-
Self-Proclaimed Economic Wizards
June 11, 2013 | 29 comments
-
Neighborhood Watch, Anyone?
May 14, 2013 | 19 comments
-
We’re Still Going Backward
April 18, 2013 | 30 comments
-
Street Level Anti-Capitalism
April 8, 2013 | 71 comments
-
Snazzy Sequestered Screeners
March 8, 2013 | 13 comments
The Nation's Pulse
Narrow Minds, Ugly Signs
The Westboro gang even hated Mr. Rogers.
A guy I never saw before walked up to me a few years ago on the sidewalk in Pittsburgh out front of Heinz Hall and said, right out of the blue, “God hates fags.”
Across the street, behind a police line, about a dozen protesters were chanting and carrying large signs: “God Hates Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood,” “God hates queers,” “Mr. Rogers Is Burning In Hell.”
The protesters were from the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas.
Along with a large crowd on the sidewalk right before showtime, I was inching my way into Heinz Hall with my wife to attend a Fred Rogers memorial service.
Rogers had a wife, too, along with two sons and grandkids, plus a Presidential Medal of Freedom. But somehow he was perceived as still too “gay” for some people when he put on his sneakers, buttoned up his cardigan sweater, and began to softly sing “Won’t You Be My Neighbor” to the kids.
For the Westboro group, I guess that song sounded too much like everyone was welcome, like it would be just fine if Elton John moved in next door with his husband and their new nontraditionally produced son, a kid who arrived with five names — Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John.
Maybe the anger coming from the street protesters about Rogers and his neighborhood was linked to their national security anxieties. Perhaps they think it was better when our kids were entertained by watching cowboys eradicate indigenous people in their own neighborhoods.
Maybe they think it’s better for us when our kids get desensitized to resource fights and the might-is-right ethos, lest they become too weak-kneed to fight kamikaze pilots, underwear bombers and whatever else is tossed in our direction.
A Welcome Wagon is no match for bloodthirsty jihadists.
The aforementioned Heinz Hall incident was brought to mind when the Supreme Court recently affirmed in a lopsided 8-to-1 ruling that the Westboro Baptist Church had the right to stage anti-gay protests at the funerals of U.S. troops.
The signs they carry at soldiers’ funerals say things similar to what the signs said at Heinz Hall: “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “U.S. Troops in Hell,” “God Hates Your Dead Son & Your Tears.”
The Supreme Court case resulted from Albert Snyder suing the Westboro church after its members picketed the funeral of his son, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq. The court rejected Snyder’s argument that the church invaded privacy and caused intentional distress.
The Westboro Baptist Church basically consists of Fred Phelps and his family. Their message is that America’s military deaths are God’s punishment for our growing acceptance of gay men and lesbians. Ellen DeGeneres is tops on TV and Elton John is rich, married and touring, so God is allegedly pleased when our troops get killed.
“America is doomed for its acceptance of homosexuality,” contends Phelps. “If God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for going after fornication and homosexuality, then why wouldn’t God destroy America for the same thing.”
I’m not learned in theology, but I think that, in addition to Sodom and Gomorrah, there’s also something in the Bible about God killing a million Ethiopians, plus the first born of Egyptians, plus Onan for some incorrect spilling, plus there were allegedly lions, bears and worms sent by God to eat up on assorted skeptics and free thinkers.
In any case, I asked the anti-Rogers protesters at Heinz Hall about God eradicating the first born in Egypt, mostly heterosexuals, along with Mr. Onan and some noncompliant guys who ate some fish without fins, but they just clammed up and got back in their vans.
About the Author
Ralph R. Reiland is the B. Kenneth Simon professor of free enterprise and an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (126) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ralph R. Reiland
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/08/narrow-minds-ugly-signs
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Darin| 3.8.11 @ 6:55AM
The Supreme Court was correct in it's ruling regarding Westboro. But that doesn't mean Westboro is correct in protesting at funerals of soldiers. Freedom includes responsibility and respect of the freedom of others. Westboro may have the right to protest, but they also have the right to choose NOT to protest at funerals and instead take their message to other, less emotional, venues.
How would Westboro like it if thousands of people protested at their church during every service holding signs saying the following:
"God hates hypocrites"
"Remove the beam from your own eye before removing the speck from mine"
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
P. Harris| 3.8.11 @ 9:50AM
And . . . ?
After reading AmSpec for the past month or so, I had reached the conclusion that many of its readers were the kind of nuts you would find at Westboro Baptist Church.
Westboro Baptist Church. A Baptist Church. I'm not at all surprised.
j k l| 3.8.11 @ 9:52AM
Let's be fair, P. Harris.
The Baptists are mean, but not this mean.
C. S. P. Schofield| 3.8.11 @ 10:08AM
My understanding is that Phelps and his whelps have been disavowed by pretty much every Baptist organization that isn't too busy with internal politics to have noticed him. Unfortunately "Baptist" is neither trademarked nor copyrighted, so they can't prevent Phelps from using it. Phelps has about as much to do with religious worship as the Masons have to do with building in stone.
Eric Cartman| 3.8.11 @ 10:14AM
So Westboro Baptist Church picketed Fred Rogers memorial service. This is too funny.
On this one I have to agree with the Westboro kooks-- Mr. Rogers was a fag all right. I remember I would not let my son watch him. Too effiminate for a role model.
Harvey| 3.8.11 @ 10:17AM
hahaha
Eric, where have you been, old man. You haven't been posting lately, and I've been missing your kick ass attitude.
Eric Cartman| 3.8.11 @ 10:23AM
Hey, Harvey. Don't know who this is, but it ain't me. I wouldn't call Mr. Rogers a "fag" . Too, um, how should I say, blunt. This would be a job for Panache Man! Or at least someone with access to a thesaurus.
Frisbee| 3.8.11 @ 9:38PM
The Supreme Court got this one wrong. You can protest at Federal funerals, but you can't pray at Federal schools. I wonder is you can pray at Federal funerals? Maybe some atheists will bring a suit dis-allowing prayer at Federal funerals? After all, isn't that "establishing" a religion? Hey, by allowing Westboro Church to protest on Fed property, isn't THAT "establishing" a religion?
Eric Cartman| 3.8.11 @ 10:20AM
Who are you and why are you using my name?
Seek| 3.8.11 @ 11:56AM
"Phelps and his whelps" -- I like that. A rhyme for our times.
Eric Cartman| 3.8.11 @ 10:19AM
Phelps is a Democrat. And as with all Democrats, in the end he will be forgiven and embraced by the union thugs, media, leftists, Planned Infanticide, and other assorted scum that is the Democrat party.
Oolong| 3.8.11 @ 10:23AM
"Planned Infanticide!" Yes, this is the real Eric Cartman. And you can see that he is just as angry and nutty as the Westboro Bible Thumpers.
Eric Cartman| 3.8.11 @ 10:32AM
Thanks! See?! One can always tell the original, be it a fine wine, classic car, a crisp Havana, or me :-)
Occam's Tool| 3.8.11 @ 6:26PM
Indeed. Good to have you back, Mr. Cartman. I do hope that there will be plenty of gratuitous Sex and Violence.
Occam's Tool| 3.8.11 @ 6:39PM
A point. Aborted fetuses do not pay taxes for social programs. 50 million aborted fetuses equals a lot of workers who would pay taxes to cover a lot of people under entitlement programs, which are going bankrupt due to an insufficient ratio of workers to recipients. Keep condescending, Liberals.
Seek| 3.8.11 @ 11:58AM
That Phelps is nominally (and supposedly) a Democrat hardly means he's a liberal. He remains what he is: a committed Christian fanatic at war with modern-day America.
Eric Cartman| 3.8.11 @ 1:06PM
Well, seems like he is (or they are) attracted to whatever the Democrats represent. Redistribution of income (Socialism), mistrust in free-market capitalism (Communism) thinking they can run an economy made up of 300 million people better than the 300 million people, voting for the use of force and then turning around and stabbing the troops in the back and actively working against their country. . . something. There has to be something in the Democrats they like. What could it be? Forcing "Green" energy down our throats and, as Obama said" “Under my plan, the 'Cap and Trade System' electricity rates would necessarily sky-rocket”. . . something. There is so much there for idiots to admire. I know! It's the "Teddy Kennedy Manual on the Care, Feeding and Drowning of Women"! That has to be it.
Eric Cartman| 3.8.11 @ 1:12PM
This has to be it! This is why Phelps is a Democrat! Stuff like this: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-.....se-cancer.
Classic Democrat! Styrofoam cups are killing me! Killing me I say! LOL. Too rich.
jolizoom| 3.8.11 @ 4:16PM
Wow, really? A Christian fanatic? Not just a fanatic? There is nothing "Christian" about him and his ilk. Unrepentant liars and hypocrites all.
I agree the court made the correct ruling. I also agree these freaks have the responsibility (not "right") as members of a civil society (one can wish), to show respect for the dead.
I think the answer to this problem is to collect a small army of volunteers to keep the WBC weirdos at a respectful distance, out of earshot and view, from military funerals--forcibly if necessary.
Seek| 3.9.11 @ 12:50PM
The true believer will always disown those in his ranks who embarrass him. Communist apologists during the late Fifties and afterward, for example, typically would say "Stalin wasn't a real Communist. He was a madman and an opportunist who took a noble idea down a wrong path."
With the Phelpses, you the equivalent rationalization, albeit in Christian form. Phelps and his brood, the argument goes, aren't "real" Christians. Sorry, but I'm not buying that. They are real Christians -- an ugly version, but still the real thing. And as long as "moderate" Christians say the same things as the Phelps do, if in nuanced form, we will continue to get nutjob families like these.
Radioman777| 3.8.11 @ 10:20AM
FYI, they have about as much association with actual Baptists as you do with intelligent thought. Next time you want to make a comment, just stow it!
Rita W.| 3.8.11 @ 10:42AM
Then why do they call themselves BAPTISTS?
Why?
Eric Cartman| 3.8.11 @ 10:58AM
The same reason Leftists all themselves "Progressives" - to hide who they are. Duh!
Eric Cartman| 3.8.11 @ 11:02AM
I mean, they could call themselves "Westboro Scumbag Democrats", but that would be redundant.
Ryan| 3.8.11 @ 2:22PM
"Baptist" is more or less a catch-all word for many who believe in adult Baptism. Though there are other significant denominations who believe in it as well (AoG comes to mind) that was the term that started it (with the anabaptists).
It doesn't necessarily signify allegiances.
Publius| 3.8.11 @ 12:35PM
Bigotry is ugly in all its forms, P. Harris, as your post demonstrates.
Emily| 3.8.11 @ 11:00AM
Westboro Baptist Church is a huge embarrassment in Topeka, and there is no stopping them. They have been very active right here in Topeka.
For years the church has used its right to protest and harass local businesses and individuals. They picketed a local restaurant every day for three years because its owner knowingly employed a lesbian.
There is no stopping them, and where they get their energy from, I cannot imagine.
Seek| 3.8.11 @ 11:59AM
Anotehr question: Where do the Phelpses get their money from? It takes serious dough to travel all over the country to conduct their absurd and revolting pickets.
Ryan| 3.8.11 @ 2:22PM
Lawsuits. They are VERY good at counter-suing.
Skippy| 3.8.11 @ 5:13PM
I hope this suggestion is not out of line but...
A number of years ago a courageous local liberal of High School age attempted to burn an American flag at the school.
He was doing so because he had been told it was OK in the eyes of the SCOTUS.
Plus it would burnish his progressive credentials.
This being a small semi-rural No. Cal. wine county, a local non-liberal classmate extinguished the fire and pummeled the perpetrator.
He was eventually excused for his enthusiastic response, but it taught the locals a valuable lesson.
You are free to burn the flag and free to experience the logical consequences.
For the Westboros, perhaps the judicious application of lumber to their crania is in order.
Occam's Tool| 3.8.11 @ 6:29PM
No. For the Westboros, I owuld support the Casino Royale interrogation approach. Kills two stones with one bird.
Bob K.| 3.8.11 @ 7:10AM
Phelps is seeking "celebrity." We live in a age when publicity trumps privacy as Professor John Lukacs has noted in his recent historical essay "DEMOCRACY AND POPULISM."
There is much advertising revenue generated by this controversy for the media, and that would include this publication no doubt or it would be ignored here.
Pelligrino| 3.8.11 @ 7:21AM
I'm a bit confused by all this. Confused because I thought free speech has its place. Emphasis on place as in "place and time."
I am asking. Please someone do me the favor of clarifying.
Okay, the dozen idiots who are not at all Christian-like from Westboro may continue protesting at funerals -- according to the Supreme Court.
So does that mean that a pre-planned or spontaneous protest can break out in any place and at any time?
How about at a sporting even in the middle of the 3rd quarter?
I mean, why bother with a funeral attended by only 100 people? Why not go for a 'demo' in the middle of a mega-church at 10:45 a.m. on a Sunday morning?
In a town hall meeting? At the PTA? In your nephew's 11th grade geology class? At the county rodeo during the barrel racing? At your kid's piano recital?
Funny how we probably won't see Westboro members doing a free speech event in a gang infested city ghetto or at a violent border area with Mexico.
For one's next group protest: Maybe not outside on the steps of the US Supreme Court building, better to do it inside during proceedings. Sure. That would be more effective for those wishing to exercise their free speech rights.
Could they please stage one during the January 2013 State of the Union address (after about 12 minutes of oratory nonsense would be perfect) in the US House of Representatives?
Anytime, anywhere? Is that what free speech is?
What do I fail to see/understand/comprehend?
Pelligrino| 3.8.11 @ 7:29AM
Correction: State of the Union address in January 2012. The 12th minute, 25th or 33rd minute. Any juncture would be a needed respite.
Nancy in NC| 3.8.11 @ 8:08AM
I do believe these nuts have to stay 1,000 feet away. And some really great folks have in the past protected the family by getting between them and these nuts. To be fair, Mr. Snyder did not see their signs at the funeral, but later on TV.
I don't agree with these people at all...they are hateful, unChristian as it comes. However, any threat to the 1st amendment threatens us all. The left would find some way to circumgate to use it for their own means. The people from Westboto need to be shunned, and the media should stop showing them. Then they are left powerless. Do they even have a church building? If so, they should be targeted by a protest. Turn about is fair play, and a little taste of their own medicine would be more effective than any restriction to the 1st amendment.
I can think of a number of Bible scriptures that would seem appropriate. Judge not lest ye be judged comes to mind.
Pelligrino| 3.8.11 @ 8:43AM
Nancy, thank you. But my questions do not center on Westboro; my questions are 'in general.'
I think we all find the Westboro people shameful and a travesty. But they are NOT what I am focusing on.
I just want to know: Should we all be prepared for a breakout of a protest at the most unlikely place and time just as Western Europe train travellers must now be confronted with "Flashmobs" at the station on any given Tuesday or Wednesday mid morning?
So...if I extraplolate on what the Supreme Court just "defended," just insert ___________ (whatever name you want -- to include a benign group of 4-H Club teens, a group of professional clown lobbyists, NASCAR fans, Fair Tax advocates, animal rights folks, Sierra Club groupies, etc.) group -- any group -- can just stage a "free speech" event.
Whenever. Wherever.
Why not a protest in your living room next Saturday night at 7:30 p.m.? Or at the local theater stage production of "My Fair Lady" just minutes after the first song? Or at your niece's outdoor wedding the first Saturday in May? Why not? What's to stop them? (Okay, maybe private property...but maybe "free speech" trumps that too...)
Please, everyone, this issue is far larger than the miniscule miscreants at Westboro.
I don't think that "free speech" means anywhere at anytime. [Please, spare me/us the "yelling 'fire!' in the movie theater" stuff, please. Let's discuss this on a higher plane.]
C. S. P. Schofield| 3.8.11 @ 10:01AM
My understanding of the Supreme Court ruling is that any group of swine can protest pretty much anything in pretty much any manner ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, but they can be restrained by limited legislation (stay 1000 yds distant, or similar).
So, the basic 1st amendment rights apply even to jerks, but society can limit them in a fashion consistent with keeping them out of peoples' faces. You have a right to assemble, and a right to speak. You do not have a right to our collective attention.
Does anybody with more knowledge of the Law have a differing interpretation?
Pelligrino| 3.8.11 @ 11:12AM
C.S.Schofield, thank you for your comments, but we still have problems, don't we?
If I am the protestors (again, it can be college kids who 'feel' mildly aggrieved about something or it can be a hateful, ugly group -- matters not) and I want to assert my right to "freedom of speech," well, I can errect massive speakers (think rock concert size) and a sound system that nullify that 1,000 feet.
We can SOUND and make NOISE just like we are right there beside the speaker at your event. In fact, we can easily drown-out whatever you're doing.
Goodness, don't have to go to any lengths at all: Can just get the 6 guys in my group with Harleys to rev their engines a bit -- throughout the duration of your event. (Oh, don't worry. We'll still be 1,000 feet away.)
We can also snatch away all of the nearby parking spaces with our own vehicles, your people will have to part and walk at least a 2/3 mile, we can do all we can to impede foot traffic into your event....
Heck, why not fire off a few pyrotechnics while we're at it? Might as well have some real fun and try to frighten your crowd.
Where does it end?
This is "free speech?"
C. S. P. Schofield| 3.8.11 @ 4:14PM
Don't most jurisdictions have noise abatement laws already in place?
I do agree that "Protestors" get away with far too much, as a rule. I also have some ideas on the subject;
1) No fires above a trivial size without a fire permit. Let's face it, a flag sized fire i a potential hazard to life and limb. Don't outlaw 'flag burning', apply common sense laws about endangering the public to idiots who insist on playing with fire.
2) Nobody gets to throw ANYTHING at anyone else. Period. Stop. Throw something, go to jail for assault. It don't care if what got thrown was a pie, or 'symbolic', or whatever. Throw something at someone should equal GO TO JAIL.
3) Similarly; touch somebody? GO TO JAIL. Brandish a weapon? GO TO JAIL.
4) We should either do away with laws against making "Terroristic threats" OR arrest anybody who turns up at a protest with an effigy dangling from a noose, a picture of anyone in crosshairs, etc.
Frisbee| 3.8.11 @ 9:43PM
The Supreme Court is NUTS. They spew nonsense, and their judgments are random and unpredictable. The First Amendment now means exactly the opposite of what it says, except when it says exactly the opposite of what it means.
Can't pray in a public school because that's not protected as "free exercise of religion" but punished as "establishment".
RevJDSpears| 3.8.11 @ 9:53AM
Nancy, you were doing fine, before and after this: "The left would find some way to circumgate to use it for their own means." As this implies that the Left and only the Left somehow "perverts" or wants to pervert the 1st Amendment Protection. Need I remind you that the agent here is a Conservative, i.e. Right, church, and that by and large it is elements of the Left that has created shields between them and the aggrieved Families?
Rita W.| 3.8.11 @ 10:20AM
"Judge not . . . "
How lame. Can't you do any better than trotting out this cliche?
Rita W.| 3.8.11 @ 10:49AM
You say they are "unChristian"? They look and sound like the typical evangelical Christian to me.
The evangelical Christians are almost as hate-filled as the Westboro firebrands.
tommy salvio| 3.8.11 @ 10:50AM
The evangelicals are more ignorant than hateful. They believe every precious word of the Bible is literally--I said literally!--true.
Ryan| 3.8.11 @ 2:26PM
Really? Like the Southern Baptists, who provided a majority of relief efforts to the South during Katrina and Gustav and Haiti?
Or Compassion International, who brings education and food to kids in third world countries?
You're blinded by the negative press. Sorry, but some of the most giving, engaged, and beautiful and considerate people are evangelicals doing God's work.
Occam's Tool| 3.8.11 @ 6:31PM
You don't know many, I take it.
Steve A| 3.8.11 @ 11:18AM
The family of the soldier buried was not even aware of the protest until after the funeral. These wackos were required to be 1000 feet from the service. These are the facts.
joedoc| 3.8.11 @ 7:42AM
These wackos are not Christians. That needs to be made clear. A "real" christian would be consoling these families who have lost loved ones. They may call themselves christians, but they are not reading from the same bible as I am. The bible is the inspired word of God and all of it has to be taken as true, not bits and pieces, which is what these people are doing.
The supreme court ruling is correct. During the Vietnam war a General was aked if he was opposed to the demonstrations going on across the country. He replied that the reason our men and women were fighting, among others, was for the right to have free speech, a freedom that is lacking in the majority of the world.
I'm thankful we live in a country where we have those freedoms, even if some nuts take it to far.
I Survived Arlen Specter| 3.8.11 @ 8:03AM
Agreed joedoc. I'd also like to add in reference to Phelps & his loony rabble: 1) there isn't a human being wise enough or intelligent to know the mind of GOD, 2) "Vengeance is mine saith The Lord". Phelps & his followers are playing GOD by passing judgement on & condemning Americans for the sins of their fellow Americans, & 3) real Christians can be recognized through their fruit. If the fruit does not contain the love, influence, & demeanor of Jesus Christ that fruit is rotten & does not come from Jesus Christ. Take care joedoc & GOD bless!
Vern Crisler | 3.8.11 @ 8:31AM
Mr. Reiland seems to think that rejection of the un-Christlike behavior of Phelps and company requires us to accept the "gay" agenda, or some parts of it.
The fact is, God does condemn homosexuality and he does hold nations responsible for violating his transcendent natural laws. This was Lincoln's point in his explanation of the suffering and death during the Civil War (although over the issue of slavery).
Still, we are told that God so LOVED the world, that he gave his only Son. That is what Phelps should be preaching, not hate and death.
Fortiter in re, suaviter in modo.
Oolong| 3.8.11 @ 10:39AM
"The fact is, God does condemn homosexuality . . ." says Vern.
Sounds like the rantings of Westboro Baptist Church to me.
Rita W.| 3.8.11 @ 10:44AM
Righto, Oolong.
Publius| 3.8.11 @ 12:39PM
Sounds like an accurate representation of Scripture to me.
Rita W.| 3.8.11 @ 1:51PM
Yes, it's an accurate representation of what is called "hateful scripture" by intelligent Christians.
Intelligent Christians reject the hateful texts in the Bible; they reject them because the texts are morally repulsive.
Ryan| 3.8.11 @ 2:27PM
Who defines morality?
jolizoom| 3.8.11 @ 4:24PM
Apparently, Rita does.
Frisbee| 3.8.11 @ 9:49PM
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Westboro doesn't seem to make the distinction.
Those soldiers died for a sinful nation, and Jesus died for sinners.
Many homosexuals resist their temptations and may be saved. Many heterosexuals submit to their temptations and may not be saved.
Brubaker| 3.8.11 @ 2:28PM
In other words, you just pick and choose which parts of the Bible you'll accept and which you'll reject. Isn't that a bit like creating your own religion?
Cpm| 3.8.11 @ 3:27PM
Kinda like demanding that muslims pick and choose which parts of the Koran to accept and which to reject, hmmmm?
Oolong on Picking and Choosing| 3.8.11 @ 3:40PM
I thank God that the more intelligent, humane members of all religions are picking and choosing those texts that show love and brotherhood and compassion. It's what the world needs more of.
Frisbee| 3.8.11 @ 9:50PM
Most people pick the texts that don't require them to be chaste.
I Survived Arlen Specter| 3.8.11 @ 2:56PM
Intelligent Christians trust GOD & believe every word He says. GOD doesn't need to explain Himself to us & there is nothing "morally repulsive" about the word of GOD. "Christians" who refer to passages in GOD's word they don't want to believe or accept to be true and therefore deem those passages of scripture "hateful scripture" need to take a second look at their relationship with GOD. Either you believe GOD's word to be true in it's entirety or you are fooling yourself in judging GOD. GOD loves everyone. He hates everyone's sin. Hence the scripture passages which describe sinful sexual conduct as being an abomination to GOD. This doesn't change the fact Phelps & his moonbats are totally wrong in their actions. There is only One Holy enough to judge others.
Vern Crisler | 3.8.11 @ 10:01PM
Oolong, only the most evil and hateful people in the world would oppose what I've said. I am of course talking about Democrats.
OperaNerd1986| 3.14.11 @ 3:14PM
There's a significant difference between true Christianity and the Westboro Baptist Church on the subject. WBC proclaims loudly that "God hates fags," but that is simply not true. No matter what anyone has done, God still loves him or her unconditionally. Homosexual behavior is a sin, but like any other sin, God forgives you because His Son died on the cross to take for us the punishment we deserved for our sins.
God condemns homosexual behavior because it is a violation of his natural law (sex is supposed to be both unitive and procreative, and homosexual sex by its very form can never produce children). However, simply feeling attracted to people of the same sex is not a sin. Rather, it is a disordered condition, but it is still wholly possible for someone with this attraction to live a chaste life within God's laws. It does require discipline and patience, but that is true for every person who wants to lead a Godly life.
The Bishop| 3.8.11 @ 8:37AM
Legality and morality are sometimes poles apart. What the Westboro Klan does may have the sanction of law to make their ugly protests, but all moral people knownhowncorrupt they really are.
As a side note, I have even more respect for Samuel Alito who demonstrated he understood justice and placed it above legality.
Pelligrino| 3.8.11 @ 8:56AM
I don't see logic so far in this discussion here. Please see my post above at 8:43 a.m.
We think this relatively unimportant because we were not the ones burying our son.
Above I ask about how it would be if this was an outdoor wedding that you are attending. How about if it is your daughter's outdoor wedding and some group decides that is their ideal 'setting' to do their demonstrations?
What then?
You've shelled out megabucks for this, you have family from everywhere, you're bringing two families together, you have special music, you have gotten the pastor you hoped for because you want everyone to understand that this is holy matrimony, your wife and daughter have been arranging this for months....
And you think that this is some academic discussion.
Why not a wedding as the more opportune event to do the 'demo?' (Even more press hype, right? Potentially.)
There is a time and a place for "free speech."
There are also LOTS of times and places that are not for "free speech."
Our Founding Fathers wrote good stuff for us, but they fully understood that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are useless in the face of idiocy and those who behave as fools.
RevJDSpears| 3.8.11 @ 10:15AM
Pelligrino, you stated "There is a time and a place for "free speech."" You seem to want to carve out some sort of restriction. All times and all places are for free speech. The only restriction that has been, and properly so, made was when what is said could cause undue physical harm, i.e. yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater where none is.
WBC, even as they spew forth the most vile of speech, is protected. Not to endorse what they spew but to protect your right because someone, or some group, could then justify carving out a restriction that denies your freedom of speech!
Publius| 3.8.11 @ 12:43PM
It's pretty straightforward, Pelligrino. The WBC has the First Amendment Right to protest but that does not, in any way, imply they are free to choose the location, type, decibel level, etc of that protest. Accordingly, one does not have the right to protest on the field during the Super Bowl, in a school classroom, etc. There are reasonable qualifications to even Constitutional Rights; yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater for example, is not protected First Amendment speech.
It pains me that Americans would do what the WBC does to their fellow Americans but it's a slam dunk that it's protected speech.
Pelligrino| 3.8.11 @ 7:32PM
Thanks, Publius. I am with you in all that you are saying....except the "location" part. Actually the protest group has been allowed to choose the protest time and location: A place juxtaposed to YOU.
Why?
1,000 feet is no distance at all.
And why simultaneously?
I'd say, "Well, if you just have to protest at the exact same hour of the same day, fine. Your protest location is 4 miles over here in this empty, large parking lot." (won't interfere with retail shoppers)
Anthony| 3.8.11 @ 9:10AM
I watched this sick bastard' s (Phelps) daughter, who is an attorney, and defended the case up to the Supreme Court, earlier this week on Fox.
The demented and not so subtle casuistry she spouted, that leads to the insane conclusion that military deaths are a direct result of America's acceptance of homosexuality is truly sickening.
By that standard of logic, all police officers deaths can be said to be God's revenge for homosexuality, because by her own rationale,
police officers, like the military, are particularily susceptible to God's wrath, because they are fighting to "maintain" this life style as well by keeping civil order.
One wonders if soldiers of the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WW I, WW II, Korea, and Viet Nam were also intended victims of God's wrath.
While the Court was correct in its decision, I'm with Alito on this one. These people are so sickening and vile, I would have pulled a typical leftist distortion of the Constitution out of my hat on this one just to dissent, albeit, Alito's dissent was more faithful to the Constitution than necessary.
One hopes God has a special place in Hell for such pervaders of hate.
Publius| 3.8.11 @ 12:45PM
"One hopes God has a special place in Hell for such pervaders of hate."
I hope there's explanation, correction by God and understanding and repentance on the part of the intolerant. Wishing Hell on someone is too harsh for words.
Casey Abell| 3.8.11 @ 9:18AM
Phelps and his wackos thrive on attention. Cut off that attention and they wither and die. If I was burying my son and Phelps showed up, I would pay as much attention to him as to any other insect burrowing in filth.
Reiland's column is a too-clever-by-half attack on religion. The media use Phelps for the same purpose. That's why they're happy to give him the coverage he craves.
Danny Haszard | 3.8.11 @ 9:37AM
Harassment by religious extremist
Jehovah's Witnesses instigated court decisions in 1942 which involved cursing a police officer calling him a fascist and to get in your face at the door steps,....this same JW 1942 court decision upheld infamous Phelps hate church in 2011
----
Danny Haszard
Alan Brooks| 3.8.11 @ 10:04AM
But isn't AS happy that Phelps did not vote for Obama? Phelps doesn't like blacks or Jews.
Anthony| 3.8.11 @ 10:31AM
But isn't the New York Times happy that Ahmadinejad demeans Obama and would love to take him out, along with the rest of America? Ahmadinejad doesn't like American leftists and will put them out of their misery after these useful idiots serve their purpose.
Go away Brooks, you troll.
Oolong| 3.8.11 @ 10:34AM
How right you are, Alan.
"JEWS KILLED JESUS! Yes, the Jews killed the Lord Jesus…Now they’re carrying water for the fags; that’s what they do best: sin in God’s face every day, with unprecedented and disproportionate amounts of sodomy, fornication, adultery, abortion and idolatry! God hates these dark-hearted rebellious disobedient Jews."
— Westboro Baptist Church news release, April 23, 2009
Alan Brooks| 3.8.11 @ 11:05AM
Tell it to Tony.
Anthony| 3.8.11 @ 11:14AM
You two fools just happen to worship at the church of secular humanism, which truth be told, isn't any less insane than Westboro Baptist.
Yes, Brooks, you and your ilk happen to be the other face on the same coin. Now you can go back to reading your bible, the New York Times.
Steve A| 3.8.11 @ 1:55PM
Hey Genius, Wanna have some fun? Do a web search for "Obama voter mug shots" & you can see all of your compadres with their Obama pride t-Shirts. Then try one for McCain voter mug shots & wait for the crickets to chirp. You really are just dullllllllll minded.
Dave Williams| 3.8.11 @ 6:16PM
Mr. Troll, thanks for bringing this discussion down to a whole new level....instead of engaging with the ideas under discussion, you snidely choose to throw in a gratuitous insult to AS readers, which would be sufficient indication of your stupidity even if it were a CORRECT insult. What you say says FAR more about you than us...I believe I speak for the great mass of AS readers, and I judge people on their character and intellect, not epiphenomena (look it up) like skin color and religion. Back to your troll-hole, moron.
Petronius| 3.8.11 @ 10:21AM
Not long ago, there were places in the midwest where a pervert wouldn't show his face because he knew he wouldn't walk away in one piece. This bunch from Kansas is the last of those who believe that if the Almighty made you a Man, you're obliged to be a normal one. Their machinations at funerals of soldiers killed in action is more a lament for the passing of that cultural imperative they enforced with their fists in American schools. This has happened because working class Men no longer dominate our polity. They did not marry and bring sons into the world. They drank themselves out of it instead, and are now gone. Also gone is their primacy which stemmed from the ages old belief that homosexuality, being an affront to Manhood is cultural treason. But masculinity is innate. You have it or you don't. And they need to get the message that DNA can't be undone. Their public spectacles claiming that our armed forces are merely a street gang fighting for a national government which despises them is their problem; but it shouldn't be ours. Fundies go home!
Rita W.| 3.8.11 @ 11:12AM
" Masculinity is innate. You have it, or you don't."
I have four gay friends, and I consider them extremely masculine because they are highly intelligent. Intelligence and masculinity go hand in hand in my book.
I have never given a damn about the fist-swinging, dumb "masculine" dude that is a turn-on to so many women.
Give me a man with a brain full of knowledge and the ability to think analytically.
Doug| 3.8.11 @ 1:24PM
Of course I would never defend phelps gang and think the supreme court made a horrible decision, but what the hell does God killing other sinners have to do with anything?
Oldefarte| 3.8.11 @ 1:39PM
I'm reminded of an old [true] story about a preacher continually sermonizing about the evils of adultry, fornication, sin of the flesh, etc; and then one day being discovered down in his church's basement NAKED AS A JAY BIRD AND SINNING WITH THE FEMALE CHOIR ORGANIST! Let he who has not sinned, cast the first stone! That said, what Hillsboro proclaims is PARTIALLY true, in that homosexuality is morally wrong and is prohibited by the NATURAL LAW; but, every human being is/was created by the Almighty with what is known as FREE WILL [and can virtually do as they individually choose to do, but will face the JUDGEMENT OF THE ALMIGHTY upon their individual deaths]. Hillboro is morally/socially wrong in demeaning innocent military servicemen at their funerals with their mean-spirited picketing. These servicemen/women [and their families] deserve our honor, respect, prayers, etc for their unselfishly military service. They do not deserve the humiliation of these pickets, since there is absolutely no sane/rational connection between their service in the military and homosexuality. Hillsboro would be much more effective and correct in judgement if theey chose to instead divert their pickets to the outsides of each/every movie theatre and/or television studio [which are the producers/promoters of the homosexual lifestyle/agenda from their produced movies/TV programs]. Maybe the Hillsboro crowd should GROW A BRAIN and begin to picket these targets instead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alan Brooks| 3.8.11 @ 4:43PM
"then one day being discovered down in his church's basement NAKED AS A JAY BIRD AND SINNING WITH THE FEMALE CHOIR ORGANIST"
But you are glad he wasn't in the basement with a guy.
Oolong | 3.8.11 @ 5:05PM
Dear Oldefarte,
I Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s
Law. When someone tries to
defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I will follow your example and simply remind him
that Leviticus 18: 22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of
debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of
the specific laws and how to best follow them.
A) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates
a pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1: 9). The problem is my
neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I
smite them?
B) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21: 7. In this day & age, what would be a fair market price
for her?
C) I know I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15: 19-24). The problem is how
do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
D) Leviticus 25: 44 states that I may own slaves, both male & female,
provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of
mine claims this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
E) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35: 2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself?
F) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don’t agree, can you settle this?
G) Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if
I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20 or is there some wiggle room
here?
H) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by
Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?
I) I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig
makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
J) My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of
two different kinds of thread (cotton & polyester blend). He tends to
curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all
the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.
24: 10-16). Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family
affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:
14)?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident
you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is
eternal and unchanging.”
Oolong (the brilliant Asian)
75 & still alive!| 3.8.11 @ 5:09PM
Oolong, you are a hoot!
Points well taken! You nailed it brother!
(the crazy book of Leviticus, I mean)
l k g| 3.8.11 @ 5:14PM
I'll say "Amen" to Oolong's dead-on-target sarcasm.
Let's see what Oldefarte (can tell by his moniker he's a wise man) has to say in response.
Frisbee| 3.8.11 @ 10:04PM
A - no
B - Jesus' blood
C - ask your wife
D - it's illegal
E - no
F - eating shellfish is better
G - don't approach the altar
H - God's problem
I - yes
J - no, no
Disclosure: I am not a Rabbi, nor a Judge, nor a member of the Sanhedrin.
LiveFreeOrDie| 3.8.11 @ 6:33PM
Context. Ever heard of it?
l k g| 3.8.11 @ 6:44PM
Context? You mean the context of ancient times--1445-1444 BC-- before science, before . . . oh, well, forget it.
Obviously, you love Leviticus and its ancient laws.
Liberty or Death| 3.8.11 @ 6:41PM
@ Oolong, Rita W
Funny how haters of the Bible, and God in general, always forget about the New Testament.
But I won't list the entire Scripture in my defense. I will leave that to you to look up... since you seem to know better than God. Besides, it would be a pointless endeavor to explain Christianity to someone so hell bent against it.
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."- Matthew 7:6
And fyi losers, homosexuality IS a sin, an abomination, in God's eyes. That does not mean it is my job as a follower of Christ to go beat gays, or berate them, for it. We are to preach and promote love, while holding firm to His teachings.
The Champ| 3.8.11 @ 7:08PM
Liberty or Death's post is just one notch above Westboro Baptist Church in its hatefulness.
Get the hate out of your heart, Mr./Ms Liberty or Death.
If homosexuality is a SIN, then so is heterosexuality because they are both INATE!
Lots of hate-mongering teabaggers on this site.
Emily| 3.8.11 @ 7:11PM
Champ, No need to reply to Liberty or Death.
Obviously, he's a fanatic, and you can't reason with fanatics.
You're throwing your pearls before swine, as Liberty or Death says.
Liberty or Death| 3.8.11 @ 7:34PM
Hahahaha.... I'm hateful and a fanatic- and you two are juveniles.
You are so absurd with that "inate" (innate- by the way) comment, it is not even worth carrying on an educated discussion with you. Where did you get your science? Show me the science?
You cannot, because there isn't any.
And Emily, I was quoting a Bible passage- you dolt. Look it up for yourself. I referenced the passage.
Emily| 3.8.11 @ 8:09PM
Reread your post, Liberty or Death.
You sound like the unhinged Westboro Baptists.
jolizoom| 3.8.11 @ 8:17PM
The issue that continually gets lost in a discussion of homosexuality is the fact that whether it is innate is wholly irrelevant. Now they're finding genes to show stealing and lying are innate characteristics. OF COURSE they are--we are born with a sin nature. Big deal. The real issue is, we can CHOOSE whether or not to act on any "innate" characteristics. We have free will, and can decide for ourselves whether to behave in a way that is honoring to God, or to allow our base ("innate") nature to rule us.
Homosexuals may or may not be able to CHOOSE which gender they are attracted to, but they can certainly choose what they do about it. If they are not believers, though, they have absolutely no motivation AND NO POWER to reject their sin nature and honor God with their bodies.
This is why we are called to "hate the sin, but love the sinner"... because they have no power in themselves to reject their sin. We are to love them into the kingdom, where they can call upon God's power to enable them to choose to honor Him, and perhaps even be released from that aspect of their nature altogether.
Liberty or Death| 3.8.11 @ 8:34PM
I like your understanding of the "innateness" of sin. I wholeheartedly agree. That would technically make "The Champ" correct; although, I suspect he/she meant a physical representation of gayness, in the body (like the elusive "gay gene"), for which there is no such thing.
I understand the temptations, inherent in every man and woman, but it is as you say, we can choose what to do about those temptations.
Great points!
jolizoom| 3.9.11 @ 1:35PM
Liberty, There is an excellent sermon by Ray Comfort called "Hell's Best Kept Secret" that deals with just these issues. It is a constant reminder to me to see past the sin into the "bigger picture"... that it isn't our specific sin that condemns us, but our sin nature, and that we ALL are born with a sin nature. Only by the grace of God...
Tyson's Corner| 3.8.11 @ 8:47PM
jolizoom. you say,
"Homosexuals may or may not be able to CHOOSE which gender they are attracted to, but they can certainly choose what they do about it."
Your statement is just as hateful as those that come from Westboro Baptist Church.
Think about it. And by the way, young conservatives have no problem with gay people expressing their affective attractions.
Your types will soon be dead and gone, and when you're gone we'll have a better world.
Cool tonight here in Virginia. Ta, and Happy St. Patrick's Day to all!
Liberty or Death| 3.8.11 @ 9:13PM
Well isn't that just "pie in the sky" thinking Tyson.
Sounds to me like someone is just a teentsy bit "hateful" toward Christians... A little? Let me guess... you would like to see us all rounded up, maybe paint a yellow cross on our sleeves? Maybe? Wouldn't that be great? Yeah... Maybe you would like to be the one to drop the gas pellets in...
You need to find a hobby my hateful friend.
Sure young people might not see a problem with being gay, but that is our generations' moral failing to pass on the love of Christ to them. And who are you to speak for all young people?
Just because you see the gays, singing kumbaya on television every night, doesn't mean the majority of Americans are behind the gay movement.
Even if you succeed in ridding the planet of all Christians, you will always find another person to demonize. I have some news for you, moral people are the only people holding this world together. I know where I am going, and suggest you look deeper into what you believe.
God save us.
jolizoom| 3.9.11 @ 1:30PM
So Tyson, you're saying that someone who is predisposed to steal should just go ahead and steal, and to expect them to do otherwise is hateful? How about someone who is predisposed toward violence... should they go ahead and beat people up, because to expect them to control themselves is hateful? You don't mind if your coworker lies about you and gets you fired, because, after all, he is predisposed to lying, and to expect him to be truthful is just, well, hateful. We have pretty much rejected the idea that alcoholics are not responsible for their behavior, even though there appears to be a strong genetic link for it.
Basically what you are saying is that because they (you?) are homosexual, they are absolutely controlled by that characteristic and have NO CHOICE but to express that characteristic in their physical actions. Your inference is that they have no more control over their own bodies than animals.
I am saying we all have choices to make, homosexuals no less than heteros, and to say that homosexuals are unable to choose how they express their sexuality is demeaning to them.
Frisbee| 3.9.11 @ 6:48PM
Well said, jolizoom and Lib or Death.
OperaNerd1986| 3.14.11 @ 3:26PM
Homosexual behavior is actually described as sinful in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. For an example of the latter, read the first chapter of Romans.
Pelligrino| 3.8.11 @ 7:38PM
Oldefarte, I'm with you. I find what you wrote at 1:39 p.m. today (above) to be just fine. And very accurate.
One can deny it, ignore it, postpone thinking about it....but, yes, you're right. Judgement awaits all of us.
And, yes, for this very serious issue within our society there are ample better time/place venues than hanging about cemeteries disrupting and harrassing good folk.
No true-believing Christian would ever do this; this fully improper use of the blessing we have of 1st Amendment free speech.
Rita W.| 3.8.11 @ 1:57PM
Oldefarte,
It's nice to know that you will be farting around heaven, farting around heaven for eternity.
You need a little enlightenment. Scroll up and read my remarks about the Bible's "hateful scripture."
And you think you deserve eternal life . . . God help us all!
Oolong| 3.8.11 @ 2:12PM
Thanks for the laugh, Rita W.
Some people--like Old Farte (lovely moniker)-- think they're on the fast track to everlasting life.
In my experience, those types are dumb as turnips and have never contributed anything worthwhile, but, hey, they deserve life eternal!
jolizoom| 3.8.11 @ 4:57PM
The two of you (and others here) are certainly invested in convincing yourselves that Bible-believing Christians are "dumb as turnips" and "almost as hate-filled as the Westboro firebrands."
Why is that, hmmmm? If we are so irrelevant, why do you find it so necessary to argue with us? It couldn't be that niggling doubt that we really do know something you don't know... could it?
Here's one of those "hate" scriptures for you:
1 Corinthians 2:14
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.
OperaNerd1986| 3.14.11 @ 3:30PM
Technically speaking, no one actually "deserves" eternal life because we have all sinned, the punishment for which is death. The reason that we can still have eternal life is that Jesus Christ sacrificed himself on the cross and took the punishment that was meant for us. Eternal life is still possible only because God is so generous and forgiving.
Freedom of Speech| 3.8.11 @ 3:56PM
Palligrino you are correct. No one has mentioned something here. If you read the Founding Fathers, they meant freedom of POLITICAL speech, not the freedom to harass others with your big PERVERTED mouth at a hero's funeral.
We have fallen so far in this country. The inmates are running the asylum and I want out.
jolizoom| 3.8.11 @ 5:06PM
Oh, good grief! THANK YOU for pointing out the obvious, that so many of us managed to miss! Including me.
Pelligrino| 3.8.11 @ 7:55PM
Freedom of Speech, thank you. (you articulated it better)
What I find troubling is that the issue goes to our highest court in the land (in record time? surely swifter than many issues) and gets a very lopsided decision.
My issues: Time and location.
Okay, so we won't muzzle frenzied, unprincipled, wacko drivel that is "anything goes" language.
Okay, so don't muzzle it. But why let it occur simultaneously (time) just feet (1,000 feet is no distance at all) away? Why not simultaneously (time) at a location in town 4 miles away?
Particularly when the issues (a sacrament) and social issue/societal issue are unrelated.
I am a simple man with simple life examples. Maybe this one will work:
If anyone has ever tried to do the Hyde's Park Corner discussion in London, then this is easy to comprehend. A very decent speaker can stand up and attempt to present a topic but be completely verbally overrun by another speaker or two just 20-30 feet away. No physical contact or abuse is even likely; it is unnecessary. It is just called "shouting down." It can be aggressive or just mildly aggressive; it is effective.
(The crazy thing is that the two or three speakers are not usually verbally sparing at all; the topics are unrelated -- and at least one is pure nonsensical.)
And the whole freedom of speech 'exercise' becomes a fruitless, counterproductive waste of time. (In sum: The goons win.)
Alan Brooks| 3.8.11 @ 4:48PM
Justin Bieber is more attractive than many women anyone will ever meet.
These homophobes wish they looked like Bieber.
Occam's Tool| 3.8.11 @ 6:36PM
I'm sorry, but wasn't this about some cretinous scumbags who were protesting a brave patriot's funeral because they were cretinous scumbags?
The Religious restrictions in the Old Testament were meant to pertain to Jews, not non-Jews, of that time. Judaism doesn't proselytize. Thanks.
I might point out that the descendants of those desert "idiots" have won more Nobels than any other group of people, despite being only 13 million strong.
Alan Brooks| 3.8.11 @ 6:44PM
Phelps is just a silly old man,
what angers me is a few bloggers here write that Obama is an Islamic extremist when he isn't even an Islamic (neither is Obama a commie); they are more intolerant than Phelps- who merely doesn't know any better.
Dee See| 3.8.11 @ 9:22PM
Leading Civil Rights advocate, former Democrat
power broker, former mentor to BOTH Al Gore
and John Kennedy Jr. ---Pastor Fred Phelps
is more interesting for what he's NOT talking about ---i.e. the Rockefeller/Carnegie/Ford
tax free, ultra-rich 'charitable' (i.e.EUGENICS)
capstone foundaitons, proxies and NGO's
--in essense the Globalist 'shadow-government'
that's engineered the crumbing mess we're
now in.
---Haven't heard a word about it from the
'outspoken' 'outrageous' Phelps, or anyone else
for that matter.
BTW ---DO check out the latest intel on what
they're doing with flicker rates and your mind
via TV, PC's and the new RED Chinese made
flouresent bulbs.
GO AHEAD
Anxiety and outrage about the Westboro's stunts
will vanish in a flash!
WE GUARANTEE IT!
CalMark| 3.8.11 @ 10:21PM
A summary of the First Amendment in America today:
OK: treasonous, vicious anti-American, anti-military protests at a military funeral, sometimes breaching private property lines. "Repulsive speech is protected speech."
Not OK: Quietly standing on a public sidewalk outside an abortion clinic, handing out "alternative options to abortion." Religious speech is not protected speech.
Thus endeth the lesson. 'Nuff said.
Tyson's Corner| 3.8.11 @ 10:51PM
Anti-american, anti-military protests at military funerals? What do you mean?
Westboro Baptist Church is NOT anti-military--it's anti-gay.
Ho hum. Getting cooler up here in Virginny. Good night all, and pleasant dreams.
CalMark| 3.8.11 @ 11:47PM
"NOT anti-military--it's anti-gay."
Sample signs: "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "U.S. Troops in Hell," "God Hates Your Dead Son & Your Tears."
Yep, nothing anti-military about that. Oh, right, context. The comment above is as incomprehensible as the motivations of the evil lunatics who carry the signs.
Pelligrino| 3.8.11 @ 10:53PM
Thank you, CalMark. This seems to indeed be the case in America. Just one more area where we the people must overturn the nonsense espoused by a self-apointed liberal elite and liberal, biased, unprofessional media.
Dee See| 3.9.11 @ 11:07PM
---AND NOW onto the matter of seperating
church and state viz a viz our Globalist 'shadow government' and its eugenics driven, highly
exclusive, highly controlling, indeed, agenda setting, Luciferian Cult of ---FREEMASONRY...
Brandt | 3.14.11 @ 7:36PM
What are Fred Phelps and the WBC afraid of? Rainbows? Unicorns? A flaming pink queer apocalypse? I attempted to address this with a portrait of the good reverend on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.....hurch.html Drop in and let me know what you think!
Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 5:50AM
Across the street, behind a police line, about a dozen protesters were chanting and carrying large signs: "God Hates Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood," "God hates queers," "Mr. Rogers Is Burning In Hell."
Creative Recreation | 8.11.11 @ 2:17AM
is good