Poll: Controversial Protests

[Cliff_m85]

Words don't have meaning, context does. Word's don't hurt at all, context does.

1) ****** is a bad word.
2) I hate Niggers.

Same 'bad' word, but one statement is offensive and the other isn't.

I'm against homophobia, but free speech is free speech. A hate crime is more than someone disagreeing with you, otherwise it'd be a hate crime for me to say that religion is nonsense (bytheway, religion is nonsense) because it could 'effect' a theist's feelings of being accepted.

So the protest 'lacked context' for you?

It certainly had a faithful context, a religious opinion based off of the texts of the Bible. They never once did anything violent. Thus, it's not a hate crime since no crime was committed. Certainly there is hate involved......but no crime.

Insults can be hate crimes (at least according to wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime], though bear in mind I'm no lawyer. The links at the bottom should provide some more credible evidence if you can be bothered to look). So what we have are insulting messages targeting a specific group of people => Hate Crime.

Not at all. A hate crime has to have intent of violence or breaking the law in some form. For instance, I'll give you one statement that isn't a hate crime and one that is.

1) I hate those damned homos! I wish they were dead!

- Not a hate crime. It's a personal opinion that doesn't break any laws.

2) I hate those damned homos! We should get together and kill them!

- Obvious statement inciting violence. This is the common 'fire in a theater' scenerio.

 

[Phoenix Arrow]

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.

No. No, no, no, no, no.
This is not controversial and it is not a protest.

Controversy implies that society would be split in two other these events and anyone who supports them deserves to be hung, drawn and quartered. Don't give me that freedom of speech bullshit because, in my opinion at least, anyone who abuses their rights to infringe on other peoples rights, especially mouldable young children, deserves these rights to be taken away.
This is coming from a liberal bisexual by the way, I'm all for freedom of speech, freedom of the press etc. but you can't be allowed to carry on like this. You can say "oh well, they're just dicks" but that doesn't make things better. They need to face some kind of consequence for their actions.

It's not a protest either. They're baiting people, basically. They know how hated they are but they go out to get people riled up. They know they're not going to just drum up some support by picketing a soldiers funeral or whatever it is they're up to now. No, this shouldn't be allowed and I won't be quiet about it.

Watch Louis Therouxs Weird Weekend where he meets them by the way people. Think it's on youtube.

 

[Florion]

Free speech is free speech. I'm okay with that.

What about the context of a protest? A mob of people outside a school saying that the gay students are hated by god, under his curse? I think they should be allowed to go to school without dealing with that - if it's not hate crime, it's bullying at least.

Certainly bullying, and at a public school they wouldn't be allowed on the actual campus. At a private school it's up to the administration. Homosexual students deal with that kind of attitude usually, so I don't see the difference of one day a huge group of idiots decide to yell at the school. If I were there I'd post the verses of Deuteronomy 22: 22-29 to show that I really don't care what laws an archaic book full of hatred lays forth.

It's morally wrong to allow that to happen no matter what the rules of the administration are or how often they suffer that kind of abuse.

Do we have anything else to nitpick now?

 

[Agayek]

I'm a huge supporter of equality across the board, along with the vast majority of Western thinkers, as such, I strongly agree with gay marriage and their right to all the same legal privileges that entails.

In terms of the protests, I approve in principle. They disagree with gay marriage and want to make a nuisance of themselves. They are in public venues, expressing their views. I don't care what said views are, no one has the right to stop them from doing so.

That said, I am vehemently against their message. Unfortunately, the only way to really do anything is to simply ignore them. The entire Church is basically a gigantic attention whore. Ignore it and it'll go away.

 

[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.

 

[infernovolver]

I personally think that LITERALISM of the Bible produces the closest thing to being a true Christian as possible.

I forgot about literalists. Oh well.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Free speech is free speech. I'm okay with that.

What about the context of a protest? A mob of people outside a school saying that the gay students are hated by god, under his curse? I think they should be allowed to go to school without dealing with that - if it's not hate crime, it's bullying at least.

Certainly bullying, and at a public school they wouldn't be allowed on the actual campus. At a private school it's up to the administration. Homosexual students deal with that kind of attitude usually, so I don't see the difference of one day a huge group of idiots decide to yell at the school. If I were there I'd post the verses of Deuteronomy 22: 22-29 to show that I really don't care what laws an archaic book full of hatred lays forth.

It's morally wrong to allow that to happen no matter what the rules of the administration are or how often they suffer that kind of abuse.

Do we have anything else to nitpick now?

Actually yes. Focus on the administration rather than the group. The WBC may be evil assholes with delusional beliefs on a mission to offend, but the administration is obviously more evil to allow them to get on their PRIVATE (very important distinction) property to yell at children.

 

[Lukeje]

Not at all. A hate crime has to have intent of violence or breaking the law in some form. For instance, I'll give you one statement that isn't a hate crime and one that is.

1) I hate those damned homos! I wish they were dead!

- Not a hate crime. It's a personal opinion that doesn't break any laws.

2) I hate those damned homos! We should get together and kill them!

- Obvious statement inciting violence. This is the common 'fire in a theater' scenerio.

So what you're basically saying is that you have your opinion on what constitutes a Hate Crime, and I have mine? What a roundabout way to make that argument...

 

[Florion]

Free speech is free speech. I'm okay with that.

What about the context of a protest? A mob of people outside a school saying that the gay students are hated by god, under his curse? I think they should be allowed to go to school without dealing with that - if it's not hate crime, it's bullying at least.

Certainly bullying, and at a public school they wouldn't be allowed on the actual campus. At a private school it's up to the administration. Homosexual students deal with that kind of attitude usually, so I don't see the difference of one day a huge group of idiots decide to yell at the school. If I were there I'd post the verses of Deuteronomy 22: 22-29 to show that I really don't care what laws an archaic book full of hatred lays forth.

It's morally wrong to allow that to happen no matter what the rules of the administration are or how often they suffer that kind of abuse.

Do we have anything else to nitpick now?

Actually yes. Focus on the administration rather than the group. The WBC may be evil assholes with delusional beliefs on a mission to offend, but the administration is obviously more evil to allow them to get on their PRIVATE (very important distinction) property to yell at children.

Sounds good; I wish there was some kind of psychic way I could change that. xP Nice chatting with you! Props for answering all the people who are going all "o_o!" at you.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Oh these people again. What can i say that hasnt already been said about them, yes theyre off their fucking rocker. This thread is all over the place though, on one hand you have the crazies and on the other you have a serious social political issue. Very poorly done OP. Weve done the gay marriage thing to death already here, theres not much left to say that hasnt been said already.

Yea, I just got finished with a flame war a that lasted a full three days! Heavy casualities were mounting.

At any rate, the Westboro baptist church doesn't understand Christianity. God loves the sinner, hates the sin. They don't represent mainstream theology or mainstream anti-gay-marriage people. They're crazy even for people against gay marriage. These people would just as soon bring genocide against homosexuals, where as most people who are anti-gay simply don't want marriage stuff to pertain to them.

I disagree. They obviously do understand Christianity, especially after watching interviews with the haggard looking female bridge-troll who actually knows her stuff. They don't represent mainstream theology, they represent true theology....the people who don't ignore the "for their blood be upon them" or the Deuteronomy 22: 22-29's of the Bible nor do they put a fluffy whip of apologetics over them. God does hate homosexuals enough to call for their death at one point, a death by believers and not by him. Ofcourse the Westboro would love genocide against homosexuals.......because they know their Bible.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Free speech is free speech. I'm okay with that.

What about the context of a protest? A mob of people outside a school saying that the gay students are hated by god, under his curse? I think they should be allowed to go to school without dealing with that - if it's not hate crime, it's bullying at least.

Certainly bullying, and at a public school they wouldn't be allowed on the actual campus. At a private school it's up to the administration. Homosexual students deal with that kind of attitude usually, so I don't see the difference of one day a huge group of idiots decide to yell at the school. If I were there I'd post the verses of Deuteronomy 22: 22-29 to show that I really don't care what laws an archaic book full of hatred lays forth.

It's morally wrong to allow that to happen no matter what the rules of the administration are or how often they suffer that kind of abuse.

Do we have anything else to nitpick now?

Actually yes. Focus on the administration rather than the group. The WBC may be evil assholes with delusional beliefs on a mission to offend, but the administration is obviously more evil to allow them to get on their PRIVATE (very important distinction) property to yell at children.

Sounds good; I wish there was some kind of psychic way I could change that. xP Nice chatting with you! Props for answering all the people who are going all "o_o!" at you.

There is, though not psychic. Call the school, get parents to take their funds away from the private institutions, get them to set up a lawsuit for mental distress. I certainly would.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Not at all. A hate crime has to have intent of violence or breaking the law in some form. For instance, I'll give you one statement that isn't a hate crime and one that is.

1) I hate those damned homos! I wish they were dead!

- Not a hate crime. It's a personal opinion that doesn't break any laws.

2) I hate those damned homos! We should get together and kill them!

- Obvious statement inciting violence. This is the common 'fire in a theater' scenerio.

So what you're basically saying is that you have your opinion on what constitutes a Hate Crime, and I have mine? What a roundabout way to make that argument...

Actually what I'm saying is that I have a constitutional understanding of the First Amendment and as such, hate speech is completely legal. Inciting violence isn't. When you say something hateful, it's hate speech. When you say something hateful that incites violence of incites crime, that's a hate crime. Two very different things.

 

[Florion]

Free speech is free speech. I'm okay with that.

What about the context of a protest? A mob of people outside a school saying that the gay students are hated by god, under his curse? I think they should be allowed to go to school without dealing with that - if it's not hate crime, it's bullying at least.

Certainly bullying, and at a public school they wouldn't be allowed on the actual campus. At a private school it's up to the administration. Homosexual students deal with that kind of attitude usually, so I don't see the difference of one day a huge group of idiots decide to yell at the school. If I were there I'd post the verses of Deuteronomy 22: 22-29 to show that I really don't care what laws an archaic book full of hatred lays forth.

It's morally wrong to allow that to happen no matter what the rules of the administration are or how often they suffer that kind of abuse.

Do we have anything else to nitpick now?

Actually yes. Focus on the administration rather than the group. The WBC may be evil assholes with delusional beliefs on a mission to offend, but the administration is obviously more evil to allow them to get on their PRIVATE (very important distinction) property to yell at children.

Sounds good; I wish there was some kind of psychic way I could change that. xP Nice chatting with you! Props for answering all the people who are going all "o_o!" at you.

There is, though not psychic. Call the school, get parents to take their funds away from the private institutions, get them to set up a lawsuit for mental distress. I certainly would.

I would do something like that if it were a local thing, but as it is, I'm Canadian and I'd wrack up such a huge phone bill. You're awfully fixated on exact details, aren't you?

 

[Lukeje]

Not at all. A hate crime has to have intent of violence or breaking the law in some form. For instance, I'll give you one statement that isn't a hate crime and one that is.

1) I hate those damned homos! I wish they were dead!

- Not a hate crime. It's a personal opinion that doesn't break any laws.

2) I hate those damned homos! We should get together and kill them!

- Obvious statement inciting violence. This is the common 'fire in a theater' scenerio.

So what you're basically saying is that you have your opinion on what constitutes a Hate Crime, and I have mine? What a roundabout way to make that argument...

Actually what I'm saying is that I have a constitutional understanding of the First Amendment and as such, hate speech is completely legal. Inciting violence isn't. When you say something hateful, it's hate speech. When you say something hateful that incites violence of incites crime, that's a hate crime. Two very different things.

Not necessarily, the first statement could be construed as a threat just as much as the second; it depends on the context.

Edit: also, Deuteronomy 22.22pp says nothing about homosexuals...

 

[Disaster Button]

snip

By your logic, fathers are unsympathetic and can't offer reassurances because they are men? That could quite possibly the one of the dumbest thing I've seen on the internet..

I didn't say that, get the hell off you're high horse. I'm saying that there is a natural mothering instinct. I didn't say men COULDN'T offer reassurances, I said women were better at it.

" There are certain things a mother can do, like re-assure, tender hand etc that a gay man simply cannot give."

That's exactly what you said, and I don't see anywhere in there which implies you thinking men are able to offer reassurances. So maybe I am wrong for thinking you meant what you said.
And yes women do have a natural mothering instinct, but like I said it doesn't mean 2 men can't offer the same love that a man and a woman can. I'm not saying one scenario is better than the other, but that they are both equal in what they can give

 

[Cliff_m85]

Free speech is free speech. I'm okay with that.

What about the context of a protest? A mob of people outside a school saying that the gay students are hated by god, under his curse? I think they should be allowed to go to school without dealing with that - if it's not hate crime, it's bullying at least.

Certainly bullying, and at a public school they wouldn't be allowed on the actual campus. At a private school it's up to the administration. Homosexual students deal with that kind of attitude usually, so I don't see the difference of one day a huge group of idiots decide to yell at the school. If I were there I'd post the verses of Deuteronomy 22: 22-29 to show that I really don't care what laws an archaic book full of hatred lays forth.

It's morally wrong to allow that to happen no matter what the rules of the administration are or how often they suffer that kind of abuse.

Do we have anything else to nitpick now?

Actually yes. Focus on the administration rather than the group. The WBC may be evil assholes with delusional beliefs on a mission to offend, but the administration is obviously more evil to allow them to get on their PRIVATE (very important distinction) property to yell at children.

Sounds good; I wish there was some kind of psychic way I could change that. xP Nice chatting with you! Props for answering all the people who are going all "o_o!" at you.

There is, though not psychic. Call the school, get parents to take their funds away from the private institutions, get them to set up a lawsuit for mental distress. I certainly would.

I would do something like that if it were a local thing, but as it is, I'm Canadian and I'd wrack up such a huge phone bill. You're awfully fixated on exact details, aren't you?

I was kinda winking and nodding at any other reader to do so as well when writing that out.

 

[MortisLegio]

they have right to protest but I disagree with how they did it

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.

thank you for reminding people of this

 

[Cliff_m85]

Not at all. A hate crime has to have intent of violence or breaking the law in some form. For instance, I'll give you one statement that isn't a hate crime and one that is.

1) I hate those damned homos! I wish they were dead!

- Not a hate crime. It's a personal opinion that doesn't break any laws.

2) I hate those damned homos! We should get together and kill them!

- Obvious statement inciting violence. This is the common 'fire in a theater' scenerio.

So what you're basically saying is that you have your opinion on what constitutes a Hate Crime, and I have mine? What a roundabout way to make that argument...

Actually what I'm saying is that I have a constitutional understanding of the First Amendment and as such, hate speech is completely legal. Inciting violence isn't. When you say something hateful, it's hate speech. When you say something hateful that incites violence of incites crime, that's a hate crime. Two very different things.

Not necessarily, the first statement could be construed as a threat just as much as the second; it depends on the context.

Edit: also, Deuteronomy 22.22 19pp says nothing about homosexuals...

I know Deuteronomy 22:22-29 says nothing about homosexuals.

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." Verses 28-29

Basically, if you rape an unmarried virgin woman she will be forced to marry you. However you must pay 50 pieces of silver for her 'services'. The sin: rape. Punishment: 50 pieces of silver as fine and a brand new wife.

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
The sin: Consentual homosexual sex with a loved one. The punishment: Death.

 

[Mstrswrd]

I'll be in Vermont (Burlington, Champlain College) by then. I think me and my friends will have to make the drive to see this.

 

[Lukeje]

I know Deuteronomy 22:22-29 says nothing about homosexuals.

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." Verses 28-29

Basically, if you rape an unmarried virgin woman she will be forced to marry you. However you must pay 50 pieces of silver for her 'services'. The sin: rape. Punishment: 50 pieces of silver as fine and a brand new wife.

Yeah, I got that from reading it.

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
The sin: Consentual homosexual sex with a loved one. The punishment: Death.

Ahh... Leviticus; the same book where we're told that all meat must be Kosher...