, that's like saying, "Well...that dude knows some of his legal rights - that's better than nothing."
 
deafbajagal said:
To answer your first question: Yes, I actually called and explained the whole nine yards including the purpose of hiring a qualified sign language interpreter and why it was important for them to have one. I explained that I was a member of one of their sister chruches and wanted to continue attending chruch on a regular basis. I even had numbers of several sign language interpreting agencies they can contact for more information. I went back and counted how many churches I had contacted: 48. I've spent over 70 hours making calls and talking with people. I've met some face-to-face. So I'm really trying here.

And yes, I agree my phrasing could be better. I was pretty frustrated when I typed out my first posting - and it shows. But what about in a legal situation...is it ok for a legal interpreter to provide "some" access? To me, that's like saying, "Well...that dude knows some of his legal rights - that's better than nothing."
Click to expand...
First of all, good for you! I'm glad you explained to them why it is important to have qualified interpreters. Who knows, maybe if you called some of those 48 churches back, maybe they have fixed their policies and they will get better interpreters now. Although I understand that would take a lot of time! But maybe you did educate them just a little bit. :)

For the second part...no, of course it is not okay for a legal interpreter to provide "some" access. However, personally I cannot compare legal interpreting to religious interpreting...like I said, I do not know enough about religion. For me, it is not the same thing...a legal case is different from a religious service. However, I understand that many people feel being in Hell is just as bad (or worse) than being in prison. So for some people, it would be equally important. It just isn't a comparison that makes sense to me.

I really truly hope you are able to find a church that will serve you well. I was also a little offended by your original post but I understand that you were feeling frustrated at the time. I hope you can find some help!
 
Etoile said:
...For the second part...no, of course it is not okay for a legal interpreter to provide "some" access. However, personally I cannot compare legal interpreting to religious interpreting...like I said, I do not know enough about religion. For me, it is not the same thing...a legal case is different from a religious service. However, I understand that many people feel being in Hell is just as bad (or worse) than being in prison. So for some people, it would be equally important. It just isn't a comparison that makes sense to me....
Click to expand...
Is is "OK" to provide "some" access in any setting (legal, religious, medical, educational, etc.)?

There are two separate aspects here.

1. Ethically, from the consumer's viewpoint, it is never "OK" to provide partial or substandard access. Ethically, religious settings should voluntarily hold the highest standards for interpreting.

2. Legally, from the ADA viewpoint, not all settings are equal. The ADA, IDEA, and other legal entities have no jurisdiction over religious settings. In the eyes of the law, it's "OK" for churches to provide substandard access.


In my opinion, it doesn't even matter whether or not the interpreters think a particular setting or situation is less important. If the consumer feels that it's important to have full access, then it is important.
 
Reba said:
Is is "OK" to provide "some" access in any setting (legal, religious, medical, educational, etc.)?

There are two separate aspects here.

1. Ethically, from the consumer's viewpoint, it is never "OK" to provide partial or substandard access. Ethically, religious settings should voluntarily hold the highest standards for interpreting.

2. Legally, from the ADA viewpoint, not all settings are equal. The ADA, IDEA, and other legal entities have no jurisdiction over religious settings. In the eyes of the law, it's "OK" for churches to provide substandard access.


In my opinion, it doesn't even matter whether or not the interpreters think a particular setting or situation is less important. If the consumer feels that it's important to have full access, then it is important.
Click to expand...
I disagree with you - I think that providing some access in certain settings is better than providing no access. I fully recognize that it is not acceptable, and full access should always be provided. However, if it was me, and I had a choice between understanding part of it and understanding nothing at all, I would want to have at least some idea of what was going on. The ideal situation, of course, is to have fully qualified interpreters for every setting...but in reality that's very difficult to achieve.

You are right, of course, that what the consumer feels is important is what matters. That is exactly why I don't interpret in religious settings - I would be providing substandard interpreting services. If it is a choice between me and no interpreter at all, I would ask the deaf consumer what they wanted. But my preference is not to interpret in religious settings because I am not familiar enough with them.
 
Etoile said:
I disagree with you - I think that providing some access in certain settings is better than providing no access. I fully recognize that it is not acceptable, and full access should always be provided. However, if it was me, and I had a choice between understanding part of it and understanding nothing at all, I would want to have at least some idea of what was going on. The ideal situation, of course, is to have fully qualified interpreters for every setting...but in reality that's very difficult to achieve.
Click to expand...
I should have said "never as a long-term solution." Providing "not-OK" service temporarily "in a pinch" is sometimes a practical real-life necessity. It's not acceptable as a solution on a long-term basis. But from the consumer viewpoint even that might not be acceptable to them.

You are right, of course, that what the consumer feels is important is what matters. That is exactly why I don't interpret in religious settings - I would be providing substandard interpreting services. If it is a choice between me and no interpreter at all, I would ask the deaf consumer what they wanted. But my preference is not to interpret in religious settings because I am not familiar enough with them.
Click to expand...
...and that's why I don't interpret in courts. :)

You're right that terps shouldn't accept assignments for which they are not qualified or not comfortable.
 
I'm sorry. This is my first time posting here but everything I have read so far is an ongoing issue. My wife is deaf and I have been with her for 3 years. I taught myself sign at first online at asl.com. I then followed up with a few courses. However, everyone is getting this big misconception of sign. I was taught by the only Sign Language certified teacher in New Jersey. I see all these talks about ASL vs. English and a lot of people don't realize that ASL is English. If you take a look at old videos from Gallaudet University or even watch "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter", they show word for word signing. Not these "signs" we see today. A lot of deaf say that that is their way of communicating and to leave it alone. These radical deaf people are the kind that are screwing everything up for the others. Using todays form of ASL between deaf people is fully understandable. But "terps" begin using that in formal settings and that screws everthing up. That's why the education level of deaf kids these days are very low. The whole structure of signing is falling apart and its sad because that is the only means of communication for a lot of people. Its going to get to the point where deaf people won't be able to understand each other. "Terps" use their actions to keep the interests of deaf people. Those are gestures, not signs. True sign language has a sign for practically every word in the English language. That's how sign language was originally developed. There are 4 ways of English communication. You have oral, written, sign, and braille. People saying that sign is a completely different language are ridiculous. That's like saying braille is a different language. And ASL is not deaf culture so please don't bring that up. Deaf culture originated with word for word signing. I am not speaking of SEE signs. As a matter of fact, Stokoe signed word for word before he made up SEE signs. I have no problem with deaf people contracting ASL to make it easier to communicate between themselves, its when it goes into a formal environment and being handed off as sign that it bothers me. Deaf kids have a problem writing English because they don't get English in an English class. My wife was in a college with a deaf program and the "terp" had the nerve to contract what the English teacher was saying. How can someone learn English if they are not getting what was said word for word. I'm not saying that its easy to interpret. I know its difficult. But the problem is the effort put into it. A lot of "terps" are lazy. I signed in my wife's church word for word. I slipped here and there. But that was my first time signing for a group of deaf people. At court, I sign word for word no problem with my wife. Same at the doctors. If the effort is there then it can be done. But "terps" throw it off with their excuses and then suck deaf people into it by saying ASL is so beautiful. I'm not saying its not, but every language is beautiful in its own way. But that excuse is used as a method of deferring a debate. The moment a "terp" gets into a debate with a true signer, a person who is certified in deaf history and sign language, they turn to a deaf person and start using that excuse. Its pathetic. The only way to pull the deaf community into a good standing is to have them learn real sign language once again. The way it was taught years ago. And in regards to a lot of the books that "terps" learn from, most are written by people who signed word for word before the book and they tried changing it to their own way, or they were written by people who have no experience in the deaf field.
 
truesign said:
I'm sorry. This is my first time posting here but everything I have read so far is an ongoing issue. My wife is deaf and I have been with her for 3 years. I taught myself sign at first online at asl.com. I then followed up with a few courses. However, everyone is getting this big misconception of sign. I was taught by the only Sign Language certified teacher in New Jersey. I see all these talks about ASL vs. English and a lot of people don't realize that ASL is English. If you take a look at old videos from Gallaudet University or even watch "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter", they show word for word signing. Not these "signs" we see today. A lot of deaf say that that is their way of communicating and to leave it alone. These radical deaf people are the kind that are screwing everything up for the others. Using todays form of ASL between deaf people is fully understandable. But "terps" begin using that in formal settings and that screws everthing up. That's why the education level of deaf kids these days are very low. The whole structure of signing is falling apart and its sad because that is the only means of communication for a lot of people. Its going to get to the point where deaf people won't be able to understand each other. "Terps" use their actions to keep the interests of deaf people. Those are gestures, not signs. True sign language has a sign for practically every word in the English language. That's how sign language was originally developed. There are 4 ways of English communication. You have oral, written, sign, and braille. People saying that sign is a completely different language are ridiculous. That's like saying braille is a different language. And ASL is not deaf culture so please don't bring that up. Deaf culture originated with word for word signing. I am not speaking of SEE signs. As a matter of fact, Stokoe signed word for word before he made up SEE signs. I have no problem with deaf people contracting ASL to make it easier to communicate between themselves, its when it goes into a formal environment and being handed off as sign that it bothers me. Deaf kids have a problem writing English because they don't get English in an English class. My wife was in a college with a deaf program and the "terp" had the nerve to contract what the English teacher was saying. How can someone learn English if they are not getting what was said word for word. I'm not saying that its easy to interpret. I know its difficult. But the problem is the effort put into it. A lot of "terps" are lazy. I signed in my wife's church word for word. I slipped here and there. But that was my first time signing for a group of deaf people. At court, I sign word for word no problem with my wife. Same at the doctors. If the effort is there then it can be done. But "terps" throw it off with their excuses and then suck deaf people into it by saying ASL is so beautiful. I'm not saying its not, but every language is beautiful in its own way. But that excuse is used as a method of deferring a debate. The moment a "terp" gets into a debate with a true signer, a person who is certified in deaf history and sign language, they turn to a deaf person and start using that excuse. Its pathetic. The only way to pull the deaf community into a good standing is to have them learn real sign language once again. The way it was taught years ago. And in regards to a lot of the books that "terps" learn from, most are written by people who signed word for word before the book and they tried changing it to their own way, or they were written by people who have no experience in the deaf field.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Here are a couple of problems with your tirade:

(1) Stokoe did not make up SEE. In fact, he did not know sign language at all when he was studying it. To my knowledge he never learned ASL.
(2) ASL is not English. Signing ASL is not being "lazy" - it's using another language.
(3) There is no "certification" in deaf history or in sign language. There is the ASLPI, and there are certifications to be an ASL teacher, but there is no "certification" in sign language just like there is no "certification" in Russian or Spanish.
(4) ASL is the language of deaf people. Interpreters are not forcing it down anybody's throat.

You are going to get a lot of flak on this board for your statements. I hope you're prepared to defend yourself, because you're going to need to do quite a lot of it. You've made up 95% of what you've said, and that won't go over well here.
 
"...At court, I sign word for word no problem with my wife. Same at the doctors...."

WHAT!!!??? :-o
 
Actually, Stokoe did know ASL when he developed SEE. As a matter of fact, the teacher that I am referring to knew Stokoe on a professional level. And, if you did your research correctly you would know that there were certifications in sign language and deaf history. Now it has changed to a "terps" certification which technically gives the "terp" the ability to sign exactly what the other person is saying. The key word being exactly. That is an interpreters job. Its not to change the words to fit what they want because that's exactly what's being done. For example, the church setting. Its said not to change the word of God or you are punished and sent to hell. "Terps" do exactly that with their gestures. And as far as getting sued, I do not interpret professionally, only for my wife. But I do know signers that freelance in courts and hospitals. Signers and "terps" are different. And there is more of a chance of a deaf person missing what was said with your current version of ASL than with word for word. You cannot get the full advantage of comprehending what is said with the "cut up" version. The gestures and everything may look nice and beautiful, but its primitive. The deaf world is going backwards. They began that way and then developed and grew and now they're going back down the same road. If you talk to any old school deaf people and ask them to sign real ASL as they knew it from their time, they will sign word for word if they are educated. That's because the education system focused on that so deaf people would have better jobs and better lives. Not having to depend on ssi or ssd. Another example is the sign for "what for". Experienced deaf people signed so fast that the people watching them got it confused. If you pay attention to the original sign for that it starts with a full "what for". Then the what started getting towards the forehead. Then it was so rapid that it looked like the person was saying "for for". Really, that is "what for" but its being taken the wrong way. That's the same as people saying that there is no "is, am, are". That's another ridiculous statement. That is the index finger to the mouth and brought straight out. Not curved like true or real and not Stokoe's pinky finger out. And in another sense, if you have the sentence "I'm going to the mall", a hearing person has the contraction of I'm. It is understood in true sign language that the conjunction is included in I. So really the deaf person is not saying "I going to the mall", its "I'm". Its just not understood on the "terps" side. Deaf people believe that they are getting quality service with a "terp" but really they're getting the "terps" words, not the speakers. And I am fully ready to defend what I said. I would actually be more than happy to get a meeting going and have a debate over this.
 
The other funny thing is that "terps" follow what hearing people have to say. They make up these signs and call them ASL. The people that control what happens in the deaf world have basically no knowledge of true deaf people. Deaf people sit back and take these signs from the "terps". Its just a matter of time until it backfires. Deaf people should be doing this themselves. They are more than capable. And it is like its being shoved down their throats. Let a deaf person handle those areas. A lot of hearing people believe that deaf are below them, that they're uneducated, I've even saw some say to kill deaf people. Its bull. Deaf people are just as equal as hearing and should be treated the same. Should be given the same advantages. Deaf people in America are still Americans. They were not developed with another language to have a country within a country. It doesn't work like that. Sign language was developed to put deaf people on the same level as hearing. So a deaf person could make decisions for themselves and hold a good job. When you cut off the ability to fully sign in sentence structure that is limiting a deaf person again. And like I said before, I don't have a problem with deaf people using todays ASL to talk between themselves. I even do it with my wife sometimes. Its when it is in a formal setting, a place of business. Does it take longer to sign word for word?. Yea. Is it boring to deaf people?. Most. But it gives them the full advantage of understanding what is being said. That information that "terps" cut out in todays ASL could be vital information that is needed.
 
Etoile said:
With all due respect, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Here are a couple of problems with your tirade:

(1) Stokoe did not make up SEE. In fact, he did not know sign language at all when he was studying it. To my knowledge he never learned ASL.
(2) ASL is not English. Signing ASL is not being "lazy" - it's using another language.
(3) There is no "certification" in deaf history or in sign language. There is the ASLPI, and there are certifications to be an ASL teacher, but there is no "certification" in sign language just like there is no "certification" in Russian or Spanish.
(4) ASL is the language of deaf people. Interpreters are not forcing it down anybody's throat.

You are going to get a lot of flak on this board for your statements. I hope you're prepared to defend yourself, because you're going to need to do quite a lot of it. You've made up 95% of what you've said, and that won't go over well here.[/QUOT

:gpost:

You are very correct. Stokoe was a linguist that identified ASL as a complete and separate language from ASL. He had absolutley nothing to do with the system known as SEE.

ASL most definately is not English. It is ASL. Hence the different name.

One can receive the ASLTA as certification to teach ASL, usually at the college level. Certification is by state. ASLTA stands for the ASL Teachers Association.

Howin the heck are terps forcing ASL down anyone's throat. In contrast, they are preventing English being forced down the deaf's throat.

Agreed, this post shows a great deal of misinformation regarding ASL and language in general.
Click to expand...
 
jillio said:
Etoile said:
With all due respect, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Here are a couple of problems with your tirade:

(1) Stokoe did not make up SEE. In fact, he did not know sign language at all when he was studying it. To my knowledge he never learned ASL.
(2) ASL is not English. Signing ASL is not being "lazy" - it's using another language.
(3) There is no "certification" in deaf history or in sign language. There is the ASLPI, and there are certifications to be an ASL teacher, but there is no "certification" in sign language just like there is no "certification" in Russian or Spanish.
(4) ASL is the language of deaf people. Interpreters are not forcing it down anybody's throat.

You are going to get a lot of flak on this board for your statements. I hope you're prepared to defend yourself, because you're going to need to do quite a lot of it. You've made up 95% of what you've said, and that won't go over well here.[/QUOT

:gpost:

You are very correct. Stokoe was a linguist that identified ASL as a complete and separate language from ASL. He had absolutley nothing to do with the system known as SEE.

ASL most definately is not English. It is ASL. Hence the different name.

One can receive the ASLTA as certification to teach ASL, usually at the college level. Certification is by state. ASLTA stands for the ASL Teachers Association.

Howin the heck are terps forcing ASL down anyone's throat. In contrast, they are preventing English being forced down the deaf's throat.

Agreed, this post shows a great deal of misinformation regarding ASL and language in general.
Click to expand...

You meant to say that ASL is a separate language from English?
Click to expand...
 
Reba said:
Should we request the mods to move all the posts related to truesign to the thread that Etoile created? We're getting off track here but it's a good discussion to continue.
Click to expand...
I would be okay with that, but I don't really see this as off track...maybe a parallel track but not completely off. I would be fine if it was moved though. Surely truesign wouldn't mind, since he is so eager for debate!
 
Etoile said:
I would be okay with that, but I don't really see this as off track...maybe a parallel track but not completely off. I would be fine if it was moved though. Surely truesign wouldn't mind, since he is so eager for debate!
Click to expand...
Not off track yet, but I sense a major derailment coming along.

Really, I'm just lazy and don't want to post duplicates in two different threads, ha, ha.
 
Back
Top