An agnostic, huh?

You fool! Now you’re at the top of their list…

More likely, my correspondent is a conformist bible banger

Oh John, as an agnostic I find your response rather reinforcing of my already abysmal opinion of your suggestion that violence is a solution we should consider…It isnt and you arent helpful, and possibly disturbed as well…or mayhaps just terminally immature.

Rico, these sick scum were out and about before Sonia was in the S.C. They were in my area protesting at 3 different funerals of soldiers in the same week. Because we have had massive job losses since the 70’s in my state, too many of the youth go into the military as employment is hard to find unless it is in one of the wars that repugs seem to favor over peacetime healthy and saner types of employment. One of the motorcycle clubs volunteered to make human chains to keep the protesters away from the mourning families by holding up tarps to keep the protesters from view. Finally our governor make it illegal to protest at the funeral services of our fallen military.

These people from Westboro church are a bunch of twisted evil petty hatemongers.

Saw a documentary on this group and even the 5-6 y.o.‘s are on street corners yelling about things they have no true mental concept of except for being brainwashed from birth in hatred and ignorance. These children of this sick cult are to be pitied as they don’t know any better, but the adults of this hatred do. To bad their children are not taken into protective custody, but the damage has already been done to them. Don’t be surrised as these children once grown, may be the future killers of others who are not of their same brand of mental illness. They are already warped by hatred and intolerance.

Will ‘they’ come to get you first?

Or will you be last?

.    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .

More likely, my correspondent is a conformist bible banger.

john crandell, October 11 at 3:54 pm

Ah, so you are a useless jerk. Thanks for the verification.

****************

I will interpret rev. fred fucked-up phelps idea of
‘praying for more dead soldiers’ as indication that
ole fuck-up phelps personally gains monetarily,
religiously and ‘politically’ from the illegal wars
and invasions of sovereign nations of american
hegemony.

Another big example of the trash that is part of
this country.

well, as ol’ Bobby once said (in my fave flick):

“I love the smell of Napalm in the morning!”

john crandell, October 10 at 5:23 pm Link to this comment

“an excellent peace time use for Napalm.”

After listening to an NPR report on Phelps and company one morning this past
week I thought to myself: “Why hasn’t anybody in this nation blown that shit-
head away?”

I guess most shied away from responding to what is, basically, a repulsive call to violence. I do not tend to shy from a mudhole like your comment. Do you really, truly, believe violence and murder to be a good way to resolve political, spiritual or cultural differences? Or any differences for that matter? Cannot the light of reason shine down that hole you live within enough to make you see the ultimate result of such violent “solutions” to such problems we face?

Or were you just being extremely sarcastic?

ardee, October 7 at 5:20 pm Link to this comment

As nasty and senseless as are the comments of Phelps and his followers we must stand firmly for his right to publicly state those offensive sentiments. For if we do not then our own right to speak may be next in line to be curtailed.
**********

I don’t usually agree with Ardee and we are usually at each others’ throats, but in this circumstance I must.  If Phelps and his pals are obeying the law then we have no alternative but to grit our teeth and endure it.

Freedom of speech is curtailed all the time. You cannot legally threaten to kill someone.  You cannot combine with other people to plan to commit a crime—that’s a conspiracy.  You can’t go up to every woman on the street you see and say “Hi, Bitch!”.  Certain verbal assaults are defined as crimes.

Had the funeral been private (and I’m not sure military funerals can be) and Phelps and his gang invaded to funeral, as opposed to standing at the legal required distance, it may be a different story.

But I don’t see that. Phelps is, IMHO, a prick who deliberately hurts families who are already hurting from the loss of a child—the worst thing a parent can suffer.  But I don’t see how he’s breaking either criminal or civil law.  Therefore he right to act like a prick must be defended.

It’s generally held that free speech does not include personal harassment.  Even Douglas agreed.

He did?

...freedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substanative evil that arises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest…

(My emphasis)

William O. Douglas
Terminiello v. Chicago 1949

He went on to strike down the idea of “community standards”, or the “common conscience of the community”. Is there something I am missing?

Sotomayor needs a visit from FIRE.org

http://www.thefire.org/

After all, isn’t his ultimate aim the instigating of a chrystalnacht against the people he most obsesses over?

“an excellent peace time use for Napalm.”

YES!

After listening to an NPR report on Phelps and company one morning this past
week I thought to myself: “Why hasn’t anybody in this nation blown that shit-
head away?”

There are consequences for all of us and whatever choice we make, as mature
individuals, we ought to willingly commit ourselves to suffer or deal with
whatever result. Phelps and cohorts have been getting away, scot free.

Free speech? How about consequences????? Doesn’t Phelps represent an
extreme threat lurking beneath the surface, coast to coast?

“The young soldier, at the crux of this debate, chose a higher ideal to make his life in some way a testament to the preservation of our way of life.”

Soldiers do not sign on for the political argument of specific war.

Instead, they commit themselves to national service of the highest order. They freely offer their lives to protect YOU because of reasons YOU affirm in a political process, and they commit themselves to performing their duty with impeccable regard for honor.

That’s what we Americans admire in these young men and women, because most of them do adhere strictly to that creed.

Think about it. Think about it long and hard. Especially those of you who would sit out the election.

You think the war is immoral? Fine. These soldiers are putting their trust in you, just as they put their trust in Bush and Cheney. Order them home, and they’ll come home. Order them to die, and they’ll die. Either way, they’ll never give up.

Will you?

The Westboro bunch are, in their own terms, the minions of Satan, who has fooled them into seeing him as god, twisting wrong into right. They are loveless, and that’s what so sad about them.

By Mike789, October 8 at 10:44 am

“The young soldier, at the crux of this debate, chose a higher ideal to make his life in some way a testiment to the preservation of our way of life. He did not debate the inherent goodness or badness of our societal character. He rather chose to defend its goodness. His legacy should be honored without exemption.”

Is it just me, or was the war started almost ten years ago? How long is the average recruitment? Doesn’t everybody who joins now, know they are part of an illegal, imperial occupation? Or are they willfully ignorant?

As for this soldier, how is he preserving our way of life? “He did not debate the inherent goodness or badness of our societal character.” Why not? He just went off to blindly kill in “support” of it? Why didn’t he debate the inherent goodness or badness of the invasion he was supporting?

Just curious. Tried to ask my nephew the same questions, but the x-tian cult he joined killed his ability to reason, or even come up with coherent reasons for his actions. Now he’s a terrorist too.

Is it still ethical or desirable to “support our troops”?

The problem here is that this country is now so
governed by laws and rules. People shouldn’t need
legislation to know the difference between appropriate
and decent behavior. Basic kindness and consideration
shouldn’t have to be enforced. Why are people so
insensitive to the feelings of others in this country?

Correction. 
The U.S. Constitution is a legal document that
establishes legal procedure for the United States of
America. “Leadership,” NOT the U.S. Constitution,
stole indigenous folk of Africa back then, forcing
them into slavery in the USA. Similar to the manner
previously applied by Spain, subsequently the
French, English and Germans, overtaking the North
and South American continents, genociding and
“christianizing” the indigenous folk. Similar to the
manner in which “political leadership” of the U.S,
currently violates the U.S. Constitution. Attacking
and genociding indigenous folk of Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan and secretively other countries, violates
the U.S. Constitution. 

Hundreds of “John Doe” are buried daily in the USA
without a funeral. An occasional few, much more
gallant than any 22-yr old, US soldier who got
sucked into an artificial “war on terror.” Today´s
military funerals are designed as propaganda events
for the artificial “war on terror,” enhanced by
media, bribed and suppressed into supporting such
propaganda. Satanists in political leadership roles,
hiding behind the cross of Christ, some, foreigners
claiming to be born Americans.

From my viewpoint, all soldiers who die currently
are similar to Pat Tillman. They do not “give their
lives.” They are murdered by CIA/Blackwater
mercenaries within their ranks, keeping death-rates
constant for propaganda purposes, occasionally by
indigenous soldiers defending their homeland against
illegal invaders: the U.S. military. All for the
benefit of the few who are manipulating the finances
of the world, who created the artificial “war on
terror,” plus the current repetition of the
depression of the 1920s.

For example, Georg H. Scherff Jr., of Derlitzsch,
Germany, fifty-two kilometres southeast of Leipzig,
Germany. Who, has lived under a pseudonym for more
than sixty years, and who will never be permitted to
reveal his name and birthplace. Who, has hidden
behind the cross of Christ, for how many years?
Whose spirit will depart with none of his billions
of stolen U.S. dollars when assigned to Hades, in a
couple of years, if not sooner. Sad, Georgi. What
great good you could have done for mankind, had
you followed your Mamma, and not NAZIism.

Yes, we have the right to free speech.  However, at a funeral where grieving families are gathered, it is not the right time.  These families have suffered enough without people taunting them in the time of grief. Whatever happened to respect for our soldiers? Those that do this, do not deserve respect themselves.  If they are so-called “religious people” they should be praying for our soldiers, not mocking their existence.  Shame on them.

Are we referring to the same Constitution that denied coloured people the rights enjoyed by white people, especially in the deep South, for decades until the civil rights movement rectified some of the injustices?
It would appear that the Constitution is what you want it to mean, which means that it is open to interpretation by the individual reading it; it is not specific nor absolute, therefore, it can be manipulated to suit the reader’s needs.
Perhaps you need to look again at this Constitution and, perhaps, bring it more into keeping with the needs of the 21st.Century.

To me, the first paragraph of this article is as
presumptuously ignorant as the demonstrators
pictured.  The judgmental basis of the author´s
ideation is the element that has been manipulated by
the CIA/Zionists to quicken the dissolution of the
U.S.A.::: inside fighting.

Normally, the U.S. Constitution is praised for the
free speech that it supports.  More recently, it is
vilified for various reasons, by those who wish to
destroy the U.S.A., by indirectly and directly
attacking the freedom it supports, as being
“distasteful”. 

The moral code of Americans began the downward slide
when the power-crazy NAZI-types in U.S. Government
violated U.S. Code by sneaking 200 German scientists
into the U.S. at the end of WWII.  Werner von Braum
deserved a place with his colleagues in the
Nuremburg Trials, for the deaths of 2,000 polish-
slave-laborers in his rocket works, not hero status
in the U.S. of A.  It is shameful to Americans to
display NAZI V-type rockets as they are currently
disiplayed in Huntsville, Alabama.  American
dumbidity.

“Operation Paper Clip” and subsequent repetitions,
1945-1948, under different “operational tags” that
snuck over two thousand NAZI-types into the US,
while SS NAZI general Gehlin transformed the OSS
into the CIA.  The “rogue gone wild” history of the
CIA has been repeatedly documented.  More recently
worsened by its subordinate, Blackwater/Ex and the
thousands of destructive mercenaries released on the
independent countries of the “Near East,” they are
funded separately by “deaf and blind” members of
the U.S. Congress.  Perhaps stupefied by bribery. 
Does the “World Court” send Christmas Cards to Georg
“Bush” Sr. instead of summons ?

Just as an elderly man, who is emotionally fixated
in post-puberty, who publishes a sex magazine, can
project his personal imagery of an incestual
relationship with his mother, onto a “religious
leader” in an outhouse, so may persons of various
religious beliefs demonstrate their belief that the
United States of America is being punished by “God”
or the “Creator” for having strayed from the
teachings of “God.”  Perhaps the later more so,
since sexual imagery is strictly imagery, until
carried out.  There is evidence that “America” is
indeed “being punished,” reference Hebrew and more
recent theological literature.

Reference said literature, neither writers of
articles nor the religious folk who demonstrate
against war, decide who is sent to “Hell”.  To
maintain that mothers raise their children for
Satan, or to be struck down by “God” is more
ignorantly-sophomoric than idiosyncratic.  Classify
it as just double-dumb.

Doerlitzsch (Derlitzsch), Scherff family home, 52 Km
SE of Leipzig, is back on the map.

Lets not drag god or Jesus, or any other fictional charactors into this.

Free speech was a gift given by man to himself. Important people have always had free speech, while the rest of us have to fight for our right to bitch about the gas bill.

Yes you can shout “fire” in a movie theater, but for the most part, only an american would do it intentionally. Our sense of community is becoming non-existent. How sad for us.

berniem,

True!

Great comment FiftyGigs,

I completely agree. Why don’t civilized people have the
right anymore to hear civility? We are constantly
bombarded with foul rhetoric and and malicious smears
for political gain. I don’t see how anyone does gain by
it.

Face it! Organized religion, AKA mind control, is corrosive, violent, misogynistic, and delusional! From whacko baptists to trigger happy budhists to ridiculously attired catholics to schizoid semites the absurdity of it all never ends! More crimes against humanity have been perpetrated in the name of the mythological diety, et al, than all of the half-baked economic theories ever concocted. Religion is not the opiate of man; it is the hemlock!

There’s a fundamental disconnect in the heads of people
like Rev. Phelps. To people like him, the 1st amendment
means giving up civilized behavior, being rude,
obnoxious and insulting. They cannot see the difference
between their first Amendment right to free speech, and
basic common decency, civility, thoughtfulness and good
manners.

I’d say that these people have given up basic humanity
for the right to speak poison.

I have been on a Spiritual Journey since March 17, 1974. When I was young I wanted to be a Catholic Priest. But then I discover sex.  Later I tried to be a deacon but my public reputation stop me. Much later I finish two years of a four year degree to be a Minister. I got kick out of the program.  In general let me share with you a couple of things and you can take this to the bank.  The number one enemy of a Christian is another Christian.  Today’s religion is the number one obstacle in getting close to God.  Religion today is diametrically appose to spirituality. So people like the Rev. Fred Phelps and the like will alway be with us from now on and they are right in what they believe in. And if you are a ‘true’ believe then YOU who oppose him are WRONG. I hope you understand.  If you do you will get the true meaning.  God Bless.  tlamatini-vicente

As a proponent of Free speech and an opponent of war I find the group, (who’s name should never be mentioned) are , beside being repulsive for what they are doing to the grieving families, are trying to undermine or raise opposition to the first amendment and bring down legitimate opposition to war. We know who they are. Give them no publicity never speak their name. Shun them like the excrement that they are.

Every time I think about that scumbag Phelps and his churchful of haters, I also think “Here is an excellent peacetime use for Napalm.”

bachu
“He is holding a mirror to the American society and they don’t like what they are seeing”
Who the hell is he to be holding up a mirror to society- he should look in one first - since that was the advice of Jesus Himself-
His twisted explanation that the death of soldiers is linked to homosexuality is an un-biblical hateful perversion.

From the onset of one’s life, every one of us assumes, at least subliminally, no matter if we succeed or fail in life’s challenges, that a burial with dignity will be afforded to us. I would say it’s almost archetypal.

We cringe at the sight of mass burials. We are aghast at seeing corpses unattended. The cry of Antigone haunts every notion that precludes a decent internment.

I usually do not bible thump, but here it’ just too blatant to ignore. To conflate the contemporary with the eternal, and condemn in finality civilization as hopeless, speaks to something outside of Christianity. Usurpation of God’s judgement is nothing less than taking the name of God in vain.

I’m not so naive to assume that this life ought to be without pain. I do make a provision that assumes my fellow man would not deliberately compound that pain when I had not directly harmed him.

There ought to be established, akin the the notion of privacy, a provision wherein a certain degree of civility in the public forum may be assumed. If not, the attrition toward barbarity is not forestalled.

The young soldier, at the crux of this debate, chose a higher ideal to make his life in some way a testiment to the preservation of our way of life. He did not debate the inherent goodness or badness of our societal character. He rather chose to defend its goodness. His legacy should be honored without exemption.

The right to free speech does not carry an obligation for it to be heard. It also doesn’t obviate the need to speak responsibly.

Sotomayor is considering the long-neglected perspective of those of us who do not want to be forced to deal with crap. Because some lunatic wants to wave a picture of a dead fetus in my face, *I* have to deal with it when I choose to exercise my freedom to go shopping?

What about MY right to my life lived the way I want to live it? What about MY right to bury my child with the ceremony I want?

I’m surprised conservatives aren’t cheering Sotomayor for not taking the “big government” view.

rico, suave, October 7 at 8:56 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie:

The Sotomayor danger is that she might elide any generalized “harrassment” into a personalized one, declare feelings hurt all around, and shut down the speech, merely because someone got their feelings hurt.

Now this seems to be a perfect imitation of Tea Party-like exaggeration over a one line sentence.

Thanks to Anarcissie for further weakening Rico’s knee jerk position.

I will defend the Snyders of the world when ALL language is allowed on the public airwaves (TV and Radio). If freedom of speech cannot be abridged for the Snyders of the world, why can’t we hear curse words on TV or see Janet Jackson’s tit?

Someone on this thread asked: “If we restrict the Snyders, where will the censorship end?” Well, perhaps a lot of you haven’t been paying attention, but there’s plenty of “forbidden” speech in this land of the free and home of the brave.

The views of the Westboro Baptists should be discussed, which is what they
want.  They believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and take it
literally.  Everyone who takes the Bible literally rather than interpreting it must
agree on what it says; disagreements mean that at least one of the parties is
interpreting and not taking literally. 

But in fact there are many disagreements among people who all claim to take
the Bible literally; Westboro is an extreme example of a problem that is well
nigh universal but remains unmentioned—the real elephant in this room.  We
have no way to decide which of us are interpreting instead of remaining faithful
to the Bible’s literal meaning, and without such a way of deciding, taking the
Bible literally gives us nothing but strife.

Any Christian groups that take the Bible literally should be asked about what is
going on when Westboro takes the Bible literally and arrives at different results,
until they give an answer that makes sense.  How can an article of faith be true
that leads to such ugly results.

I think rico, suave is concerned about legal attacks on free speech.  People have been using nasty language for quite a while now.

I believe Sotomayor was merely observing that it is sometimes very difficult to draw a line between the right of free speech and the right of privacy—the right to be free of speech, if you’re minding your own business.

Freedom of speech entails personal restraint, and that is understood more or less implicently by most of the people most of the time.  Trouble comes from decades of insensitive speech—insult, lies, calumny, defamation and profanity promoted by media and made chic by a nation of adolescents letting off steam in ways that seem offensive and idiotic to many people from more restrictive cultures. We have to take the bad with the good regarding freedom, but we also need to keep in mind that excess pushes our inter-personal relationships toward mutual pain and away from felicity. Democracy requires self-discipline to prevent it from becoming either a prison or an insane asylum.

Aaron:

Thank you for your post.  It is too bad so many Christians do not even know their own Bible.  I would add three Scriptural passages here:

“Judge not, for with what measure ye judge, ye too shall be judged.”

“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”

“Take the log out of your own eye before you take the splinter out of anothers’.”

Or, perhaps a more secular phrase: People in glass houses should not throw stones.

Sadly, these self-proclaimed Christians would not know Jesus if He bit them on the ear…

Peace.

Unfortunately there is a price to be paid for free speech - letting corrupt hateful fanatics spew their hatred in the name of God - God is Love - apparently these very stupid self-motivated freaks haven’t read the Epistles of John - “He who says he loves God and hates his neighbor is a liar.”

Ruth—
Has it occurred to you that certain elements in our own
extended “government” might be using these people for a
very useful purpose? There is nothing, and I say,
NOTHING, that this group of Kissinger opportunists
would not use, abuse, originate, instigate, insinuate,
or emulate (falsely) in order to stifle free speech?

Like I always say, gullible or complicit, Ruth.

Anarcissie:

The Sotomayor danger is that she might elide any generalized “harrassment” into a personalized one, declare feelings hurt all around, and shut down the speech, merely because someone got their feelings hurt.

rico, suave—It’s generally held that free speech does not include personal harassment.  Even Douglas agreed.

added Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “But what’s the line between doing that and then personalizing it and creating hardship to an individual?”

This is worrisome. Sonia is concerned about hurting someone’s feelings and thinks this should matter in a free speech case. We do NOT need more of this kind of thinking from the SCOTUS.

Their venomous hatred is not justified by Jesus’s life, teaching, nor those of the apostles. Jesus taught to love our enemies and to do good to them, to pray for them, and to defeat evil with good.

They are soiling Jesus’s name by claiming to represent him.  They are completely ignoring the New Testament teaching of grace, found even in verses so clichéd as John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one an only son so that whosoever believes in him would not perish but have eternal life.”

There is no exception or exclusion of anyone in that statement, no matter their sins, real or imaginary.

There is no verse in the Bible that says that God hates sinners, in fact the Bible teaches the opposite: he loves sinners, but hates sin.

How can they expect to convince anyone with insults and hate? They say that God “hates” gays. Absolutely wrong.

I can love a drug addict and hate the drug that destroys him or her…that is an analogy for God’s biblical “hatred” of sin. The drug is not evil in itself, it becomes evil when abused. That is also true of many sins. The act is often not sinful in itself, but becomes evil when done the wrong way or for the wrong reasons.

If it is legal to keep protesters so far away from G20 meetings that their message cannot be seen or heard, how come it isn’t legal to keep miserable mean-spirited people like Phelps away from soldiers’ funerals?
  And for that matter, where was the conscience of the Court when they made it legal for corporate millions to buy American elections—all under the deceiving mantra that corporations are “persons” of course?

As nasty and senseless as are the comments of Phelps and his followers we must stand firmly for his right to publicly state those offensive sentiments. For if we do not then our own right to speak may be next in line to be curtailed.