TK-8252 Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9102443/ Should it be legal to harass the families of dead soldiers at their funerals, spouting anti-gay hate speech? Telling them their loved one has gone to hell for fighting for a country that "harbors gays?" More information on the Westboro Baptist Church: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Hates_Fags http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church Geez, and I thought Pat Robertson was bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 Yes, they have the right. It should be legal. It is legal. Their decision to exercise that right raises the exact same questions that the Danish cartoons raised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted February 26, 2006 Author Share Posted February 26, 2006 So would you think it'd be okay if these people showed up at a funeral for someone you loved and spouted their hate? You would just think "hey, they have freedom of speech"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 Actually it borders on illegal. They have the right to say what they say and gather, but harrassing families and such is illegal, it's just that the whole "free speech" and "right to peaceful assembly" muddies the water. The way I see it, funerals are private affairs, therefore they should be held to privacy matters. Essentially "my funeral, my rules". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 They always stand on public ground. They're well aware of the laws governing their behavior and the limits to which they can push them. There have been incidents of people being arrested from their 'protests', but it's always someone that attacks them being arrested (can't really blame them for being angry), not the other way around. This has been going on for quite some time; there was even a biker gang that volunteered to physically get between them and the family so the family wouldn't have see (or hear) the people from Westboro. Personally, I think these people are sadistic and hateful, but that doesn't mean they aren't within their rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 Doesn't seem very Christian to me... but then, many of the stances some Christian groups take these days baffle me as to what Christ would think about the things people shout at each other in his name. Does anyone truly think for a second Christ would walk up to a bereaved family and say something like that to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Sure they should have that right. Someone should also have the right to tie them together by their genital and drag them behind a monster truck. But hey, the world's not perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kensai Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Indeed it questions the christian laurels heavily, it's a shame for "true" christians but just shows the naivety and stupidity of you average christian moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinny Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Aye, thankyou guys for not generalizing based on the few exceptions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 The guy was born in 1929, he'll be dead soon anyway--then he'll go to hell, should such a place exist. As for their right to do this, the rights of us all to protest overrule the comfort of the few. Therefore, while I strongly disagree with these people and strongly agree with CapNColostomy, I do think they should have the right to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 As for their right to do this, the rights of us all to protest overrule the comfort of the few. I think you mean the comfort of the masses rather than the few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 No, I meant the comfort of the "few" that are attending the funerals. You have to remember that a good chunk of the population of the U.S is on the same page as these protesters, being as many of those who voted for Bush (52% of the voting poplulus) voted for him because they either didn't like Kerry or because Bush is against gay marriage. Besides, it would be hypocritical if you could protest something, then turn around and deny someone else's right to do so. I think that if someone really hates what they're doing, they can call the police or have the protesters' permit(s) revoked for something, say criminal harassment, something that could easily be done in a high-publicity event like this and the victims of these protests. I did mean comfort of the few though, as I was referring to the people attending these funerals, but I do see where you're coming from with "comfort of the masses". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 No, I meant the comfort of the "few" that are attending the funerals. You have to remember that a good chunk of the population of the U.S is on the same page as these protesters, being as many of those who voted for Bush (52% of the voting poplulus) voted for him because they either didn't like Kerry or because Bush is against gay marriage. Besides, it would be hypocritical if you could protest something, then turn around and deny someone else's right to do so. I find it hard to believe that a good chunk of the U.S. is thanking god for dead soldiers and IED's like this church is doing. These are the same people who demonstrated at the wreckage of the WTC and held signs thanking god for 9/11 and calling the NYPD and NYFD fags for trying to rescue the victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." -H.L. Mencken In this case, the unintelligent people are insulting the people who protect them and their way of life. Also, you'd be suprised at how many people believe this crap, as most are too cowardly to say they believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 After reading the full article it seems like this is abouth 10 nutters... and that the entire town turned out and turned their backs to them.. which seems like a good response on the part of the town. Many americans might be anti-war or anti-gay or whatever... but only complete nut jobs would try and link the two. Better hope none of them gets a disease or is hit by a car...or they might have 1000s of people at that funeral and shout "god killed you because you are stupid!" I love the way any psycho can start their own religion in the US... heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 That can't be right? Can't you get a restraining order against those loons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 I find it hard to believe that a good chunk of the U.S. is thanking god for dead soldiers and IED's like this church is doing. That's just it - it's not a 'good chunk' of anything...it's a bad chunk, and not even a large chunk at that. From wikipedia: "Research done by the Topeka Capital Journal in 1994 indicated that [Westboro Baptist] church has roughly 100 to 200 congregants, most of whom are related to Phelps Sr. by blood or marriage." Basically, this guy is a wacko who leads a church whose congregation is made up of wackos. These morons (about 15 or 20 of them) came to Bakersfield about a year ago to protest at a soldier's funeral...so someone organized a counter-protest. We had about 150 people turn out in support of the soldier and his family. Another note: even though they call themselves Westboro Baptist Church, they're not even affiliated with any national Baptist church organization. Their meetings take place in the basement of this guy's house. Personally, I think these people are a bunch of wacko morons who only made the press because the MSM has an anti-Christian bias. Reading that article on Wikipedia just makes me want to puke. These people disgust me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 Personally, I think these people are a bunch of wacko morons who only made the press because the MSM has an anti-Christian bias. That doesn't make sense. The mainstream media is meant to appeal to the mainstream. And the mainstream would be... christians. Media is not mainstream if it is anti-christian. I mean, Fox News... "anti-christian" doesn't really come to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 That doesn't make sense. The mainstream media is meant to appeal to the mainstream. And the mainstream would be... christians. Media is not mainstream if it is anti-christian. I mean, Fox News... "anti-christian" doesn't really come to mind. The "mainstream" media has been falling out of the mainstream for quite some time. That's why readership among newspapers such as the NY & LA Times has been declining. I guess they'd be more aptly called the "old media." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 Rubbish. It made the press because its a story about people insulting the families of dead soldiers... the fact they are (nominally) christian has nothing to do with it. If it had been anti-war protestors, or anyone else it would still have made the press because its the sort of story people empathise with. As is demonstrated by the fact a thread was made about it here. To claim the US media has an anti-christian bias is like saying the pope has an anti-catholic bias. True the US media does sometimes try and push boundaires or SHOCK HORROR try and create secular content in a supposedly secular country... but when they do all the christian groups are quick to jump up and down and attack them... The day when the mainstream media in the US can publish content WITHOUT pandering to the religious right will be a great day indeed... if it ever arrives. I support the MSM in its struggle for freedom of speech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Yes, they have the right. It should be legal. It is legal. Their decision to exercise that right raises the exact same questions that the Danish cartoons raised. Not nearly. The Danish cartoons were published just to irritate Muslims, according to the paper itself - there was no statement. If you're not expressing anything, what the Heck's it got to do with freedom of expression? This, however, is a statement, and thus different. However, that being said, I do not in any way defend their right to do this. The "God Hates Fags" church is nothing but a hate organization which will hopefully evaporate when their leader finally passes away. Anyone else than me visit their site? They've got counters saying that this and that homosexual hate crime victim has been in Hell for so and so many days:mad:. Assholes, pure and simple. I support the MSM in its struggle for freedom of speech Someone make a sig pic made:D. The church members were met with scorn from local residents. They chased the church members cars’ down a highway, waving flags and screaming “God bless America.” Go, people! Wonderful job! (...) the rights of us all to protest overrule the comfort of the few. Therefore, while I strongly disagree with these people and strongly agree with CapNColostomy, I do think they should have the right to do this. But it's not like we're taking away their right to express their views. We're just saying that they shouldn't harrass the families at moments such as this one. It's a funeral, for God's sake. There's a thin line between "making a statement" and plain bullying. The latter is in Constitutionish called "slander" and is, as far as I know, not allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Not that I agree with the Westboro Baptist Church or its leader Rev. Phelps, I don't, I think they're just attention mongers with a holier-than-thou attitude which grates against what I consider to be Christian charity, but the Matthew Shepherd case seems to have been commonly misunderstood (source, not that Wiki is always 100% accurate of course). Of course its still cruel of them to say "he's been burning in hell for XXX days" (not to mention presumptious of them... even if being gay automatically was a burning offense, how do they know he didn't repent in his heart as he was dying?), and they just assumed the same "facts" as the general public, so I don't think their motives were pure. Anyway, just wanted to throw that out there. Clearly what they did to the poor man wasn't justified, but its interesting to see the details that are less commonly discussed in that case. This indepedent church is pressing the bounds of free speech, but I guess it's one of those things. Like neo-nazi parades, kkk rallies, what have you. It's much harder to defend speech that seems just, wrong. I agree though that the families at the funerals can have their counter protests and possibly sue for harassment or something using the legal channels. Tons of people are against the war, and tons of people are against gay marriage, but few people would use the shock tactics of WBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Dravis Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 http://www.mikerogers.house.gov/newsroom.aspx?A=226 http://www.mikerogers.house.gov/LegislativeIssues.aspx?Section=82 Now that's interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Suck. It should protect all funerals, not just military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted April 3, 2006 Author Share Posted April 3, 2006 Suck. It should protect all funerals, not just military. That's what I was thinking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.gif.24edface7c76d897543b1e05da64a97d.gif)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.