Poll: Controversial Protests

[GryffinDarkBreed]

honestly it seems like they just want blood...and they say only islam makes jihads. sheesh what does the rigid churchs of the bible not oppose. my response to them is Stick your cross!!! doesn't the bible say don't do alot of crap they do? also i says the world shortest verse. The there you learnt something new now forget 3 things muwhahahaaha


no seriously i know plenty of christians...they read this and said that's bat shat loco they don't approve of gay marriage but they don't protest it or jewish centres at the same time? what did the jews do? nothing they get hit with the stick everytime someone has a problem it seems.

ENGLISH, MOTHERF-ER, DO YOU SPEAK IT?!

Seriously though. Westboro is one of those groups that EVERYONE can get behind hating. I remember hearing once how they went to protest near a funeral for a soldier, and a Biker group composed entirely of veterans parked between them with their motorcycles and drowned them out with a row of roaring Harley Davidsons.

 

[tsb247]

I am against gay marriage because I simply do not believe it is right (morally or biologically). There are always differences. Sometimes they just need to be overlooked. Nobody is perfect.

Oh my God. I'm at a loss for words. How very much I wish to tear your argument apart at the seams, but I won't (unless you request it (I understand the biology in your argument just not your ethical/social view)).

Though I must ask. How can you believe it to be 'morally' wrong? I just don't follow. I understand (in my way) ethics, but I don't see where you are coming from. Unless you feel that one of your objectives (If you ask i shall explain why i include the objectives thing) is to prevent Homosexual relationships. If so, Why, when if they didn't they would probably not get with a chick anyway so it wouldn't really make a difference except to make them sad. Seriously though, I would love to have an open discussion with you about this as I really don't follow the intent behind your words.

I suppose the moral part of my argument is based on my own personal morals. I am not gay, so obviously it is not something I practice or believe in; not my lifestyle. Fortunately, I do not hold the rest of the world to my own moral standards. Just because I do not support something does not mean it cannot or should not be. All I am saying is that I am not in favor of gay marriage. It's an opinion based on my beliefs on life and the human condition.

However, I thank you for inviting discussion. I don't appreciate attacks on my character or beliefs just because I do not neccessarily agree with someone.

I don't see why people can't attack stupid beliefs. Why are they off limits? Obviously your argument against homosexuality doesn't stand up to biological facts, so you're absolutely wrong. You talk about homosexuality as if it's a religion in itself ("not something I practice or believe in"), why?

So factually you're dead in the water. So you take the easy way out, that it's your belief. Though the comparison isn't friendly, what if you talked to a racist and had presented a brilliant case showing that every race is equal and explained thoroughly why stereotypes are wrong.....and he said "Well, that makes alot of sense but it's my belief". It's idiocy and snobbery, to state after all the actual facts are presented that what you believe somehow trumps that.

I see you have not learned the art of discussion and debate:

Seriously, are you reading what you post? You sound like an angry teenager. I don't care that you don't agree with my beliefs. That does not bother me in the least. I invite mutual, respectful discussion. Being insulting just because you can... Well, that does not make you sound intelligent, and it certainly does not give credibility to your argument.

It is obvious that you think differently than me, and I am perfectly ok with that. However, the fact that you seem to think you need to prove something to me is quite odd. I simply gave my opinion, and you chose to jump on me like a rabbid dog on a rotten steak. I don't know what kind of crusade you think you are on.

When I spot nonsense I tend to point it out. Everything I wrote I stand by. You are presented with facts that show homosexuality as natural, that shows sex isn't merely for creating offspring, and that children would be brought up safely in a household missing one of the sexes. Yet your rebuttle after all the information was brought us was "Yeah, but it's my belief". That's reprehensible.

The evidence presented about homosexuality in nature refers to penguins, monkeys, and some other creatures that I won't bother looking up at the moment. Unless you can claim to be a monkey or a penguin, then it is not the same. So what if animals do it? Do we as humans not seperate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom? We are more evolved than any monkey, penguin, or other creature you will encounter out in the wild. Sure we are primates, but our societies are FAR more complex in structure as well as in size. We share information in different ways, communicate a FAR more levels (let's see a penguin use the internet), and we are the only creatures on earth that are known to manipulate our environments on such profound levels to suit our own needs (You don't see prairie dogs building high-rise apartments out of steel and wood do you?). Humans have grown to dominate the planet over the past 195,000 years or so. We are about as far removed from the 'natural' world as we can get; sitting in an air-sonditioned building that is just brimming with plumbing, wiring, insulation, and other electronic devices.

I also find the logic of, "If penguins, monkeys, and other animals in nature do it, then maybe we should do it too!" quite funny.

I was never presented with any facts in the first place. I will accept 'facts' as facts when accompanied with sources to back them up (like in a discussion[/i[).

Never once did I imply that a child raised by parents of the same sex would not be safe, but then again, what do you mean by safe? I'm sure they can be loving parents just like heterosexual couples. That does not necessarily mean they should be allowed to marry and have children. The problem here, again, is that you seem to think that just because it is possible to do something, that makes it a good idea, and that it is worth fighting for.

I should ask you this: Why should homosexual couples be allowed to marry and raise children? Present your case in a reasonable manner, and I will listen. That's how it works.

No, we are animals. Homo Erectus. We share quite a bit of genetic information with apes, pigs, and various other animals. The only difference is our ability to understand our own demise, which brings about more social contracting deemed 'morality'. Animals don't understand death, a dog will hide from predators when it is dying simply to avoid pain...not understanding the pain is coming from the death-pangs.

No, I think that if it is possible to do something that effects no one but yourself or a consentual party then you should be allowed to do it.

Homosexual couples have had children and have married in other countries, all evidence points to the children growing up normally. Social scientists have found, unsurprisingly, that men can take on feminine roles just as women can take on male roles for children. The only real problem would be from the outside community that mocks what it does not understand, but even in a heterosexual household the child will most likely be mocked for something during his/her lifetime. Marriage is a religious institution, so at first one would have to admit that the religious should make the choice of who to marry......until we realize that the United States government gives benefits for being married. Some states do not recognize civil unions in the same way they recognize marriage, so they don't receive the same benefits. Furthermore, there is a movement going on in the south to prevent single parents from adopting (obviously targetting homosexuals). Those in civil unions are counted as 'single' in Arkansas at the moment. The oddity being that the main argument is the child must have two parents to mature properly......whereas the bill in effect prevents the child from even having one.

So you are arguing for the recognition of civil unions from state to state? From the portion of text you wrote that seems dedicated to that subject, I am getting the idea that is what you are most irked about. I don't have a problem with recognizing civil unions. However, I see no reason to simply assume that the law to prevent single parents from adopting children only exists to prevent homosexuals from adopting. It could also be because of the research showing that children raised in single-parent households tend to be more troubled and fare worse than children with a single parent that has been divorced or live in a typical nuclear family.

http://social.jrank.org/pages/580/Single-Parent-Families-Well-Being-Children-Raised-in-Single-Parent-Homes.html

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/cb-9701.pdf

Keep in mind there are no gurantees, but it could also be said that these are the reasons behind the law. It could be argued either way, and I consider it nothing more than a conspiracy theory unless I see some proof.

I also find it funny that those claiming that religious institutions preach hate by not supporting gay rights are often just as hateful toward said religious institutions... As if it is ok to be hateful toward one thing, but not another.

Absolutely, I'm more in favor of civil unions being recognized and obtain the same benefits of those who choose marriage. As for the 'who knows if it was to prevent homosexuals', I do. My state has a leader who is very religious, so much so as to throw a 'true' marriage party at Alltel Arena (now called Horizon if I'm correct) to pledge an oath to god to show people what 'true marriage' is. During this event he prayed for a cure to homosexuality so that they could come to god. Added are his supporters who asked about gay adoption, and his only answer was a cryptic "we want what's best for the children". When the signatures were gathered, the actual sheet had a warning about homosexuals being able to adopt. There is plenty of evidence to suggest this was a veiled homophobic bill. After recent fights by homosexuals, there have been an admission to the bill. I shall quote it in it's hilarious homophobia....

"This law will not prevent single homosexuals or single heterosexuals from adopting children as long as they refrain from cohabiting."

google "Arkansas Measure 1" for more information, that way you can choose what source you prefer, thus allowing you to get a totally unbiased view of the bill.

If that truly is the case then that is in fact very sad. You see, I am a religious person. However, I also believe that religion has little place in government. When religion and government intermingle the way you are describing, one winds up with something like, oh... I dunno... The Taliban. It is indeed a difficult issue to sort out, and I was not familure with that bill seeing as I live slightly north and west of Arkansas (i.e. not in Arkansas). We don't hear much from down there.

 

[GryffinDarkBreed]

I am against gay marriage because I simply do not believe it is right (morally or biologically). There are always differences. Sometimes they just need to be overlooked. Nobody is perfect.

Oh my God. I'm at a loss for words. How very much I wish to tear your argument apart at the seams, but I won't (unless you request it (I understand the biology in your argument just not your ethical/social view)).

Though I must ask. How can you believe it to be 'morally' wrong? I just don't follow. I understand (in my way) ethics, but I don't see where you are coming from. Unless you feel that one of your objectives (If you ask i shall explain why i include the objectives thing) is to prevent Homosexual relationships. If so, Why, when if they didn't they would probably not get with a chick anyway so it wouldn't really make a difference except to make them sad. Seriously though, I would love to have an open discussion with you about this as I really don't follow the intent behind your words.

I suppose the moral part of my argument is based on my own personal morals. I am not gay, so obviously it is not something I practice or believe in; not my lifestyle. Fortunately, I do not hold the rest of the world to my own moral standards. Just because I do not support something does not mean it cannot or should not be. All I am saying is that I am not in favor of gay marriage. It's an opinion based on my beliefs on life and the human condition.

However, I thank you for inviting discussion. I don't appreciate attacks on my character or beliefs just because I do not neccessarily agree with someone.

I don't see why people can't attack stupid beliefs. Why are they off limits? Obviously your argument against homosexuality doesn't stand up to biological facts, so you're absolutely wrong. You talk about homosexuality as if it's a religion in itself ("not something I practice or believe in"), why?

So factually you're dead in the water. So you take the easy way out, that it's your belief. Though the comparison isn't friendly, what if you talked to a racist and had presented a brilliant case showing that every race is equal and explained thoroughly why stereotypes are wrong.....and he said "Well, that makes alot of sense but it's my belief". It's idiocy and snobbery, to state after all the actual facts are presented that what you believe somehow trumps that.

I see you have not learned the art of discussion and debate:

Seriously, are you reading what you post? You sound like an angry teenager. I don't care that you don't agree with my beliefs. That does not bother me in the least. I invite mutual, respectful discussion. Being insulting just because you can... Well, that does not make you sound intelligent, and it certainly does not give credibility to your argument.

It is obvious that you think differently than me, and I am perfectly ok with that. However, the fact that you seem to think you need to prove something to me is quite odd. I simply gave my opinion, and you chose to jump on me like a rabbid dog on a rotten steak. I don't know what kind of crusade you think you are on.

When I spot nonsense I tend to point it out. Everything I wrote I stand by. You are presented with facts that show homosexuality as natural, that shows sex isn't merely for creating offspring, and that children would be brought up safely in a household missing one of the sexes. Yet your rebuttle after all the information was brought us was "Yeah, but it's my belief". That's reprehensible.

The evidence presented about homosexuality in nature refers to penguins, monkeys, and some other creatures that I won't bother looking up at the moment. Unless you can claim to be a monkey or a penguin, then it is not the same. So what if animals do it? Do we as humans not seperate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom? We are more evolved than any monkey, penguin, or other creature you will encounter out in the wild. Sure we are primates, but our societies are FAR more complex in structure as well as in size. We share information in different ways, communicate a FAR more levels (let's see a penguin use the internet), and we are the only creatures on earth that are known to manipulate our environments on such profound levels to suit our own needs (You don't see prairie dogs building high-rise apartments out of steel and wood do you?). Humans have grown to dominate the planet over the past 195,000 years or so. We are about as far removed from the 'natural' world as we can get; sitting in an air-sonditioned building that is just brimming with plumbing, wiring, insulation, and other electronic devices.

I also find the logic of, "If penguins, monkeys, and other animals in nature do it, then maybe we should do it too!" quite funny.

I was never presented with any facts in the first place. I will accept 'facts' as facts when accompanied with sources to back them up (like in a discussion[/i[).

Never once did I imply that a child raised by parents of the same sex would not be safe, but then again, what do you mean by safe? I'm sure they can be loving parents just like heterosexual couples. That does not necessarily mean they should be allowed to marry and have children. The problem here, again, is that you seem to think that just because it is possible to do something, that makes it a good idea, and that it is worth fighting for.

I should ask you this: Why should homosexual couples be allowed to marry and raise children? Present your case in a reasonable manner, and I will listen. That's how it works.

No, we are animals. Homo Erectus. We share quite a bit of genetic information with apes, pigs, and various other animals. The only difference is our ability to understand our own demise, which brings about more social contracting deemed 'morality'. Animals don't understand death, a dog will hide from predators when it is dying simply to avoid pain...not understanding the pain is coming from the death-pangs.

No, I think that if it is possible to do something that effects no one but yourself or a consentual party then you should be allowed to do it.

Homosexual couples have had children and have married in other countries, all evidence points to the children growing up normally. Social scientists have found, unsurprisingly, that men can take on feminine roles just as women can take on male roles for children. The only real problem would be from the outside community that mocks what it does not understand, but even in a heterosexual household the child will most likely be mocked for something during his/her lifetime. Marriage is a religious institution, so at first one would have to admit that the religious should make the choice of who to marry......until we realize that the United States government gives benefits for being married. Some states do not recognize civil unions in the same way they recognize marriage, so they don't receive the same benefits. Furthermore, there is a movement going on in the south to prevent single parents from adopting (obviously targetting homosexuals). Those in civil unions are counted as 'single' in Arkansas at the moment. The oddity being that the main argument is the child must have two parents to mature properly......whereas the bill in effect prevents the child from even having one.

So you are arguing for the recognition of civil unions from state to state? From the portion of text you wrote that seems dedicated to that subject, I am getting the idea that is what you are most irked about. I don't have a problem with recognizing civil unions. However, I see no reason to simply assume that the law to prevent single parents from adopting children only exists to prevent homosexuals from adopting. It could also be because of the research showing that children raised in single-parent households tend to be more troubled and fare worse than children with a single parent that has been divorced or live in a typical nuclear family.

http://social.jrank.org/pages/580/Single-Parent-Families-Well-Being-Children-Raised-in-Single-Parent-Homes.html

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/cb-9701.pdf

Keep in mind there are no gurantees, but it could also be said that these are the reasons behind the law. It could be argued either way, and I consider it nothing more than a conspiracy theory unless I see some proof.

I also find it funny that those claiming that religious institutions preach hate by not supporting gay rights are often just as hateful toward said religious institutions... As if it is ok to be hateful toward one thing, but not another.

Absolutely, I'm more in favor of civil unions being recognized and obtain the same benefits of those who choose marriage. As for the 'who knows if it was to prevent homosexuals', I do. My state has a leader who is very religious, so much so as to throw a 'true' marriage party at Alltel Arena (now called Horizon if I'm correct) to pledge an oath to god to show people what 'true marriage' is. During this event he prayed for a cure to homosexuality so that they could come to god. Added are his supporters who asked about gay adoption, and his only answer was a cryptic "we want what's best for the children". When the signatures were gathered, the actual sheet had a warning about homosexuals being able to adopt. There is plenty of evidence to suggest this was a veiled homophobic bill. After recent fights by homosexuals, there have been an admission to the bill. I shall quote it in it's hilarious homophobia....

"This law will not prevent single homosexuals or single heterosexuals from adopting children as long as they refrain from cohabiting."

google "Arkansas Measure 1" for more information, that way you can choose what source you prefer, thus allowing you to get a totally unbiased view of the bill.

If that truly is the case then that is in fact very sad. You see, I am a religious person. However, I also believe that religion has little place in government. When religion and government intermingle the way you are describing, one winds up with something like, oh... I dunno... The Taliban. It is indeed a difficult issue to sort out, and I was not familure with that bill seeing as I live slightly north and west of Arkansas (i.e. not in Arkansas). We don't hear much from down there.

I'd be more likely to say "Nazi Germany" or, oh wait "The United States"

Long story short, Gay marriage, no matter what term you use, should be legal because the only defence against it is "My religion says it's bad"

Tough shit, religion is not to have any bearing on the government, as the government is -supposed- to be neutral.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I think there's a fine line between protest and hate crime. This is hate crime. =\

Speaking =/= hate crime.

"God hates fags" = hate crime.

Sounds more like a thought crime. I don't agree with them, but calling this a crime is very problematic.

 

[oneniesteledain]

The state has no right to deny gays the right to marry, and while, legally, these people have a right to protest, there is a difference between legality and decency.

I believe they have the right to protest, but a parent would also have the right to beat the everliving shit out of one of these people if their kid gets harassed.

PS Apparently "everliving" is a recognized word on Firefox...?

 

[oneniesteledain]

Stop.

Everyone here needs to realize this first!
There are only ten members in the Westboro Baptist Church.
Almost all of them are the family of Mr. Phelps.

Okay?

They're just dicks.

Oh, and for example of good Christians, remember when that milk-man shot and killed five little girls and then killed himself at an Amish school?

The families of the girls went to milk-man's funeral, offering their condolences, holding no grudges, and forgiving absolutely.

That's what Christianity is about.

As far as what Christianity is about, you are absolutely correct.

 

[LeQuack_Is_Back]

For pete's sake, these people are crazy. I doubt they'll ever change their minds, so I just hope they go no further than hateful words.

 

[Mookie_Magnus]

I've been wondering if this woman and her family-from-hell are related to Michael Phelps, AKA Aquaman, who won the Olympics in Beijing. I hope not, for his sake. I'd be embarassed to find out if any of my family was part of that godforsaken church.

 

[Kirix]

The Westboro Baptist Church is the worst kind of people of the world end of story

I disagree, but I actually think the WBC is a shining example of American freedom. We allow them to speak and all they do is blather on with their delusional crazy bullshit.

Horrible? Yes. Worst? No.

The worst are the ones who strap bombs on their chest because someone drew a picture of their sky friend.

Shining example? no never freedom is speech should be always there but to use it to bully people no not acceptable. Do you think they should have the freedom to protest in the way they do. No i don't. Remember how they protested at dead soldiers funerals. I think they should be shot them selves. In this world we have to live together all cultures and types of people. Granted you may disagree with someones religion or choice of life. You even may feel they are going to hell because of it but never should they go to funerals and cheer for the dead, in front of their friends and families. America shouldn't tolerate it. I don't mean america the government i mean the people. Im not american I'm irish and in ireland if people came to a funeral to protest they would have been lynched as did happen to some English police who interrupted IRA members funerals.

The above points may not tie into what the Westboro Baptist Church did this time but we have to look at the whole picture to get what we're dealing with. A relativity small group of people spreading hate. Their signs don't say come to gods light or god will save you. NO it says god hates fags and burn in hell fags. Even if your are against "fags" do you honestly think they are a shining example. Honestly bad choice of words. you clearly have a lot to learn about life.

Yes, they should be able to protest in such a way. Technically they stand outside of funerals, so the law is with them. However you see the beauty when you realize tons of veterans go to the protest, surround them, and drown them out with positivity. That, my friend, is a brilliant example of freedom of speech.

The small group isn't the only group spreading hate, otherwise we wouldn't have antihomosexual legislation in many states. I don't see the difference between "god hates fags" and "come to god", they are both equally offensive in that context.

You obviously have alot to learn about the Bill of Rights.

I see this post is just getting longer and longer.

My points are looking beyond the rights of gays in this case. I have no real interest in the Bill of Right as not being Irish. But can we just take a step back and look at the simple and obvious clue about this Bill. It's called the "Bill of Rights" not the "Bill of shoulds" Some extremist(not your bomb strapping suicide fellows) take it too serious. yes they may have the right to free speech but should they use it at funerals and use it to abuse Kids at school. In an ideal world (one where Americans didn't think they have to fulfill all their rights because they thought they might become expired like a old carton of milk) we'd hear the crowd shout Its wrong and leave us alone. but no alas we are flooded by righteous Americans(im making an assumption you are a proud one) screaming and pointing franticly at a piece of paper that says its ok to be a dick. To be honest a lot of the world (meaning everyone bar america) doesn't looking at your bill of rights with much respect. Ok I agree they work well enough but come one use some common sense when pointing them out to our faces.

I'd like to tell you a story of an encounter with an american I once had.
The setting: A local restaurant

We where sitting eating a meal. The meal was nice, I remember having the steak as I normally do. There where a good few other families apart from the locals here. A local man who I wouldn't know by name just that he works locally (Everyone knows everyone in Ireland one way or another) well I'm a little off the point here, the local man gets a phone call on his mobile phone. excuses himself to his wife and leaves to go outside to answer. It everyone one in the restaurant notices the phone call but no one cares. The man returns for 10 minutes before he gets a second call. still everyone notices but still no one cares its a phone call no big deal right? Now from the middle of the room a large (fat) man says loudly( In a clear and obvious American accent) "Switch your phone off. Its unconstitutional for us to hear it ring" (no this just a load of bullshit right) well the American was standing at the time and the man with the phone was right beside him as he was walking to seat with his wife again. No it took the local man maybe 2 seconds to realise what has been said to him. Then he just looking at the american and punched him square in the face, walked over to his wife and sat down at this stage the american man was on the floor in shock and rest of us gave a small laugh. The owner of the restaurant a old friend of ours(who passed away two years ago RIP) rushed over to the american couple and said "Sit eat your meal quietly or leave"

now the moral of the story in real world (outside of america) constitutional rights(a phone call ha ha) means shit all.

Now this post will most likely make many people angry at me. Firstly Sorry to all nice Americans I know there are a few of you out there, I have met some of you. Secondly this is my view on things

 

[Cliff_m85]

The Westboro Baptist Church is the worst kind of people of the world end of story

I disagree, but I actually think the WBC is a shining example of American freedom. We allow them to speak and all they do is blather on with their delusional crazy bullshit.

Horrible? Yes. Worst? No.

The worst are the ones who strap bombs on their chest because someone drew a picture of their sky friend.

Shining example? no never freedom is speech should be always there but to use it to bully people no not acceptable. Do you think they should have the freedom to protest in the way they do. No i don't. Remember how they protested at dead soldiers funerals. I think they should be shot them selves. In this world we have to live together all cultures and types of people. Granted you may disagree with someones religion or choice of life. You even may feel they are going to hell because of it but never should they go to funerals and cheer for the dead, in front of their friends and families. America shouldn't tolerate it. I don't mean america the government i mean the people. Im not american I'm irish and in ireland if people came to a funeral to protest they would have been lynched as did happen to some English police who interrupted IRA members funerals.

The above points may not tie into what the Westboro Baptist Church did this time but we have to look at the whole picture to get what we're dealing with. A relativity small group of people spreading hate. Their signs don't say come to gods light or god will save you. NO it says god hates fags and burn in hell fags. Even if your are against "fags" do you honestly think they are a shining example. Honestly bad choice of words. you clearly have a lot to learn about life.

Yes, they should be able to protest in such a way. Technically they stand outside of funerals, so the law is with them. However you see the beauty when you realize tons of veterans go to the protest, surround them, and drown them out with positivity. That, my friend, is a brilliant example of freedom of speech.

The small group isn't the only group spreading hate, otherwise we wouldn't have antihomosexual legislation in many states. I don't see the difference between "god hates fags" and "come to god", they are both equally offensive in that context.

You obviously have alot to learn about the Bill of Rights.

I see this post is just getting longer and longer.

My points are looking beyond the rights of gays in this case. I have no real interest in the Bill of Right as not being Irish. But can we just take a step back and look at the simple and obvious clue about this Bill. It's called the "Bill of Rights" not the "Bill of shoulds" Some extremist(not your bomb strapping suicide fellows) take it too serious. yes they may have the right to free speech but should they use it at funerals and use it to abuse Kids at school. In an ideal world (one where Americans didn't think they have to fulfill all their rights because they thought they might become expired like a old carton of milk) we'd hear the crowd shout Its wrong and leave us alone. but no alas we are flooded by righteous Americans(im making an assumption you are a proud one) screaming and pointing franticly at a piece of paper that says its ok to be a dick. To be honest a lot of the world (meaning everyone bar america) doesn't looking at your bill of rights with much respect. Ok I agree they work well enough but come one use some common sense when pointing them out to our faces.

I'd like to tell you a story of an encounter with an american I once had.
The setting: A local restaurant

We where sitting eating a meal. The meal was nice, I remember having the steak as I normally do. There where a good few other families apart from the locals here. A local man who I wouldn't know by name just that he works locally (Everyone knows everyone in Ireland one way or another) well I'm a little off the point here, the local man gets a phone call on his mobile phone. excuses himself to his wife and leaves to go outside to answer. It everyone one in the restaurant notices the phone call but no one cares. The man returns for 10 minutes before he gets a second call. still everyone notices but still no one cares its a phone call no big deal right? Now from the middle of the room a large (fat) man says loudly( In a clear and obvious American accent) "Switch your phone off. Its unconstitutional for us to hear it ring" (no this just a load of bullshit right) well the American was standing at the time and the man with the phone was right beside him as he was walking to seat with his wife again. No it took the local man maybe 2 seconds to realise what has been said to him. Then he just looking at the american and punched him square in the face, walked over to his wife and sat down at this stage the american man was on the floor in shock and rest of us gave a small laugh. The owner of the restaurant a old friend of ours(who passed away two years ago RIP) rushed over to the american couple and said "Sit eat your meal quietly or leave"

now the moral of the story in real world (outside of america) constitutional rights(a phone call ha ha) means shit all.

Now this post will most likely make many people angry at me. Firstly Sorry to all nice Americans I know there are a few of you out there, I have met some of you. Secondly this is my view on things

Sir, I am a proud Libertarian and American. The only way to spot an reform a dick is to hear what they believe. I've provided a scenerio multiple times in this board, but it all ends up with 'their beliefs will spread and they will believe they are being persecuted if they are silenced'.

The fat man saying it's "Unconstitutional" to hear his phone ring is a moron for a few reasons. 1) It's not fucking unconstitutional to hear a phone ring. 2) He's not in America. The story you provided, since the claim is idiotic, does not show that constitutional rights mean 'shit all'. However, constitutional rights don't mean anything in any country other than America. Since the Phelps work primarily in America we have to respect the Constitution during this discussion and see how it plays a part in the case. In America hate speech is legal, though it comes with societal repercussions as it very well should. The ability to speak your mind, no matter how stupid and inept your mind is at thinking logically, is an amazing thing. When you repress and idea it grows, festers, and turns sour.

 

[Kirix]

The Westboro Baptist Church is the worst kind of people of the world end of story

I disagree, but I actually think the WBC is a shining example of American freedom. We allow them to speak and all they do is blather on with their delusional crazy bullshit.

Horrible? Yes. Worst? No.

The worst are the ones who strap bombs on their chest because someone drew a picture of their sky friend.

Shining example? no never freedom is speech should be always there but to use it to bully people no not acceptable. Do you think they should have the freedom to protest in the way they do. No i don't. Remember how they protested at dead soldiers funerals. I think they should be shot them selves. In this world we have to live together all cultures and types of people. Granted you may disagree with someones religion or choice of life. You even may feel they are going to hell because of it but never should they go to funerals and cheer for the dead, in front of their friends and families. America shouldn't tolerate it. I don't mean america the government i mean the people. Im not american I'm irish and in ireland if people came to a funeral to protest they would have been lynched as did happen to some English police who interrupted IRA members funerals.

The above points may not tie into what the Westboro Baptist Church did this time but we have to look at the whole picture to get what we're dealing with. A relativity small group of people spreading hate. Their signs don't say come to gods light or god will save you. NO it says god hates fags and burn in hell fags. Even if your are against "fags" do you honestly think they are a shining example. Honestly bad choice of words. you clearly have a lot to learn about life.

Yes, they should be able to protest in such a way. Technically they stand outside of funerals, so the law is with them. However you see the beauty when you realize tons of veterans go to the protest, surround them, and drown them out with positivity. That, my friend, is a brilliant example of freedom of speech.

The small group isn't the only group spreading hate, otherwise we wouldn't have antihomosexual legislation in many states. I don't see the difference between "god hates fags" and "come to god", they are both equally offensive in that context.

You obviously have alot to learn about the Bill of Rights.

I see this post is just getting longer and longer.

My points are looking beyond the rights of gays in this case. I have no real interest in the Bill of Right as not being Irish. But can we just take a step back and look at the simple and obvious clue about this Bill. It's called the "Bill of Rights" not the "Bill of shoulds" Some extremist(not your bomb strapping suicide fellows) take it too serious. yes they may have the right to free speech but should they use it at funerals and use it to abuse Kids at school. In an ideal world (one where Americans didn't think they have to fulfill all their rights because they thought they might become expired like a old carton of milk) we'd hear the crowd shout Its wrong and leave us alone. but no alas we are flooded by righteous Americans(im making an assumption you are a proud one) screaming and pointing franticly at a piece of paper that says its ok to be a dick. To be honest a lot of the world (meaning everyone bar america) doesn't looking at your bill of rights with much respect. Ok I agree they work well enough but come one use some common sense when pointing them out to our faces.

I'd like to tell you a story of an encounter with an american I once had.
The setting: A local restaurant

We where sitting eating a meal. The meal was nice, I remember having the steak as I normally do. There where a good few other families apart from the locals here. A local man who I wouldn't know by name just that he works locally (Everyone knows everyone in Ireland one way or another) well I'm a little off the point here, the local man gets a phone call on his mobile phone. excuses himself to his wife and leaves to go outside to answer. It everyone one in the restaurant notices the phone call but no one cares. The man returns for 10 minutes before he gets a second call. still everyone notices but still no one cares its a phone call no big deal right? Now from the middle of the room a large (fat) man says loudly( In a clear and obvious American accent) "Switch your phone off. Its unconstitutional for us to hear it ring" (no this just a load of bullshit right) well the American was standing at the time and the man with the phone was right beside him as he was walking to seat with his wife again. No it took the local man maybe 2 seconds to realise what has been said to him. Then he just looking at the american and punched him square in the face, walked over to his wife and sat down at this stage the american man was on the floor in shock and rest of us gave a small laugh. The owner of the restaurant a old friend of ours(who passed away two years ago RIP) rushed over to the american couple and said "Sit eat your meal quietly or leave"

now the moral of the story in real world (outside of america) constitutional rights(a phone call ha ha) means shit all.

Now this post will most likely make many people angry at me. Firstly Sorry to all nice Americans I know there are a few of you out there, I have met some of you. Secondly this is my view on things

Sir, I am a proud Libertarian and American. The only way to spot an reform a dick is to hear what they believe. I've provided a scenerio multiple times in this board, but it all ends up with 'their beliefs will spread and they will believe they are being persecuted if they are silenced'.

The fat man saying it's "Unconstitutional" to hear his phone ring is a moron for a few reasons. 1) It's not fucking unconstitutional to hear a phone ring. 2) He's not in America. The story you provided, since the claim is idiotic, does not show that constitutional rights mean 'shit all'. However, constitutional rights don't mean anything in any country other than America. Since the Phelps work primarily in America we have to respect the Constitution during this discussion and see how it plays a part in the case. In America hate speech is legal, though it comes with societal repercussions as it very well should. The ability to speak your mind, no matter how stupid and inept your mind is at thinking logically, is an amazing thing. When you repress and idea it grows, festers, and turns sour.

All I wanted to say was said. My final words on this topic is firstly to you well spoken on your points, two I enjoyed this debate and three our views will always be divided on topics of extreme importance its always good to hear another point of view i enjoyed reading yours. My opinion still doesn't change. WBC should shut up at schools and funerals. They have the right to speak but they shouldn't invoke it.

 

[Del-Toro]

I may not have faith, but I have nothing but respect for people who do... Of course I tend to make an exception for the WBC but on that same coin I have a hard time believing that they aren't just a bunch of trolls playing it for laughs, it's all there folks, they are obviously doing it for teh lulz.

 

[Borrowed Time]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa, I'm gonna stop you right there. In Genesis, God cursed the seed of Adam (which, Adam, in Hebrew, means humanity in general, not just one particular person) so that this curse would be spread to all generations of man there after. This is why it was necessary for Yeshua to be born of a virgin, so that the curse would not spread to him and he'd be free of sin.

The ideology that Yeshua must be without sin and sin was passed down through Adam was developed by the Jews in the 13th century, BC. The reason I know this is because I practice Jewish traditions that are millennium old, and throughout them all, it talks about, because of the failure of Adam in the garden, we are fallen. Because Christianity is a Jewish religion, it only makes sense that it would follow the original traditions of Judaism. After all, Christianity IS the fulfillment of Judaism, is it not?

Gen 3:19 sweating in the fields from dawn to dusk, Until you return to that ground yourself, dead and buried; you started out as dirt, you'll end up dirt

The concept of Adam's seed being the basis of sin's continuation is elaborated upon in later Scripture. But, even if it wasn't, the Jewish traditions hold that, when a person is curse, the curse extends throughout his entire family line forever. Since this tradition is as old as the Jewish people, the concept of Adam being the cause of all mankinds sin is as old as the Jews themselves, which means that it's far older than even Christianity. Perhaps John Calvin was the first to reitterate this idea within mainstream Christian sects, but it is much older than that.

Plus, my idea that sin is passed down by Adam's seed does not contradict the scriptures you have elected to use for your argument.

First of all, Christianity stems from Judaism, it is not Judaism. In fact, the Jews rejected Jesus. No, I'm not one of those people that sits there and blames the Jews for his crusifiction, He gave Himself freely and the blame lies on every single person for every single thing we've done to drive us further away from Him. (read as sin) Paul specifically states, "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13) and later, "He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him" (2 Corinthians 5:21). By eating of the fruit, Adam gained the knowledge of the difference between good and evil. That is exactly what Satan tempted both he and Eve with, the chance to be just as God. That is the transgression. With that knowledge we gained the ability to sin. To place all the blame on Adam is asanine and detracts from our own responsibility in our own lives. The curse was in fact, the Law, as Paul stated. Jesus did away with the Law when He was the perfect sacrifice. He bore the sins of the world to free us from the curse of the Law. We are no longer bound to our punishment for our sins because of Him.

"And to the man He said,
Because you have listened to the voice of your wife you have eaten of the tree
about which I commanded you, saying, you shall not eat from it,
cursed shall be the ground because of you;
in sorrow you shall eat of it all the days of your life.
And thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
and you shall eat the plant of the field.
By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground;
for out of it you have been taken;
for dust you are, and to dust you shall return. (Genesis 3:17-19)

And said Jehovah God, Behold!
The man has become as one of Us, to know good and evil.
And now, lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life,
and eat and live forever,
therefore sent him Jehovah God out of the garden of Eden
to till the ground which he was taken from.
And He drove out the man...." (Genesis 3:22-24)

You say yourself "when a person is curse(d), the curse extends throughout his entire family line forever." Where is the scripture that states that the curse is only patriarchal? I'm sorry, but if it truly is a family curse, (meaning all of humanity) then it is passed to female as much as to male, which in fact does nullify the curse aspect with the scripture I stated. I was of the understanding that the virgin birth was that the seed was not to come from man, but had to be divine; not to mention the fact that the line had to be from David, which Mary was a direct descendant of.

(BTW, sorry about the long time to reply, I don't check the escapist when I'm not at work, and I just had 3 days off.)

 

[magicmonkeybars]

Westboro isn't really anything new. They're just a bunch of religious zealots giving Christians a bad name. Not really sure why they're protesting outside a high school though. Whatever, they're full of crap.

This is what christianity is, it is a perfect representation of christian values.
They just take their religion seriously rather then treating it like a hobby or some social network.
You can't find fault in their actions without finding fault in the teachings of the bible.

 

[Jirlond]

The entire church is about 100 strong - they are insignificant - just loud but american news eats it up like nothin else!

 

[cobra_ky]

I know the gay marrige thing has been done to death, but I haven't gotten to comment yet, so here goes, because I am gay, and I've been against gay marrige since the whole concept came to the public media. Because the truth is God does hate fags. The religon hates homosexuals and thinks they should be stoned, drawn, and quartered. And the people that follow that religon(Hereafter referred to as zealots, you know who they are) take the religon into their own hands on a modern day crusade in their lords name to cleanse the earth of sin and abomination. And since marrige is a religous term, no, I don't think gays should get it. Let the zealots have their religon, and let them keep their religon until it'snot enough that they have it and they need to force it on others. Then shoot them in the head. But while they keep it to themselves, do not give gays marrige. Give them all the LEGAL and FEDERAL rights that marrige enjoys, and then tell the gays that if that's not good enough, stuff it.

...you do realize that there's more than one religion, right?

Westboro isn't really anything new. They're just a bunch of religious zealots giving Christians a bad name. Not really sure why they're protesting outside a high school though. Whatever, they're full of crap.

This is what christianity is, it is a perfect representation of christian values.
They just take their religion seriously rather then treating it like a hobby or some social network.
You can't find fault in their actions without finding fault in the teachings of the bible.

it's funny how only non-christians seem to think Westboro represents mainstream christian values.

 

[ShadowKatt]

I know the gay marrige thing has been done to death, but I haven't gotten to comment yet, so here goes, because I am gay, and I've been against gay marrige since the whole concept came to the public media. Because the truth is God does hate fags. The religon hates homosexuals and thinks they should be stoned, drawn, and quartered. And the people that follow that religon(Hereafter referred to as zealots, you know who they are) take the religon into their own hands on a modern day crusade in their lords name to cleanse the earth of sin and abomination. And since marrige is a religous term, no, I don't think gays should get it. Let the zealots have their religon, and let them keep their religon until it'snot enough that they have it and they need to force it on others. Then shoot them in the head. But while they keep it to themselves, do not give gays marrige. Give them all the LEGAL and FEDERAL rights that marrige enjoys, and then tell the gays that if that's not good enough, stuff it.

...you do realize that there's more than one religion, right?

Westboro isn't really anything new. They're just a bunch of religious zealots giving Christians a bad name. Not really sure why they're protesting outside a high school though. Whatever, they're full of crap.

This is what christianity is, it is a perfect representation of christian values.
They just take their religion seriously rather then treating it like a hobby or some social network.
You can't find fault in their actions without finding fault in the teachings of the bible.

it's funny how only non-christians seem to think Westboro represents mainstream christian values.

Actually, I do realise there's more than one religon. I took a few years and delved into all religons. I've done some very thorough study into most of the painstream religons and a few of the fringe ones. I left scientology alone though, that stuff is just whacked. But this country was founded on Christianity, the founding papers were written in the name of God, and despite the seperation of chruch and state, if you go into court today, you still swear in on a bible. I'm not a religous person, but I'm not going to blind myself to the fact that this country is built upon and around God, and there really isn't a lot of room for other religons in it.

As most people DON'T believe Westboro represents the mainstream, however their actions have garnered a lot of attention. I don't know if you realise it or not, but there are a large number of people that fear christians of all denominations because of people like them. If you go back through the history of the religon, the church has done so awful things to people. Back in Europe, while the church was in charge of everything, they were the letter of the law and so everything they saw that did not fit into their view of what was acceptable to God was punishable, and usually by corpral means. THey taxed people into poverty, they treated people like property. THe christian religon isn't all sunshine, fluffy clouds, and fuzzy kittens.

But it's not the mainsteam that people fear, it's this fringe fanatics because for some reason, when they do something in the name of their lord, suddenly they can do no wrong, and a person who feels there are no consequences to their actions is a dangerous individual indeed. And although it's been done to death, the crusades are the most famous example. Now granted, they're not going around and killing anyone, yet, but they have smart enough lawyers to use the first amendment to protect their actions while they violate the first amendment rights of others, and that's just in public. Honestly, no one knows what they do in private or how far they go, and that's why they get the attention they do. The real mainstream religon isn't a threat, these people are.

 

[Psypherus]

Someone with some balls should hop a plane to Vermont and slice these god-fearing assholes throats. then piss on their dead bodies. Then everyone should gather up their corpses and gut them, parading them through the streets while joyous music and fireworks go off in the background

 

[Treblaine]

Yes and regretfully also yes as they have a right to freedom of speech, but I have the same right to call them a psychopathic, hypocritical, hateful, self destructive CULT! The difference is I am right and they are wrong.

Back in the good old days these assholes would have been run out of town by boycotts, literally every single Westbro church member would be refused any goods or services from privately owned facilities and they'd be forced to leave as it becomes impossible to live there. Any business that breaks the boycott is blacklisted so they have incentive never to aid any Westbro church-member.

It would be the most illustrative example of why not to piss off your neighbours... other than it says it IN THE FREAKING BIBLE! No good hypocrites.