Your opinion on the Westboro Baptist Church

[Iuuvic]

Well Cat has made it very clear that they are legally untouchable and we are forced to tolerate them...Still, its so hard to stomach this sort of tolerance sometimes...

Also, while Cat is here...

Could bringing the children along on the protests be construed as deliberately putting them in harms way, I mean with the offensive way they protest they are bound to be attacked one day.
Basically, Cat, is there any legal way to keep this family church from raising children this way?

Also, aren't there allegations from family members that left the WBC when they became old enough that phelps would beat them as children? Pretty sure I remember one of them saying something along those lines in that documentary about the WBC.

[Dumb Ideologies]

In a just world their organization would be banned and their leadership jailed for the needless pain they have caused for others in the interests of grabbing headlines. Quite honestly, they are lower than vermin and jail is too good for them.

[Ardathium]

I will never show respect to a bunch of lunatics who do not respect others and are so self-conceited to believe that they are the greatest people on earth and the only true people.

My arguments against their right to protest

1.) Aren't we supposed to be a nation with the church and state completely separate

2.) They don't respect others, they hate everyone who does not kiss Fred Phelp's inbred a**

3.) In a decent moral world, where the constitution isn't interpreted in such a black and white manner, the rights of the soldiers, the family and friend's would exceedingly outweigh a group of hateful scoundrels whose only goal in life is to cause misery and strife for normal people.

4.) Personally, they are not loyal to this country, they claim to hate America. If that is the case, they should move if America is such a bad place

Has anyone ever heard the saying "Your right to b*tch ends with my right not to hear it."

[Lubyak]

I'd say you're right to not hear it consists of your right to place your hands over your ears and go 'nya nya nya nya I can't hear you!!!' You can't stop my complaining just because you odn't like it, and to be honest that's what we have to deal with.

1) Yes. So what? That doesn't mean we can shut themd own just for being religous.
2) Just because they're complete assholes doesn't strip them of their rights.
3) Indeed it would. However, it's not a just world, and saying that one groups rights 'outweights' another is setting a dangerous precedent.
4) They haven't renounced their citizenship. I voted against Obama, does that mean I'm disloyal to the US and should move out too?

[Tekania]

1.) Aren't we supposed to be a nation with the church and state completely separate

Yes, and the state determining to ban the expression of a religious viewpoint would be a violation of that ideological point.

2.) They don't respect others, they hate everyone who does not kiss Fred Phelp's inbred a**

You seem to hate then, perhaps your right to expression should be banned to under this chain of logic.

3.) In a decent moral world, where the constitution isn't interpreted in such a black and white manner, the rights of the soldiers, the family and friend's would exceedingly outweigh a group of hateful scoundrels whose only goal in life is to cause misery and strife for normal people.

I hate "Descent moral worlds" mostly because whenever I see them implemented they are neither decent nor moral.

4.) Personally, they are not loyal to this country, they claim to hate America. If that is the case, they should move if America is such a bad place

Our system of government doesn't require everyone to be loyal to it, dissent is he highest form of patriotism.

Has anyone ever heard the saying "Your right to b*tch ends with my right not to hear it."

I've heard it, it's very AntiAmerican. Though no such right exists. Rights end only where other rights begin; people have a right to freedom of expression; they don't have a right to stop other people who are exercising their right to freedom of expression.

Finally I'll add one to this, you're a hypocrit, because you judge WBC for not adhering to things you don't adhere to yourself. By the logic of banning the WBC, we could ban you.

[Iuuvic]

1.) Aren't we supposed to be a nation with the church and state completely separate

Yes, and the state determining to ban the expression of a religious viewpoint would be a violation of that ideological point.

2.) They don't respect others, they hate everyone who does not kiss Fred Phelp's inbred a**

You seem to hate then, perhaps your right to expression should be banned to under this chain of logic.

3.) In a decent moral world, where the constitution isn't interpreted in such a black and white manner, the rights of the soldiers, the family and friend's would exceedingly outweigh a group of hateful scoundrels whose only goal in life is to cause misery and strife for normal people.

I hate "Descent moral worlds" mostly because whenever I see them implemented they are neither decent nor moral.

4.) Personally, they are not loyal to this country, they claim to hate America. If that is the case, they should move if America is such a bad place

Our system of government doesn't require everyone to be loyal to it, dissent is he highest form of patriotism.

Has anyone ever heard the saying "Your right to b*tch ends with my right not to hear it."

I've heard it, it's very AntiAmerican. Though no such right exists. Rights end only where other rights begin; people have a right to freedom of expression; they don't have a right to stop other people who are exercising their right to freedom of expression.

Finally I'll add one to this, you're a hypocrit, because you judge WBC for not adhering to things you don't adhere to yourself. By the logic of banning the WBC, we could ban you.

Right, we have to do it the American way. Loopholes, need to find some loopholes to effectively dismantle them.

[Tekania]

Right, we have to do it the American way. Loopholes, need to find some loopholes to effectively dismantle them.

I've always been of the position that when they protest, you organize a counter protest dedicated to raising money to a cause they would despise; and then send them a thank you note detailing all the money they helped raise to said organization by proving the extra media attention.

See, there's a constructive way to defeat and troll the WBC without taking a single right away from them.

[Ardathium]

Well everyone has there opinions. I think Free Speech can be looked at in many ways, and Free Speech to maliciously discredit or cause pain to certain groups of people is wrong in my opinion.

Taking their right away to protest funerals won't hurt them, because they aren't the ones being persecuted, taking their right to be verbally malicious towards soldiers and their family's only serve's to protect the legacy and honor of that soldier and his loved ones (The people who actually matter and contribute to this nation.) I don't see the WBC contributing to the nation in a positive way. The WBC could continue their hate filled agenda in there church building though. Why would you defend someone's right to protest when they don't appreciate you for defending it to begin with.

[Iuuvic]

Right, we have to do it the American way. Loopholes, need to find some loopholes to effectively dismantle them.

I've always been of the position that when they protest, you organize a counter protest dedicated to raising money to a cause they would despise; and then send them a thank you note detailing all the money they helped raise to said organization by proving the extra media attention.

See, there's a constructive way to defeat and troll the WBC without taking a single right away from them.

Fighting fire with water? I don't know...Seems like a whole lot of effort to me.

[Lubyak]

Because, as the cliche goes, "I may disagree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it." America is free, and while that means you're free to contribute to society, and be a good citizen, it also means you're free to be an asshole.

[Coccygia]

They are free to say what hey want to say, but they shouldn't be permitted to disrupt funerals. What about the rights of the people at the funeral? That doesn't count, I guess. What WBC does goes well beyond merely "unpopular" speech.

[Tekania]

They are free to say what hey want to say, but they shouldn't be permitted to disrupt funerals. What about the rights of the people at the funeral? That doesn't count, I guess. What WBC does goes well beyond merely "unpopular" speech.

Well, the WBC isn't actually allowed AT the funeral, they have to picket outside the property. Thus, the funeral goers are not loosing one single right.

[Iuuvic]

They are free to say what hey want to say, but they shouldn't be permitted to disrupt funerals. What about the rights of the people at the funeral? That doesn't count, I guess. What WBC does goes well beyond merely "unpopular" speech.

Well, the WBC isn't actually allowed AT the funeral, they have to picket outside the property. Thus, the funeral goers are not loosing one single right.

Ahhh, loopholes.

[Dumb Ideologies]

First, some background. I've always found rights as being the eels of the political world. Everyone grabs at them, but the reason they exist seems to slip away all too easily, and sometimes if you handle them the wrong way you get a hell of a shock.

The idea of rights as something people are born with only really makes sense as an abstract concept. Who gives them to people? In what sense are people meaningfully born with them in countries that don't uphold them? They aren't just something there by nature, they're something that has been crafted to improve human life. While they are good principles that should be taken into account in law, they should not ride roughshod over all other considerations or be taken as some gold standard.

With such background and thoughts established in the background, on to the specific issue of the right to protest/free speech. If people are misusing that right to ruin the lives of others and sabotage sombre occasions to cause further upset to the grieving then the law should ensure that they are limited from their ability to do so. Rights are only useful to the extent to which they improve people's lives. Different sets of rights need to be balanced against each other and other principles. The incontrovertible rights approach just seems too idealistic.

[Coccygia]

First, some background. I've always found rights as being the eels of the political world. Everyone grabs at them, but the reason they exist seems to slip away all too easily, and sometimes if you handle them the wrong way you get a hell of a shock.

The idea of rights as something people are born with only really makes sense as an abstract concept. Who gives them to people? In what sense are people meaningfully born with them in countries that don't uphold them? They aren't just something there by nature, they're something that has been crafted to improve human life. While they are good principles that should be taken into account in law, they should not ride roughshod over all other considerations or be taken as some gold standard.

With such background and thoughts established in the background, on to the specific issue of the right to protest/free speech. If people are misusing that right to ruin the lives of others and sabotage sombre occasions to cause further upset to the grieving then the law should ensure that they are limited from their ability to do so. Rights are only useful to the extent to which they improve people's lives. Different sets of rights need to be balanced against each other and other principles. The incontrovertible rights approach just seems too idealistic.

^This.

[Iuuvic]

First, some background. I've always found rights as being the eels of the political world. Everyone grabs at them, but the reason they exist seems to slip away all too easily, and sometimes if you handle them the wrong way you get a hell of a shock.

The idea of rights as something people are born with only really makes sense as an abstract concept. Who gives them to people? In what sense are people meaningfully born with them in countries that don't uphold them? They aren't just something there by nature, they're something that has been crafted to improve human life. While they are good principles that should be taken into account in law, they should not ride roughshod over all other considerations or be taken as some gold standard.

With such background and thoughts established in the background, on to the specific issue of the right to protest/free speech. If people are misusing that right to ruin the lives of others and sabotage sombre occasions to cause further upset to the grieving then the law should ensure that they are limited from their ability to do so. Rights are only useful to the extent to which they improve people's lives. Different sets of rights need to be balanced against each other and other principles. The incontrovertible rights approach just seems too idealistic.

The problem with this is you have people deciding what does and does not improves peoples lives. For instance: Slathering Mayo on hotdogs and eating 5 of them for each meal, 6 meals a day...

[New Densaner]

Whilst not wishing to undermine the 1st Amendment rights of the Phelps family I think they really are awful human beings. They seem to relish people dying, wars, famines etc. Every time a calamity happens there they are with their signs saying GOD HATES (insert term here). I'm sure at their next event there will be signs saying GOD HATES THE SOUTH because of the recent storms.

People in a democracy of course have the right to protest. However picketing funerals whatever one may think of the war is simply disgusting. You picket business or government not a place of rest. I am not religious but the verse that has always stuck in my mind is "Love thy neighbour as thyself". That is from the same Old Testament that they use to justify their foul preaching.

[Scottish Workers]

I really don't understand the Westboro Baptist Church. They claim to be christians but (like a lot of others) they are completely missing the point.

[Sickles and Hammers]

actually the Anonymous group the same group who hacked The PSN and Iran actually went on their web chats and said they hated them

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

I like them. They show fundamentalist Christianity for what it really is. Either admit you don't believe the whole bible, or join the WBC.

Since when was not believing in magical fairytales and children's stories something you had to admit?

[Roman Cilicia]

They're good guys. I support their freedom of expression.

In fact I met the Viscount Fred Phelps in Topeka, Kansas; his frankness of demeanor and clarity of face impressed me greatly.

[Coccygia]

First, some background. I've always found rights as being the eels of the political world. Everyone grabs at them, but the reason they exist seems to slip away all too easily, and sometimes if you handle them the wrong way you get a hell of a shock.

The idea of rights as something people are born with only really makes sense as an abstract concept. Who gives them to people? In what sense are people meaningfully born with them in countries that don't uphold them? They aren't just something there by nature, they're something that has been crafted to improve human life. While they are good principles that should be taken into account in law, they should not ride roughshod over all other considerations or be taken as some gold standard.

With such background and thoughts established in the background, on to the specific issue of the right to protest/free speech. If people are misusing that right to ruin the lives of others and sabotage sombre occasions to cause further upset to the grieving then the law should ensure that they are limited from their ability to do so. Rights are only useful to the extent to which they improve people's lives. Different sets of rights need to be balanced against each other and other principles. The incontrovertible rights approach just seems too idealistic.

The problem with this is you have people deciding what does and does not improves peoples lives. For instance: Slathering Mayo on hotdogs and eating 5 of them for each meal, 6 meals a day...

I think I'll miss you most of all...

[Tekania]

Personally I find Fred Phelps reminds me of my uncle who is currently suffering the final stages of alcoholic dementia.... just not as coherent.

[New Densaner]

They're good guys. I support their freedom of expression.

In fact I met the Viscount Fred Phelps in Topeka, Kansas; his frankness of demeanor and clarity of face impressed me greatly.

Viscount?!

[Conserative Morality]

First, some background. I've always found rights as being the eels of the political world. Everyone grabs at them, but the reason they exist seems to slip away all too easily, and sometimes if you handle them the wrong way you get a hell of a shock.

The idea of rights as something people are born with only really makes sense as an abstract concept. Who gives them to people?

The State.

In what sense are people meaningfully born with them in countries that don't uphold them? They aren't just something there by nature, they're something that has been crafted to improve human life. While they are good principles that should be taken into account in law, they should not ride roughshod over all other considerations or be taken as some gold standard.

That's why you can't shout fire in a crowded theater, correct.

With such background and thoughts established in the background, on to the specific issue of the right to protest/free speech. If people are misusing that right to ruin the lives of others and sabotage sombre occasions to cause further upset to the grieving then the law should ensure that they are limited from their ability to do so. Rights are only useful to the extent to which they improve people's lives. Different sets of rights need to be balanced against each other and other principles. The incontrovertible rights approach just seems too idealistic.

Uhu, no. Tell me, at what points would you ban people from protesting? Would content matter? Would celebrating someone's death near a funeral be counted the same as protesting near a funeral? Would celebrating Saddam Hussein's funeral be counted the same as celebrating Mother Teresa's funeral?