Just when you think you’ve met the biggest asshole ever, it turns out you probably haven’t. Unless, of course, you’ve had the pleasure of meeting one of the congregation members of the Westboro Baptist Church headquartered in good ole Topeka, Kansas. If you’re not familiar with this passionately active group of morally upstanding citizens, you can learn all about their doctrine on their website (www.godhatesfags.com). That is not, to give them more press, but I think it’s important to be aware that psychos like this exist, and spread their insecurity and hatred by harrassing the families of recently the recently deceased by picketing funerals.
The crux of their incredibly insightful belief system is basically this– bad things (like death) happen in America because God hates America. Why does God hate America? Because America doesn’t persecute homosexuals. So in line with this logical and rational line of thinking, the god-fearing folks at WBC have come to some very reasonable conclusions that the rest of us may have glossed over… here are a few:
God killed Heath Ledger because he played a homosexual in “Brokeback Mountain.”
The fact that Jake Gyellenhaal is still alive means…?
The tornado that swept across five states last week and killed more than 50 people was God’s subtle way of showing his distaste for the U.S.
I’m irritated that my fourth grade science curriculum forced me to learn a much more complex and convoluted, yet scientifically-based explanation– something about abundant low level moisture and updrafts?
God hates the U.S. military because it allows gays to serve, and therefore caused Marine Cpl. Cesar Laurean to rape, murder, and burn pregnant Marine Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach.
But she wasn’t gay… and neither was he… so… could you just explain that connection one more time??
It’s all so simple, I’m surprised the rest of us didn’t get it earlier.
Their website is quite the interesting read. On it, one will find:
A schedule of funerals around the country that the WBC plans to picket, along with obscure and sometimes unintelligible explanations as to why the deceased was connected to homosexuality or the advocation or homosexuality (or sometimes, when they can’t find that link, they just connect the person to the evil United States).
A video in which WBC members explain what their picket signs mean– because contrary to the belief that picket signs should convey what’s being protested, most of their’s… don’t. So verbal explanation is also necessary.
A list of current events in which people have been killed all over the world which clearly proves that God does hate fags.
Photos of church members’ impressionable young offspring shouting hate messages and holding signs as they progress through the indoctrination process.
And links to articles about how God decided to attack America the night that a Topeka man, Kent Lindstrom, set off a pipe-bomb (which police described as a big firecracker) in the Westboro Baptist Church.
I, for one, have always thought that Kent Lindstrom should represent the United States… oh wait, I didn’t mean Kent Lindstrom… I meant the President. But it’s probably a safe assumption that Kent’s feelings toward your church accurately represent those of the rest of the country.
Oh, and don’t let me forget… the blog post about how the September 11th attacks were God’s way of punishing America for rejecting Him.
I’m all for freedom of religion and every individual’s freedom to practice whatever whacked out belief they want to practice in the name of God, but that support ends the moment one feels the “right” to harass a mourning family by picketing and holding up signs suggesting God hates the deceased. These people are the reason states are adopting laws preventing protests at funerals– as pathetic as it is, laws like that are apparently necessary.
My personal opinion, is that all these WBC hatemongers are in for a big surprise when they die, expecting to arrive in a fag-free paradise and find out that the Christian God they’ve been harassing folks in the name of, isn’t all that supportive of their efforts. Since God apparently sends messages of hate through violence, could Kent’s little pipe bomb been God’s way of tactfully suggesting that the Westboro Church stop tossing His name around?
I don’t profess to know much about religion, but I did spend a few summers in Vacation Bible School and I will point out these few basic Christian notions (since they may not have read this far in the Bible yet) to the Westboro Bible Toters:
God’s message is one of love. The concept that God “hates” any of His children is a paradox in and of itself. Now aware of this, I suggest you update your web address from www.godhatesfags.com to “thewestborobaptistchuchhatesfags.com”. Let’s not speak for God when He hasn’t asked us to.
If death on earth is a punishment from God, then you must not be expecting much in the afterlife. Given your actions, you’re probably on to something there.
If the basis of your dogma is a belief in predestination (there’s a painfully long explanation of this on the site), then why does one need to picket or “educate” the general masses which is presumably, to influence their life decisions?
I’m just curious. Actually, no I’m not.
But Christine, Jake Gyllenhaal is going to die eventually. And when he does, we’ll all know the reason why. Thank you for your insights Westboro Baptist Church!
However, if there is a God.. then this type of thinking really isn’t all that crazy.. now is it?
Touche, Christoper. Afterall, these are people who believe in a vindictive, jealous and at times petulant god set on punishing members of its creation for all of eternity for a host of actions and inactions.
And might I add, eternity is a REALLY long time.
Now, I will have to admit that I come from a “liberal” Methodist doctrine, but I was taught that a person only needs to accept Jesus Christ as his/her savior in order to get into heaven.
So…. one of them-there homos could accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior and still bugger ’bout a thousand bung-holes in his lifetime AND still get into Heaven… right?
So if God sent the big ole Twister, the wars and the violence to kill all the fags, it stands to reason that the “Christian fags” would be in Heaven right now and the Baptists at WBC would be stuck here… hmm, THAT makes it SEEM like the gays are God’s chosen people when you look at it that way, doesn’t it?
On the other hand, if you have to perform certain acts (or live in a certain way) in order to prove your “worth” and get into Heaven, then I’m think the WBC people aren’t following Jesus’ teaching and probably won’t be invited into the house of the Lord…
Just my 2 :[ worth…
AND of course, my diatribe totally ignores the free-will versus predetermination arguments. If God does exist and is omnipotent and knows everything that happens or will happen… then what difference does it really make. He knows before you’re born if you’re destined for Heaven or Hell…
As my brother says “Live Simply, Love Generously, Care Deeply, Speak Kindly, and Leave the Rest to God” (Personally, I like “walk softly and carry a big stick”, but that’s just me).
…not if you’ve been married…
?
Well… If you hadn’t sneaked in two friggin’ comments while I was reading Mara’s comment… That might have made a little more sense…
This is how it might have read:
Mara ~ “And might I add, eternity is a REALLY long time.”
Trouble ~ “…not if you’ve been married…” (c)
…and yes, this was an interesting post by Christine… No, it doesn’t shock me that these idiots exist, and worse, are procreating freely… I honestly don’t have the energy to debate this one…
It sparked a conversation between Christopher and I last night during the Saving Private Ryan commercials. Christopher made a really good point that if you’re going to accept the Bible as an accepted basis of an argument (I personally don’t, but if you’re going to let it into the ring and declare it has value), then you can’t pick and choose which passages to believe. The Bible actually does say that it is an “abomination” to lie with mankind the way they do with womankind, I suppose implying to some that homosexuality is an abomination– I actually think I could poke a few holes in that interpretation, but I’ll save that for another time. Let’s just accept it for the sake of argument. If that’s the case, then yes, the WBC may be right in their thinking under the Bible, BUT THEY are clearly ignoring several other passages– one of which PJ brought up which is that the only path to salvation is the acceptance of JC as the savior as the Bible declares that all men and women are sinners anyway (which would include the WBC congregation– should we accept that they are actually human).
I would love to see the Rev. Phelps actually have to debate a Christian minister on this subject– someone who could easily and readily pull from the Bible and point out the fallacies of the WBC doctrine by using the same “tool” the WBC folks have tried to base their argument on. Actually, I would pay to see that.
…I’m not sure I would pay good money to fall asleep during that debate…
Well, aside from the OT and passages that speak on the path to salvation, there are plenty of other verses, particularly in the NT that talk about action and the result of certain actions; some of these passages are quite blunt in their claims that people who live in a certain way will not enter heaven. There are passages that claim a person cannot live in sin and commune with god at the same time which implies that one must change their actions. There are passages that speak on god not hearing the prayers of believers who are steeped in sin. There’s a particularly controversial verse in Hebrews which asks whether a person can lose their salvation. Of course what all of these passages really mean is a matter of interpretation and endless debate but I would say that there are a lot of Christians who would argue that more than mere acceptance of JC is required or rather, they would argue that acceptance means more than just claiming JC is your savior.
My feelings is that there is probably some balance that should be struck between belief and action (book of James, anyone?). I just doubt anyone seriously knows what it is.
PJ, you’ve hit on one of the reasons I could never be a Calvinist. I mean, if you’re destined for hell, then what’s the point?
Speaking of hell, I’ve been studying hell as it is understood in Judaism. It’s very interesting and much more preferable than the Christian’s version. Well, I suppose that depends on which Jewish version of hell one adopts.
Calvin & Hobbes rocks! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…
Trouble finds this boring… his soul has already been saved.
Lost…
Speaking of hell, I’ve been studying hell…
Man, I *really* thought she was going to relate this post to her studying for the Bar, but alas…
8)
I’m all for freedom of religion and every individual’s freedom to practice whatever whacked out belief they want to practice in the name of God, but…
Stop right there. You’re either for freedom of speech or you’re against it. You can’t qualify your position just whenever a person or group of people happens to hurt your feelings.
…that support ends the moment one feels the “right” to harass a mourning family by picketing and holding up signs suggesting God hates the deceased.
So you think an individual’s right to peacefully display a protest sign in a pubic place should be abridged for the sake of sentiment? Protests should only be held in situations where their targets aren’t especially vulnerable to being offended?
Funerals are off-limits? What about annual memorial services for people who died in wars? There are going to be a few vets at each such ceremony, some of whom have lost friends: shall anti-war demonstrators be forced to remain silent for the sake of their feelings?
How’s about the unspoken moratorium on posting pictures of flag draped coffins in privately-owned newspapers? Candid war images could damage morale and offend the families of the dead: let’s censor those, too.
The market-place of ideas, which is located in every public space, must either be open to everyone who peacefully abides, or the respect for free speech could erode to the point where no one really has it.
“So you think an individual’s right to peacefully display a protest sign in a pubic place should be abridged for the sake of sentiment? Protests should only be held in situations where their targets aren’t especially vulnerable to being offended?
Funerals are off-limits? What about annual memorial services for people who died in wars? There are going to be a few vets at each such ceremony, some of whom have lost friends: shall anti-war demonstrators be forced to remain silent for the sake of their feelings?”
While certainly legal, protesting at funerals shows both a serious insensitivity and also lack a serious intelligence that should not be applauded. What is the point, other than to be insensitive. Is it really changing anything? Is protesting a funeral / memorial service really targeting the appropriate people? Go protest at the capital building.
“How’s about the unspoken moratorium on posting pictures of flag draped coffins in privately-owned newspapers? Candid war images could damage morale and offend the families of the dead: let’s censor those, too.”
Unspoken means not censored. I’ll let you in on a little secret, if people DON’T print something it’s not in their best interest and likely bad for business.
Alyzza… I am weary of Americans who spout on-and-on about their Constitutional rights, when they haven’t even bothered to read them, and attempt to make some rational sense of them. Isn’t that still part of the grade-school curriculum?
The 1st amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, as ratified on 15th Dec 1791, by 14 States, 810 days after proposal, reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The 1st amendment does NOT bestow upon you “freedom of speech, and freedom to do what-the-hell-you-like.” It was created by your ”
‘four-fathers’ hundreds of years ago, to protect groups of citizens who had emigrated to the New World in order to escape religious persecution from the governments of their homelands. With regard to religion… The 1st amendment prohibits the GOVERNMENT from interfering with the rights of the PEOPLE, to practice their own religions, without fear of persecution by the GOVERNMENT.
The terms of the amendment are still subject to, and do not supercede the overall terms of the LAW, and believe-it-or-not, at that time it really only applied to “Christianity”, as all those other so-called-religions weren’t really religions anyways.
You make the statement to Chris that he should:
“Stop right there. You’re either for freedom of speech or you’re against it. You can’t qualify your position just whenever a person or group of people happens to hurt your feelings.”
Are you 10?
The world is not black & white. You may have been given many rights under your constitution, but as a normal, thinking adult, you may decide for yourself how they apply to your life in particular, and choose to either exercise those rights, or not, as you see fit, in part or in their entirety, from time-to-time, or always, simultaneously agreeing, or disagreeing with them in part or by whole, as you see fit, so-long as you do so within the constraints of the law… Or avoiding being detected operating outside of said constraints.
Christopher has every right to support the concept of “freedom of speech” as a whole when it is applied in the manner that was intended, while still disagreeing with how some citizens use it as license to act like complete fucking Ass-holes with impunity.
Let’s not pretend that freedom of speech does not come with parameters. You can’t yell “fire” in a theater, you can’t tell a police officer that you witnessed a crime that you didn’t, you can’t tell security at the airport you’re carrying a bomb and expect any of this to be protected under the guise of free speech. That’s simply not the case and never has been.
The fact that you think it’s appropriate to protest at a funeral shows that you are so wrapped up in yourself, you’ve lost any empathy most people have as human beings.
A funeral is a rite. It’s the way that friends and family members who are grieving over the loss of a loved one can come together to mourn, find support from others, and ultimately get closure. It’s the entire reason that funerals exist. If we, as humans, didn’t need that, there’d be no funerals. Knowing that that’s why we have funerals, which surely you must, the ONLY reason to protest a funeral is to interrupt that event.
Do you not think there’s a REASON that 42 states have banned protesting at funerals (it’s actually not legal, Christopher)? Apparently I’m not the only one who finds it more than inappropriate. And yes, to answer your question, annual memorial services– designed to honor and remember those we’ve lost– should also be off limits. The fact you even need to ask that shows you have trouble grasping the concept of sensitivity.
I’m not going to address the issue of not showing coffins of soldiers, because quite frankly, it has nothing to do with this issue at all.
Basically a funeral or memorial service gives anti-war protestors or crazy religious nuts a captive audience who won’t simply be able to ignore them and walk away and that’s why they want the ability to protest there.
I imagine there must be a feeling of desperation that goes along with knowing you can stand out in public with your signs and chant whatever you want, and yet people don’t pay much attention and lawmakers don’t change their stance because of your efforts. Perhaps, if you could get past your own agenda for two minutes and realize that protesting at funerals creates more distaste for your position than support, you might rethink your strategy instead of defending your insensitivity.
CHRISTOPHER: While certainly legal, protesting at funerals shows both a serious insensitivity and also lack a serious intelligence that should not be applauded. What is the point, other than to be insensitive. Is it really changing anything? Is protesting a funeral / memorial service really targeting the appropriate people? Go protest at the capital building.
Here’s why the protest at funerals:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiTY-94UQDI
CHRISTOPHER: Unspoken means not censored. I’ll let you in on a little secret, if people DON’T print something it’s not in their best interest and likely bad for business.
I’ll let you in on a little secret: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,371411,00.html
Images of war and death sell papers. You should be asking yourself why you haven’t seen more of them.
TROUBLE: I am weary of Americans who spout on-and-on about their Constitutional rights, when they haven’t even bothered to read them, and attempt to make some rational sense of them. Isn’t that still part of the grade-school curriculum?
I’m not defending the funeral picketers merely because they have a right to act as they do; I’m defending them because the test for whether to permit certain forms of speech should not be if the words are sufficient to offend someone.
I’m defending them also because community decency standards are unequally applied. It’s okay, for example, that talk show pundits continue to stoke racial fears such that some people mistrust their neighbors. It’s okay for the news media to hype the scare de jour even while yelling fire in a theatre is considered irresponsible.
It’s also okay, in the sense that there wasn’t sufficient outcry, for members of the Westboro Baptist Church to picket the funerals of gays.
After all they’d been doing it with virtual impunity for years before they decided to target military funerals, at which time the majority of Americans got up in arms about being kicked in the national jewels.
This merely proves to me that it isn’t how you offend but whom that could cause you to run afoul of these ever-changing ‘decency standards.’
TROUBLE: The world is not black & white. You may have been given many rights under your constitution, but as a normal, thinking adult, you may decide for yourself how they apply to your life in particular, and choose to either exercise those rights, or not, as you see fit, in part or in their entirety, from time-to-time, or always, simultaneously agreeing, or disagreeing with them in part or by whole, as you see fit, so-long as you do so within the constraints of the law… Or avoiding being detected operating outside of said constraints. Christopher has every right to support the concept of “freedom of speech” as a whole when it is applied in the manner that was intended, while still disagreeing with how some citizens use it as license to act like complete fucking Ass-holes with impunity.
Making things needlessly complex is not a sign of maturity, my long-winded friend. This matter really is that simple: you either support freedom of speech or you don’t. You can place limits on speech, such as that people are not permitted to counsel murder, for example, but you can’t place different limits on different people and use “offense” as a barometer for whether speech should be curtailed.
TROUBLE: The 1st amendment does NOT bestow upon you “freedom of speech, and freedom to do what-the-hell-you-like.”….With regard to religion… The 1st amendment prohibits the GOVERNMENT from interfering with the rights of the PEOPLE, to practice their own religions, without fear of persecution by the GOVERNMENT.
And who, pray tell, would you have craft and enforce a ‘no-picketing-at-sacred-events’ ordinance BUT the government?!
CHRISTINE: Let’s not pretend that freedom of speech does not come with parameters. You can’t yell “fire” in a theater, you can’t tell a police officer that you witnessed a crime that you didn’t, you can’t tell security at the airport you’re carrying a bomb and expect any of this to be protected under the guise of free speech. That’s simply not the case and never has been.
So, no one is permitted, under the guise of free speech, to speak falsehoods that would endanger the public. That’s a limitation which applies to absolutely everyone in every situation. See my answer to “Trouble” for more on that.
CHRISTINE: The fact that you think it’s appropriate to protest at a funeral shows that you are so wrapped up in yourself, you’ve lost any empathy most people have as human beings.
If I were burying a loved one, I wouldn’t care whether people were carrying picket signs a few hundred feet away. I certainly wouldn’t be so full of myself as to expect that everyone within a certain radius genuinely shared my pain – and I’d rather deal with in-your-face picketers than with false condolences from people who claim to know and love the dead guy but hadn’t spoken to him in ten years.
So no, I can’t empathize with folks who care more about appearances than they do about the business at hand. It’s ridiculous.
CHRISTINE: Do you not think there’s a REASON that 42 states have banned protesting at funerals
Because, after ten years of their picketing at the funerals of gays and AIDS victims, members of the Westboro Baptist Church finally pissed off ‘important people’ when they aimed at military funerals and started attacking the sanctity of the holy US flag.
Those states banned funeral pickets because they’re peopled by hypocrites.
CHRISTINE: Apparently I’m not the only one who finds it more than inappropriate. And yes, to answer your question, annual memorial services– designed to honor and remember those we’ve lost– should also be off limits. The fact you even need to ask that shows you have trouble grasping the concept of sensitivity.
Uh huh, so where do you draw the line? Which events are sufficiently unimportant that people can protest at them? And yes this has everything to do with showing pictures of flag-draped coffins. Their display is a form of free speech, which is curtailed for the sake of sentiment.
CHRISTINE: Basically a funeral or memorial service gives anti-war protestors or crazy religious nuts a captive audience who won’t simply be able to ignore them and walk away and that’s why they want the ability to protest there.
Protesters don’t have a “captive audience” in anyone if they’re outside the building, across the street, and on public property.
CHRISTINE: I imagine there must be a feeling of desperation that goes along with knowing you can stand out in public with your signs and chant whatever you want, and yet people don’t pay much attention and lawmakers don’t change their stance because of your efforts. Perhaps, if you could get past your own agenda for two minutes and realize that protesting at funerals creates more distaste for your position than support, you might rethink your strategy instead of defending your insensitivity.
And what, pray tell, is my agenda? You seem to think the only people who would defend the WBC are either members of sympathetic to their anti-gay stance.
In all honesty, the first amendment probably allows these people to protest funerals in public places such as on the sidewalks in front of the churches, across the street in the public park, in the street, etc. So no state can actually BAN the protesting. I don’t see how you could ever write a law that would pass constitutional muster. Either the law would be too broad because “protest” could mean anything (if you and I stand in front of the church and say to each other we hate fags, are we protesting the funeral?) or the state would have to define what it meant by protest which would be most likely be content based. And it’s very difficult for any law that restricts speech on a sidewalk based on viewpoint to meet the constitution’s requirements. What a state can PROBABLY do is limit how close the protestors can be to the funeral– 300 feet, etc. (there’s some precedent on this in abortion cases I believe). But to ban protesting, the state has to demonstrate a VERY strong interest and I’m not sure the interest in protecting the dignity of funerals and sparing the mourners emotional pain outweighs the interest in free speech in this context. And I’m not even sure the Supreme Court has even recognized that states have such an interest.
Just my 2 cents.
“So no, I can’t empathize with folks who care more about appearances than they do about the business at hand. It’s ridiculous.”
The business at hand is a funeral. Not whatever politically charged event you want to turn it into.
“And yes this has everything to do with showing pictures of flag-draped coffins. Their display is a form of free speech, which is curtailed for the sake of sentiment.”
Do the flags speak? Perhaps only to you…
“Protesters don’t have a “captive audience” in anyone if they’re outside the building, across the street, and on public property.”
But they strategically place themselves where people who are attending the funeral will either have to pass them, or will see them. Otherwise, they could sit at home and protest in their underwear in front of the t.v. Isn’t the point of picketing to make sure people SEE you???
“And what, pray tell, is my agenda? You seem to think the only people who would defend the WBC are either members of sympathetic to their anti-gay stance.”
I have no idea what your agenda is, nor do I care. You could have an agenda that I support 100% personally and I’d still find it insensitive and selfish to picket at a funeral.
“Uh huh, so where do you draw the line? Which events are sufficiently unimportant that people can protest at them?”
Sweetheart, if you need to even ask that question, you obviously aren’t getting it. It’s not about “importance” it’s about “sensitivity” and “empathy.” It’s amazing how you phrase every question as if you’re the victim whose rights are being trampled because someone suggests that protesting where other people are trying to grieve the loss of a loved one could be considered insensitive. You’re actually making my point– which regardless of whatever your agenda is, not everything revolves around you– and the funeral of a person you don’t even know is definitely one of those things.
Just knowing that you are causing someone who is already in pain because they lost a family member MORE pain should be enough to make you reflect on a decision to do what you’re doing. But instead, you’re completely blinded to that fact because to you, this is all about YOUR rights to do something regardless of how it affects other people.
“If I were burying a loved one, I wouldn’t care whether people were carrying picket signs a few hundred feet away. I certainly wouldn’t be so full of myself as to expect that everyone within a certain radius genuinely shared my pain – and I’d rather deal with in-your-face picketers than with false condolences from people who claim to know and love the dead guy but hadn’t spoken to him in ten years.”"
So now you’re making the assumption that people who attend the funeral are hypocrites who didn’t care about the deceased. That’s based on what exactly? Oh… of course… it’s based on your need to justify why it’s okay to picket at funerals and still feel good about yourself.
I think if you let go of a little of your hate and this feeling that you’re being victimized, you might be able to find a little more empathy and basic human understanding.
Mara: Honestly, I’d have to do some research before I could really respond intelligently to your comment. I can tell you that it was on a news broadcast on youtube in which the WBC protestors were being interviewed that they said 42 states had banned protesting at funerals. Perhaps that means they are allowed within a certain limited distance.
My point is not whether it should be legal or not to protest on a certain piece of property. My point was more that there’s a reason we (well, most of us) don’t do certain things– it has to do with decency, integrity, and human empathy. Most people, when they see someone in pain or in need, feel bad for that person. We don’t typically delight in the pain of other people. I think in order to know you are causing someone MORE pain than they are already feeling, you must overcome your natural tendency to empathize by convincing yourself those in pain don’t DESERVE your empathy either because they’re godless (like the WBC-ers believe) or they’re hypocrites (like Alyzza likes to believe) or any other of a myriad of traits you can assign a group of people you don’t know. It wasn’t particularly intended to be a legal discussion– more about narcissism and lack of respect.
Mara: Here’s an interesting article about this. The ban apparently went through in Missouri– you can’t protest within 300 feet of a church or cemetary one hour before or after a funeral is scheduled to take place BUT it exempts streets, sidewalks and other “public places.”
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid26094.asp
Christine, thanks for the link. I did a bit of research as well (and by “bit” I mean VERY little) and despite the bans by various states, some of them (including Missouri) are probably unconstitutional. I don’t know the text of Missouri’s law, but I do know that it’s very difficult to write a law like this because you end up restricting more speech than you want (and CAN) and frankly, there really are not very many constitutional theories upon which to base such a restriction. But if Missouri has written a law that passes constitutional muster, kudos.
And I totally agree with you, btw. I just pointing out that despite the bans by various states, some of the bans (including Missouri) are probably unconstitutional. I can’t help it. Forgive me. I studied con law all day yesterday so it’s at the forefront of my mind. ALL DAY.
As an aside, I really don’t know how your initial post was turned into a case for free speech or rather, the lack thereof. I think most of us regular posters can agree that these people have the “right” to be assholes. It’s just a shame that they choose to be.
This is SOOOO not relevant to this post, but I have a little problem. When I’m stressed out with anything school/study related, I procrastinate by cooking, usually ridiculously elaborate meals that require a lot prep time and effort. But through law school and many semesters where I should have been writing papers or learning evidence, I have managed to perfect my recipes for candied yams, roasted chicken, fried cabbage, strawberry shortcake, and a few others.
Since bar study is stressing me the fuck out and being exactly two weeks away today, I’ve determined that despite all of the memorization I need to do, this is the ideal time to perfect my hot wings recipe. And I DID it! I am so proud of myself. Christen was a very happy camper too.
I’ve decided that if I fail the bar, I’m going to open up a chicken shack and serve hot wings.
I cannot believe I just posted that. This should tell you all where my mind is…
But seriously, the hot wings were REALLY good.
Mara: go fucking study!!!!
CHRISTINE: The business at hand is a funeral. Not whatever politically charged event you want to turn it into.
The business at hand is a funeral – precisely. Bury your dead, and stop expecting everyone else to kiss your ass while doing it. If you announce the funeral in a local paper, in hope of having everyone and his dog show up for your death festival, you pretty much have to take the bad with the good.
But they strategically place themselves where people who are attending the funeral will either have to pass them, or will see them. Otherwise, they could sit at home and protest in their underwear in front of the t.v. Isn’t the point of picketing to make sure people SEE you???
Their having to glimpse you is not the same as their being your captive audience.
I have no idea what your agenda is, nor do I care. You could have an agenda that I support 100% personally and I’d still find it insensitive and selfish to picket at a funeral.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree then, because I think it’s 100% wrong that sentimentality should determine how much freedom a person has.
Sweetheart, if you need to even ask that question, you obviously aren’t getting it.
“Sweetheart” – that’s cute. I’m not surprised by your condescension; it’s a smokescreen to draw attention away from the fact you failed to answer my question: Which events are sufficiently unimportant that people can protest at them?
It’s not about “importance” it’s about “sensitivity” and “empathy.”
Sensitivity and empathy cannot be quantified. They cannot be applied equally in every situation. They are not good measures of when to allow or limit speech.
It’s amazing how you phrase every question as if you’re the victim whose rights are being trampled because someone suggests that protesting where other people are trying to grieve the loss of a loved one could be considered insensitive.
A swing and a miss: I don’t have a problem with people considering it insensitive. I have a problem with people supporting or passing legislation against it.
You’re actually making my point– which regardless of whatever your agenda is, not everything revolves around you– and the funeral of a person you don’t even know is definitely one of those things.
Simplicity in itself. You don’t want strangers at the funeral? Don’t let them in. If they’re on public property, however, you’re pretty much out of luck.
Just knowing that you are causing someone who is already in pain because they lost a family member MORE pain should be enough to make you reflect on a decision to do what you’re doing. But instead, you’re completely blinded to that fact because to you, this is all about YOUR rights to do something regardless of how it affects other people.
Not so. I’ve agreed that some speech should be curtailed for how it affects other people. Counseling someone to commit murder is illegal. Endangering the public health through lies – for example, by claiming a building is on fire when it really isn’t – is illegal. False advertising is illegal. Uttering death threats is illegal. And these things are illegal for absolutely everyone. Their legality does not rely on sentiment or emotion. It doesn’t rely on the public zeitgeist.
I’m defending the right to do something regardless of whether it merely offends other people.
So now you’re making the assumption that people who attend the funeral are hypocrites who didn’t care about the deceased. That’s based on what exactly? Oh… of course… it’s based on your need to justify why it’s okay to picket at funerals and still feel good about yourself.
What I said was, I’d rather deal with picketers than with hypocrites. And yes, any funeral of sufficient size will attract its share of professional mourners.
I realized a long time ago there’s nothing to be gained from debating someone who chooses to ignore logic completely.
Christine said; “But they strategically place themselves where people who are attending the funeral will either have to pass them, or will see them. Otherwise, they could sit at home and protest in their underwear in front of the t.v. Isn’t the point of picketing to make sure people SEE you???”
Alyzza said: “Their having to glimpse you is not the same as their being your captive audience.”
Alyzza, I was not aware the Constitution granted you the right to have a captive audience for your protests… would you please cite your source?
While I agree that the ass-wipes at WBC have the right to protest the war and homosexual behavior, I do not agree that they have the right to protest whenever or wherever they want.
I do, however, think their protests are highly demonstrative to the rest of the country to see their “agenda” — after all, forewarned is forearmed, so let them get lots of media coverage and let the condemnations (of their behavior) begin!
Well, PJ, that’s basically it. If you think about it… where does it make the most sense to protest? In front of the capitol building where you’ll be seen by lawmakers who have some power in making these decisions, or at a funeral in front of the families of the deceased? Obviously, the answer is in front of the capitol building. But these people choose the latter because their insensitivity in and of itself creates negative attention from the media and it gets them on t.v. Standing in front of a capitol building won’t. They rely on the fact that people find them to be insensitive to further their exposure.
The people who choose to protest at funerals can pretend not to see that they’re being insensitive, or they can acknowledge it and justify it, but neither erases the fact they’re being insensitive.
And no, I don’t think people should exploit their freedom of speech by suggesting it allows them to harass people. It’s because I value the freedom of speech we have that it bothers me to see people hiding behind it and using it in a way that actually hurts individual people. Being against a war or against homosexuals is one thing, but funerals are about single individuals. There is a distinction there.
I don’t think freedom of speech should be regulated, and honestly, most protesters do choose to protest and picket in appropriate ways and appropriate places. Those people are able to balance their freedom and passion for whatever they’re protesting with basic human respect for other people. It’s too bad not everyone has that ability– or desire.
Chris… You’re going to have to reduce the font-size, and increase the number of links in the ‘recently said’ column in the side-bar, for those of us who only check-in once a day, presently it’s difficult to keep up when the shit-storms blow by…
“Not so. I’ve agreed that some speech should be curtailed for how it affects other people. Counseling someone to commit murder is illegal. Endangering the public health through lies – for example, by claiming a building is on fire when it really isn’t – is illegal. False advertising is illegal. Uttering death threats is illegal. And these things are illegal for absolutely everyone.”
So, Alyzza… You’re AGAINST freedom of speech then…
“Their legality does not rely on sentiment or emotion. It doesn’t rely on the public zeitgeist.”
Correct! Their legality relys on what the state governments decide is, or is not in the best interests of public safety, and it seems that governments tend to “think” that when groups of people who have opposing viewpoints that they feel very strongly about, gather in the same general vicinity for the sole purpose of “peaceably” protesting said viewpoints of each other… That there might be the possibility that it will escalate to something more “difficult to manage”… Where they got that idea is beyond me…
I’ll commend you for bringing a different slant to the debate, but from your above quoted paragraph, coupled with the fact that the only axiom you picked-up on from my last comment was that I’m “long-winded”, I can only conclude that you DON’T get the proverbial “it.”
The FACT that you seem to feel that the correct interpretation of the “rights” provided you by your Constitution, as they apply to you under the laws created by your government, and your onus as a thinking human-being to decide when and when not to exercise those rights based on the ethical appropriateness of the results, is “making things needlessly complex” and “immature”… Is the prime example WHY people like you NEED governments to think for you.
“And who, pray tell, would you have craft and enforce a ‘no-picketing-at-sacred-events’ ordinance BUT the government?!”
Up until now, I have assumed you are American… But now I’m not so sure… Are you aware that America has a “Democratic” form of government? That when a State passes an ordinance it is because those elected officials “vote” on it? That those votes are a representation of the peoples proclivity? That it is supposedly in the best interest of the peoples safety? That’s what governments do…
The 1st amendment is only there to stop the government from using its power [given to it by the people] to infringe on the right of the people, to practice their religions, report the news, and express themselves WITHIN the confines of those laws which are voted into existence by your democratically elected government.
It does “allow” for certain “rights”, the exactitudes of which are then decided by the federal/state laws.
If YOU DON’T BELIEVE THIS, ask David Koresh & the Branch Davidians [freedom of religion], any news agency stupid enough to publish information which would compromise your “national-security” [freedom of the press], and your uncle who likes to run down his street naked [freedom of expression]…
To take your tack… You either support your system of government, or you’re against it.
you’re way down in the Caribbean and yet you know about my uncle??? How DO you do it??
I just assumed we ALL had an uncle like that…
Or know someone who has an uncle like that…
I’ve got your naked uncle right here, Christine
Say, is a naked uncle anything like “who’s your daddy?”
No… no it’s not.
Who’s your Daddy = sexy, naked uncle = creepy. Big difference.
ROFL — Happy V Day (in the Daddy sort of way, not the uncle sort)
Thank you, PJ! Happy V-day to you as well! (l) And may this be a V-day for you in more ways than one…
Is that an offer?????!!!!!! :p
Our V-Day celebration will probably wait until NEXT WEEK… you know, Cub Scouts tonight, PTA tomorrow night, as so on… end of story — PERIOD
Parenthood. Something to look forward to… maybe. :s
Umm, ‘tine — you missed the subtle hints… look at the capitalized words again.
ROFL!!!!! Apparently, that was a little too subtle for me…
Lol, PJ.
Well, ‘tine, I’m NOT generally known for my subtly, so I understand why you missed it.
Btw, Happy V-day Mara! Here’s hoping your last V-day of singleness is VERY romantic.
Cheers!
(d)
Thanks, PJ!
Well this has absolutely nothing to do with anything, except it does have the words priest and bishop…
.. So there was this new priest at his first mass. He was so nervous he couldn’t speak one sentence without choking or sputtering. Afterwards, he asked his bishop how he had done. The bishop replied, “When I think I’m going to be nervous on the pulpit, I set a glass of vodka up there , which I sip on when I need to.”
The new priest took the advice, and the next Sunday he had a tall, clear glass of Stoli sitting next to his bible. In about 10 minutes he was talking up a storm. When he got back to his office after mass he found a note from the bishop taped to the door. It read:
1. Sip the Vodka, don’t gulp.
2. There are 10 commandments, not 12
3. There were 12 disciples, not 10.
4. Jesus was consecreated, not constipated.
5. Jacob wagered his donkey – he did not bet his ass.
6. We do not refer to Jesus Christ as “the late J.C”
7. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not referred to as “Daddy, Junior, and the Spook.”
8. David slew Goliath, he didn’t “kick the shit out of him”
9. When David was hit by a rock and knocked off his mule, we don’t say he was “stoned off his ass”
10. We do not refer to the cross as “The Big T:
11. At the last supper Jesus said “take this and eat it, for it is my body.” He did not say “Eat Me”
12 The Virgin Mary is not called “Mary with the Cherry”
13. There will be a taffy pulling contest at St. Peter’s, not a peter pulling contest at St. Taffy’s.
sincerely,
The Bishop
I got that one in an email. I laughed then too.